Ranking The Liveability Of The World's Major Cities: The Global Liveable Cities Index (Glci) 9789814417310, 9789814417303

Citation preview

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES The Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI)

8553.9789814417303-tp.indd 1

20/6/12 2:08 PM

This page intentionally left blank

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES The Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) Tan Khee Giap Co-Director, Asia Competitiveness Institute Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy National University of Singapore, Singapore

Woo Wing Thye Senior Research Fellow, Asia Competitiveness Institute Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy National University of Singapore, Singapore & University of California, Davis, USA

Tan Kong Yam Director, Asia Competitiveness Institute Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy National University of Singapore, Singapore

Linda Low Senior Research Fellow, Asia Competitiveness Institute Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy National University of Singapore, Singapore

Ee Ling Grace Aw Adjunct Research Fellow, Asia Competitiveness Institute Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy National University of Singapore, Singapore

World Scientific NEW JERSEY

•

8553.9789814417303-tp.indd 2

LONDON

•

SINGAPORE

•

BEIJING

•

SHANGHAI

•

HONG KONG

•

TA I P E I

•

CHENNAI

20/6/12 2:08 PM

Published by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. 5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224 USA office: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601 UK office: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES The Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) Copyright © 2012 by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher.

For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to photocopy is not required from the publisher.

ISBN 978-981-4417-30-3

In-house Editor: Sandhya Venkatesh

Typeset by Stallion Press Email: [email protected]

Printed in Singapore.

Sandhya - Ranking the Liveability.pmd

1

6/15/2012, 6:16 PM

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-fm

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

ix

PREFACE

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

xv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

xix

CHAPTER 1: WHAT MAKES A CITY MORE LIVEABLE? 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

A More Liveable Life . . . . . . . . Thinking Broadly about the Concept of Liveability . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thinking Sensibly about the Concept of Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . Preview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

1

. . . .

7

. . . . . . . .

11 15

CHAPTER 2: THE EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK: METHODOLOGY, DATA AND COMPUTATION ALGORITHM 2.1

Comparison of Empirical Frameworks Used in Ranking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

1

17 17

June 21, 2012

9:46

vi

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-fm

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

2.2

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Fleshing Out the Global Liveable Cities Index Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Domestic Security & Stability . . . . 2.2.4 Socio-Cultural Conditions . . . . . 2.2.5 Political Governance . . . . . . . . Selecting Indicators for the Global Liveable Cities Index: Ideal versus Practical . . . . . . Data Sources, Constraints & Proxies . . . . . The Selection of Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . Computation of Rankings: The Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 3: THE EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND POLICY SIMULATION 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Global Liveable Cities Index Ranking . Policy Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . Asian Liveable Cities Ranking . . . . . Discussion of the Global Liveable Cities Index Ranking . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2

. . . .

. . . .

27 28 29 30 31 44 45 45

. . . .

51 62 63 75

. . .

82

How Singapore and Hong Kong Differ in Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore’s Push for Ecological Diversity and Economic Sustainability . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 5: THE GLOBAL LIVEABLE CITIES INDEX IN PERSPECTIVE 5.1 5.2

26

51

CHAPTER 4: THE LIVEABLE CITY-STATES OF HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE 4.1

26

The Hard Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Details of the Six Other City Indices . . . . .

85 85 87

89 89 90

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

Contents

5.3 5.4

b1411-fm

vii

5.5 5.6

The Clout Club and the Comfort Club . . . 93 Which Club does the Global Liveable Cities Index Belong to? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 More Hard Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 The Punchline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

BIBLIOGRAPHY

107

INDEX

111

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

This page intentionally left blank

b1411-fm

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-fm

FOREWORD

One subject of increasing and intense interests amongst many, ranging from governments and urban planners, is sustainable development. How can we urbanise while maintaining harmony — socially, economically and environmentally? How do we balance short-term needs with long-term demands? How do we ensure that we can go on building cities, while retaining a healthy environment for our children and grandchildren? It is with the objective of creating and enhancing liveability that we are gathered here at the World Cities Summit. We welcome the ideas and advice of international organisations, expert agencies, government organisations, academia and industry leaders, on how best we can work together for a better future in liveable cities. In this regard, I am happy that the Asia Competitiveness Institute of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is making a special contribution by publishing its thoughts and suggestions in the book Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities: The Global Liveable Cities Index. I hope it will stimulate further research and discussions which will enhance our knowledge and application of this knowledge towards building of many more liveable cities for the world. Lee Yi Shyan Minister of State Ministry of Trade and Industry & Ministry of National Development

ix

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

This page intentionally left blank

b1411-fm

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-fm

PREFACE

In 2008, the Centre for Liveable Cities at the Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, Singapore noticed gaps in numerous well-known liveability rankings of cities already in existence for some time, each catering for very specific purposes and targeted audience. Hence, they commissioned us to assess liveability amongst major cities in the world and to identify important lessons to be shared and learned together. The Phase 1 of the study was completed in 2010, when the preliminary ranking was launched at the World Cities Summit 2010. Following this, both the Centre for Liveable Cities and the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy agreed that it would be more appropriate for the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, as an independent academic institute, to fully own and continue with the project. The recurring issues that set us constantly thinking must be constituents or attributes of liveability and the beneficiaries involved. The pertinent question concerns how we are to justify the construction of another liveable cities index without repeating or duplicating indices which are currently available and to value-add further to this pool of well researched literature. Upon careful literature survey and deliberation, we have decided to take on the perspective of an ordinary person living in that city with multi-dimensional sensibilities towards closely related issues which affect his or her daily life and well-being. This includes economic vibrancy, inclusive development, social mobility, personal security, political governance, environmental harmony and aesthetics. Such an ordinary-resident’s xi

June 21, 2012

9:46

xii

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-fm

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

perspective which encompasses a comprehensive and balanced set of measurable indicators are of even greater relevance and urgency to rapidly expanding cities from emerging economies with representative coverage across continents around the world. Our construction of the Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) is a pioneering attempt and thus necessarily a work-in-progress, even if it is arguably the best-in-its-class. We are thinking even beyond the concept of basic liveability as human nature is complex. Specifically we posit that the degree of liveability depends on five themes including satisfaction with the freedom from want; satisfaction with the state of the natural environment and its management; satisfaction with freedom from fear; satisfaction with the socio-cultural conditions: and satisfaction with public governance. Hence the title “Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities: The Global Liveable Cities Index”, and going forward, we from the Asia Competitiveness Institute at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, hope to include even more emerging cities over time. This is with more proprietary survey data bases which are not publicly available in our annual ranking updates. Our appreciation goes to Professor Chen Kang, Professor Renate Schubert and Professor Hans Wolfgang Brachinger who commented on the preliminary draft in the early stage of the research study. We would like to thank Miss Jolene Chiang, Mr. Lim Wei Liang and Miss Jody Tu for efficient assistance on data collection and ranking estimations. Tan Khee Giap Woo Wing Thye Tan Kong Yam Linda Low & Grace Ee Ling Aw Asia Competitiveness Institute Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy National University of Singapore

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-fm

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Projected Dates for the Exhaustion of Exploitable Natural Resources at 2007 Consumption Rates. . . . . . . . . . Figure 2: Supply versus Demand for Raw Water. . . . . . . . . . Figure 3: World Population Growth by Region and by Type of Population, 2010–2030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiii

5 5 7

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

This page intentionally left blank

b1411-fm

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-fm

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13:

Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 1 to 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 4 to 6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 7 to 9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 10 to 12). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 13 to 15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 16 to 18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 19 to 21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Framework for Constructing Global Liveable Cities Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ideal Indicators for Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ideal Indicators for Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ideal Indicators for Domestic Security & Stability. . Ideal Indicators for Socio-Cultural Conditions. . . Ideal Indicators for Political Governance. . . . . . xv

. . .

18

. . .

19

. . .

20

. . .

21

. . .

22

. . .

23

. . .

24

. . .

27

. . .

32

. . . .

33 35 36 38

. . . .

. . . .

June 21, 2012

9:46

xvi

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-fm

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

Table 14: Practical Indicators for Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 15: Practical Indicators for Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 16: Practical Indicators for Domestic Security & Stability. . . Table 17: Practical Indicators for Socio-Cultural Conditions. . . . Table 18: Practical Indicators for Political Governance. . . . . . . Table 19: List of 64 Global Cities for Computation of GLCI Ranking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 20: List of 36 Asian Cities for Computation of GLCI Ranking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 21: Overall Ranking for 64 Global Cities. . . . . . . . . . . Table 22: Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness Ranking for 64 Global Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 23: Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability Ranking for 64 Global Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 24: Domestic Security & Stability Ranking for 64 Global Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 25: Socio-Cultural Conditions Ranking for 64 Global Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 26: Political Governance Ranking for 64 Global Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 27: Overall Ranking for 64 Global Cities after Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 28: Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness Ranking for 64 Global Cities after Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . Table 29: Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability Ranking for 64 Global Cities after Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . Table 30: Domestic Security & Stability Ranking for 64 Global Cities after Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 31: Socio-Cultural Conditions Ranking for 64 Global Cities after Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 32: Political Governance Ranking for 64 Global Cities after Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 33: Overall Ranking for 36 Asian Cities. . . . . . . . . . .

40 41 42 42 43 46 47 52 53 55 57 59 61 64 65 67 69 71 73 76

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

List of Tables

b1411-fm

xvii

Table 34: Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness Ranking for 36 Asian Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Table 35: Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability Ranking for 36 Asian Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Table 36: Domestic Security & Stability Ranking for 36 Asian Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Table 37: Socio-Cultural Conditions Ranking for 36 Asian Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Table 38: Political Governance Ranking for 36 Asian Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Table 39: The Top 10-Ranked Cities in Each City Index. . . . . 94 Table 40: Citation Record of Each City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Table 41: Citation Record of Each City Index. . . . . . . . . . . 96 Table 42: Overlap of Cities in the Seven City Indices. . . . . . . . 97 Table 43: The Clout Club Indices’ Rankings of the Top 10 Cities Shared by: (a) GLCI and Mercer Index (b) GLCI and EIU-Liveability Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Table 44: The World’s Top 20 Cities for Different Types of people. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

This page intentionally left blank

b1411-fm

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ALCI EIU ESI EU GATE GCIP GDP GLCI ISD LEADI NCESI QOLI SD SLR SVI TWB US UNESCO WCY WHO WUF WWI

Asian Liveable Cities Index Economist Intelligence Unit Environmental Sustainability Index European Union Global Alliance for Transnational Education Global City Indicators Program Gross Domestic Product Global Liveable Cities Index Indicators of Sustainable Development Leadership for Environment and Development International North Carolina Environmental Stewardship Initiative Quality Of Living Index Standard Deviation SustainLane Rankings Standardized Value of Indicator The World Bank United States United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Competitiveness Yearbook World Health Organization World Urban Forum Worldwatch Institute

xix

b1411-fm

June 21, 2012

9:46

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

This page intentionally left blank

b1411-fm

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch01

Chapter

1

WHAT MAKES A CITY MORE LIVEABLE?

1.1 A MORE LIVEABLE LIFE A life should be lived to the fullest. We do this to derive satisfaction from our personal achievements and to feel fulfilled by our contributions to the society. We also strive to live life to the fullest in order to honour the deep desire of our parents that we lead happy and meaningful lives. For most people, how to live life to the fullest is not independent of the geographical location of where they live. For one thing, there are the strong emotionally primal tugs on the heart by the hometown; and, for another, the opportunities for professional advancement in some fields are better in certain cities than in other cities. For example, competitive downhill skiing is easier to pursue as a profession when one lives in Zurich rather than in Paris or Shanghai. The fact that a large proportion of the world’s population does not live in the cities (or, even, in the countries) in which they were born reveals conclusively the phenomenon of “preferred habitat” — the existence of places which people choose to migrate to. However, because there are binding restrictions on the mass movement of people across national borders, we cannot use the actual locations of residents to indicate the “revealed preferences” of the world’s population for different cities. The objective of this book is to introduce the Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) which ranks the degree of liveability of the major cities in the world. Our methodology of ranking liveability has several advantages over other major methodologies used in ranking cities. The strengths of GLCI include:

1

June 19, 2012

13:32

2

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch01

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

• taking the perspective of an ordinary man living in that city; • modelling this ordinary person as having multi-dimensional sensibilities towards issues like economic well-being, social mobility, personal security, political governance, environmental sustainability, and aesthetics; and • including a large number of major cities in emerging economies in order to get a diverse and more representative coverage of major cities around the world. The ordinary-resident’s-perspective approach of GLCI makes GLCI substantially different from most other well-known liveability rankings of cities like the Mercer Quality of Living Survey, and the Knight Frank Global Cities Survey. The GLCI takes into explicit account a comprehensive list of the everyday concerns of the ordinary household: the maintenance of law and order, the availability of affordable healthcare, the average quality of the public school system, the accessibility to tertiary level training, and the adequacy of the mass transit infrastructure. In short, this book synthesizes the results of earlier studies by others, and broadens their scope within an encompassing theoretical framework that is implemented empirically. Our ranking of the liveability of global cities is necessarily a workin-progress, even if it is arguably the best-in-its-class. There have been some data limitations that we have not yet been able to overcome, and this has forced us to work at this point with a sample of only 64 global cities. In addition to working to expand the number of cities covered, we are also working to improve our methodology by incorporating additional dimensions of liveability into our theoretical framework, and by searching for better proxies for the variables in the empirical framework. So, this book is a progress report on a research program on the liveability of cities, and, as such, it cannot yet make the claim of having computed the definitive ranking of cities. Furthermore, the realities of, one, that the global environmental conditions could change drastically sometimes; and, two, that city administrations and national governments could move comprehensively to a new socioeconomic-political policy regime occasionally mean that any ranking of cities on their liveability captures only their relative positions at a particular point in time. For example, the rapid growth of the Chinese economy

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

What Makes a City More Liveable?

b1411-ch01

3

has generated substantial resources that have allowed many Chinese cities to build 21st Century infrastructure in transportation and to undertake ambitious environmental restoration that would eventually improve the rank of some Chinese cities significantly. But for the moment, these projects have not yet reached critical mass and hence have not improved liveability in these cities substantially enough to boost their ranking. So the rank of a city today is not necessarily a good indicator of its rank in the future. As pointed out earlier, there are binding restrictions on international migration that make free choice of the place of residency impossible for the great majority of people in the world. It is hence natural to ask why the liveability of cities is important to rank. The simplest answer to why we should rank cities is because we can do so. This simplest answer should not be mistaken for a simple-minded answer or a glib answer. This attitude of “we rank them because we can” comes from at least basic human urges. The first primal urge is captured in the academic tradition of knowledgefor-knowledge’s-sake, the outcome of man’s unbounded natural human curiosity. The second primal urge behind the city ranking exercise is part of the universal human desire to rank everything, which is why we have the well-known Guinness Book of World Records, and the well-known questions of “who is the prettiest of them all?”, and “which is the most competitive economy in the world?” This second primal urge reflects something deep in the human psyche, the overwhelming human desire for self-improvement. There are, naturally, also more prosaic reasons for the growing popular interest1 in the liveability of cities, and, hence, the increasing desire to rank the liveability of cities. This heightened interest in the concept of ‘liveability’ is, in large part, the result of three developments of the last thirty years: • the acceleration of globalization; • the growing awareness of the requirements for sustainable development; and • the rapid appearance of megacities in the emerging world, notably in Brazil, China, Mexico, India, and sub-Saharan Africa. 1 Examples of bestsellers on cities in the last two decades are Saskia Sassen (1991) and Edward Glaeser

(2011).

June 19, 2012

13:32

4

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch01

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

Globalization accelerated after the 1989–1992 period when the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989, the Soviet Union imploded politically in August 1991, India initiated the process of serious market-oriented reforms in December 1991, and China abandoned the search for a Third Way in economic system after Deng Xiaoping visited southern China in January– February 1992. The globally transformational nature of globalization can be captured by the fact that the integration of the labour force of the former Soviet empire, India and China into the world economic system meant that the number of workers participating in the international division of labour had risen from 1.1 billion in 1990 to 2.7 billion in 2000, an increase of 247 percent; (Woo, 2008, Table 3, pp. 74). Globalization has meant the intensification of the cross-border mobility not just of goods and financial capital but also of labour and human talents. And ‘liveability’ is one key characteristic of cities that is able to attract a disproportionate amount of the globally-mobile resources (such as talents, high net worth individuals, investors, innovators, entrepreneurs, and capital) that are recognized to make positive contributions to economic growth, economic resilience, global political influence, world agenda-setting power, socio-cultural innovation, and international lifestyle impact. Herein lies the heightened interest in the liveability of cities. The accelerated globalization has reinforced our understanding that the agglomeration of activities by cities constitutes powerful growth engines. In the words of Edward Glaeser (2011) “cities magnify humanity’s strength”. Cities improve their talents by providing competition, enable socio-economic mobility by creating opportunities, and induce innovation by easing face-to-face engagements. Density is good because the greater the number of people, the greater the number of synergistic interactions. The second recent development that has focused attention on “liveability” is the realization of the increasing scarcity of natural resources and the continuing deterioration of the natural environment. There have been many reminders that resources are scarce since Thomas Malthus (1798) and the famous study by the Club of Rome in 1972;2 and that current resource use and lifestyles will lead to disastrous effects for the world. Figure 1 depicts the timeline of the planet’s exploitable resources facing depletion, based on 2 Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III (1972).

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch01

What Makes a City More Liveable?

5

Figure 1 Projected Dates for the Exhaustion of Exploitable Natural Resources at 2007 Consumption Rates. Source: Terre Sacree (2008).

Figure 2

Supply versus Demand for Raw Water.

Source: 2030 Water Resources Group — Global Water Supply and Demand model, 2009.

2007 consumption rate. The world will run out of silver in 2020; lead in 2030; oil in 2050; gas in 2070; iron in 2090; cobalt in 2120, aluminium in 2140; and coal in 2155. Water resources, too, are projected to be insufficient if the current consumption rate is not reduced. Figure 2 shows the trajectories of the world demand for water (in billion m3 ) and of the world supply of water (on the

June 19, 2012

13:32

6

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch01

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

assumption of the current 90%-reliable supply) under the business-as-usual scenario. The historical productivity increases in water demand and water supply will solve only 40 percent of the projected amounted shortage in 2010. It is, thus, of no surprise that the concept of ‘liveability’ is closely linked with the concept of ‘sustainability’. Mike Douglass (2002) emphasizes that ‘liveability’ is a means to secure global investment and gain greater local economic resilience because being more liveable and environmentally sound will lead to lower impositions of costs on business. According to Vanessa Timmer and Nola-Kate Seymoar (2006), a liveable city is also a city that fights against any waste of the natural resources that should be left intact for the humankind, i.e., a liveable city is also a sustainable city. Using the same logic, Peter Evans (2002) compares ‘liveability’ to a coin with two faces — livelihood and ecological sustainability. The third recent development that has focused attention on “liveability” is the fast growth of cities in developing Asia, Latin America and Africa into megacities. The United Nations (2010) estimates that the world population will grow from 6.8 billion in 2010 to 8.3 billion in 2030; and that the entire increase of 1.5 billion will take place in the urban areas, boosting the proportion of world population residing in towns from 50 percent to 60 percent. Figure 3 shows the world population growth, in billions of people, by region and by type of population from 2010 to 2030. Given this coming surge in urbanization and the growth of megacities, it is natural that many governments of the emerging world are eager to get a better understanding of the challenges in formulating and implementing urban planning policies to improve the liveability of their cities. In the end, the task boils down to mobilizing management and technology to support pragmatic and forward-looking policies to establish the necessary soft infrastructure and hard infrastructure. The key lesson learnt from countries with successful urbanization experiences is that while the government takes the lead in providing public goods and services, they could do so correctly and effectively only if the decision-making process was informed by consultations with the residents, foreign experts on megacities, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and the business community.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch01

What Makes a City More Liveable?

7

9 +0.36

8

7

+0.81

+0.12

+0.07

+0.04

+0.08

−0.02

−0.01

−0.05

+0.01

8.3

+0.15

6.8 −0.09

6

5

4.9 3.4

Urban population

3.4

Rural population

4

3

2

3.4

1

0 Total Asia Pacific populatoin 2010

Africa

Latin America

North America

Europe Middle-East

Total population 2030

Figure 3 World Population Growth by Region and by Type of Population, 2010–2030. Source: United Nations.

1.2 THINKING BROADLY ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF LIVEABILITY To be clear about what constitutes liveability, one must first be clear about what is human nature. This is because the more a lifestyle is in accordance with human nature, the more liveable is the life. We can view each of the fields in the social sciences and humanities as dealing with one aspect of man’s nature; and either as pointing out the implications from that aspect or as catering to that aspect. Economics uses man’s quest for material improvement to explain the working of markets; political science employs man’s quest for power and domination over others to clarify the working of bureaucracies; and sociology exploits man’s quest for recognition and status

June 19, 2012

13:32

8

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch01

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

to elucidate organizational dynamics. And, for art, literature, and music, each addresses a part of man’s needs for aesthetics. So, as a first approximation, one could say that human nature is a creative combination of Sense and Sensibility. Scholars throughout history have sought through the social sciences to make sense of the human world by constructing models based on various characteristics of human nature; and scholars have sought through the humanities to fulfil the sensibilities of the human spirit by undertaking “critical reflection on art, culture, and nature.”3 The above description of human nature is, of course, very inadequate because human nature is far too complex to be divided into distinct components for study in the way that knowledge has now been compartmentalized into different academic disciplines. The fact is that even the demarcation of disciplines is many times a blurry one, and that there is substantial overlap amongst some of them. More fundamentally, some disciplines like Philosophy and Ecology simply defy the standard classifications. For example, the inquiry of Philosophy ranges from understanding the origins of the observed phenomena to deciding the moral positions one should adopt towards those phenomena. The point is that, because human nature is complex, the concept of liveability is necessarily a complex one. At the very least, the lesson is that the concept of “liveability” has to be multi-dimensional in the same way that human nature is. This is, perhaps, why we have so many well-known distinct characterizations of human nature (e.g., “man does not live by bread alone” and “man is a social animal”); and so many well-known diverse expressions about human sentiments (e.g., “an unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” and “the best is yet to be”). For our study to rank the liveability of cities, we will try to capture the multi-dimensional character of liveability by using five themes to operationalize the measurement of liveability. These five themes have their theoretical basis in the social sciences, humanities and natural philosophy; and they have their empirical validation in the policies of outstanding political leaders. Specifically, we posit that the degree of liveability depends on: 1. the degree of satisfaction with “the freedom from want”; 3 This definition of aesthetics is from Michael Kelley (1998).

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

What Makes a City More Liveable?

b1411-ch01

9

2. the degree of satisfaction with the state of the natural environment and its management 3. the degree of satisfaction with “the freedom from fear”; 4. the degree of satisfaction with the socio-cultural conditions; and 5. the degree of satisfaction with public governance. We must emphasize that the above sequence of the five themes is not in order of perceived priority. The ordering is not indicative of the relative importance of each theme. Theme 1: Satisfaction with the freedom from want. The term “freedom from want” is from the 1941 speech by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt who identified four kinds of freedom as the inherent rights of people.4 “Freedom from want” captures the right to a decent livelihood. More broadly, this theme emphasizes people’s craving for creature comforts (material abundance). The degree that this craving is satisfied is, in large part, determined by the income level and the growth rate of income: two issues that are central to the field of economics. Theme 2: Satisfaction with the state of the natural environment and its management. This theme captures not only the desire of people for responsible stewardship of the environment for the welfare of future generations but also the aesthetic appreciation of nature by people. Furthermore, biological survival of the human species requires that the selfish gene in the human species restrains itself adequately because of its understanding of systemic sustainability (the inter-connectedness of life across species). Theme 3: Satisfaction with the freedom from fear. This theme captures the natural right of people to live in safety through the maintenance of law and order, the alleviation of natural disasters, and the prevention of wars by the state. The absence of such psychological pressures in a city increases its liveability in the same way that an improvement in the economic prospects of a city increases its liveability. Theme 4: Satisfaction with the socio-cultural conditions. For a city, this theme stresses (a) the social comfort of living there (e.g., degree of income 4 The four freedoms are: freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom to worship, and freedom to

speak.

June 19, 2012

13:32

10

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch01

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

inequality, social harmony, and social mobility); (b) the physical ease of living there (e.g., adequacy of mass transit, healthcare, and education); and (c) the cultural richness of living there (e.g., amount of social diversity, acceptance of different religious beliefs, and access to museums and cultural performances). This theme subsumes Franklin Roosevelt’s third natural right, “the freedom to worship”. Theme 5: Satisfaction with public governance. This theme covers the effectiveness of the government in providing public services (e.g., extent of corruption and quality of judiciary system); the responsiveness of the government (e.g., degree of transparency and accountability); and the openness to political participation (e.g., existence of organized opposition, and regular elections that are free and fair). This theme subsumes Franklin Roosevelt’s fourth natural right, “the freedom to speak”. The above five themes give us a conceptual framework of liveability that is in accordance with the various depictions of the nature of man in the social sciences, and the humanities: 1. man as an economic animal; 2. man as an animal that is sentient of aesthetics, the inter-dependence of species, and stewardship of the natural environment and cultural heritage for the future generations, 3. man as a survivor; 4. man as a socio-cultural animal; and 5. man as a political animal. As many of the readers of this book have at least some familiarity with the literature on city ranking, we will adopt a terminology for our five themes that is closer to the terms used by the major studies on the topic. In the tables that we report, and in most of the discussion in the coming chapters, we will: 1. use “Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness” and “Freedom from Want” interchangeably; 2. use “Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability” and “The State of the Natural Environment and Its Management” interchangeably; 3. use “Domestic Security and Stability” and “Freedom from Fear” interchangeably;

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch01

What Makes a City More Liveable?

11

4. use “Socio-Cultural Conditions” in the sense we have defined above; 5. “Public Governance” in the sense we have defined above.

1.3 THINKING SENSIBLY ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABILITY As already stated, we are in total agreement with the viewpoint that ecological sustainability is an integral component of liveability. And, because of the fundamental importance of ecological sustainability in the concept of liveability, we want to take up immediately here in the first chapter of this book an important issue that differentiates our worldview from the worldviews of many other studies that rank cities or countries. The defining issue that divides us from many others is about how to measure ecological sustainability at the city level and at the country-level. Our analysis takes the viewpoint that sustainability at the city level should be measured by the extent that a city implements the principle of “think globally and act locally.” Specifically, our analytical position is that, in an interdependent world of nation states, there are two components in the correct conception of ecological sustainability: • ecological sustainability always means ecological sustainability at the global level; and • ecological sustainability at the local level should not always be equated with local self-sufficiency in meeting the needs of the local community. The first component tells us to “think globally”. The second component tells us “to act locally in a way that is consistent with maximum global welfare” because if the local action is not consistent with the global optimum, then the whole world is made worse off. To see the saliency of the second component, consider the recent study conducted by the Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia (UBC, 2012) which computed an “Eco2 Index” to aggregate the economic deficit and the ecological deficit of a country. The ecological deficit measures “resource consumption and waste produced by a country in comparison to its carrying capacity as expressed in locally available resources such as agricultural land and energy”. The primary problem with this UBC index is that a country like the United Kingdom that imports most of its food would thus have a bad

June 19, 2012

13:32

12

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch01

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

score on its ecological sustainability performance, while a food exporter like Burma would have a high score on ecological sustainability. Physically small countries (and city states in particular), like Bermuda, Curacao, Malta, Singapore and Switzerland, that have gotten rich through active participation in international trade are hence by definition ecologically un-sustainable. Herein lies the fatal flaw of this UBC index: the Eco2 Index holds that self-sufficiency is a desired condition in and of itself. Such a viewpoint is fundamentally a survivalist creed: today’s friend can be tomorrow’s enemy and so a city should never be reliant on the possible fickleness of others. In short, the Eco2 Index would identify the best world economic order to be an autarkic world order. Furthermore, since a city normally relies on the countryside for food, the application of the Eco2 Index at the city-level would yield the conclusion that the best national economic system would be a nation of self-subsistence farmers! We explicitly reject the survivalist philosophy that the potential for selfsufficiency in food and energy production is the appropriate measure of the sustainability of a city or country. This survivalist mentality is at odds with the insights of Adam Smith and David Ricardo who identify specialization in production as the basis for wealth creation in normal times. It is only during abnormal times (like the periods of worldwide conflicts) where there is virtual suspension of international trade is the survivalist criteria the correct indicator for sustainability. But we are not interested in doing a ranking of liveability that applies only during abnormal times when autarky is externally imposed. The kind of country or city ranking studies that is exemplified by the report of the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia (2012) should more properly be called “rankings of survival-bility” or, simply, “rankings of self-sufficiency”. In our thinking, however, living life to the fullest is meaningful only if life is more than mere survival. The survivalist interpretation of sustainability is really unsuited to the modern world. If drastic climate changes were to occur abruptly in the food-exporting parts of the world and trigger protectionism, a nation of subsistence farmers would, indeed, escape largely unscathed from the meltdown of the world food market. However, this autarkic nation would still not survive a global nuclear armageddon like the one depicted so graphically in the novel On the Beach by Nevil Shute (1957). The present reality is that the practice of self-sufficiency could not guarantee survival

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

What Makes a City More Liveable?

b1411-ch01

13

in a world with nuclear arms. So if we update the survivalist philosophy to present circumstances, the Eco2 Index should measure sustainability of a country by, one, the amount of effort that country’s government puts into the campaign for a global ban on nuclear weapons; and, two, by how far the country is from the closest country with nuclear arms (because this closest nuclear-armed country has a higher probability of being a first-strike target by other nuclear-armed countries). We like to propose that ecological sustainability is better guaranteed by the practice of “think globally, and act locally.” We make this point by considering the case of the emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) like CO2 by a country. It is clear that the best contribution that a country could make to the global situation (from thinking globally) is to minimise its annual emission of GHG, which we denote as G, measured in parts per million (ppm) per year. Now, what is to be done locally in order to reduce G (or, at least, keep the growth rate of G at a minimum)? The value of G, the additional amount of GHG in the air each year, is determined by the PIES-in-the-sky equation: G = PIES where • P = population size, • I = income per capita, i.e., GDP/P • E = energy inefficiency defined as amount of energy (in Joules, J) consumed in producing a unit of GDP, i.e., J/GDP • S = soiling capacity of the energy used defined as amount of GHG added by each unit of energy consumed, i.e., G/J. So we have: G = P × (GDP/P) × (J/GDP) × (G/J) or G = P × (GDP/P) × (G/GDP) For the government of an emerging economy, responsible global citizenship would have it to enact policies that would lower (J/GDP), (G/J) and P, i.e., increase energy efficiency, switch to green energy, and strengthen the family planning program. As the average income (I) of an emerging

June 19, 2012

13:32

14

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch01

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

economy is still way below the levels in Western Europe and North America, the obligation of the government to its own citizens is to continue to let output (I) grow as fast as conditions permit. The faster the output grows, the more the government should do to reduce energy inefficiency (E), the use of dirty energy (S) and the rate of population growth (P). In short, the policy target that flows naturally from responsible global citizenship (“thinking globally and acting locally”) and from the right of countries (especially of the poorer countries) to grow is the emission-GDP ratio (G/GDP) rather than the per capita amount of emission (G/P).5 The policy agenda that follows from the survivalist interpretation of sustainability differs significantly from our above policy agenda. It seems straightforward that the implementation of self-sufficiency in food and energy would reduce the growth of GHG emission by reducing the growth of output (I) because output is creased by international trade. However, this GHG-reduction outcome from switching to a self-sufficiency regime is far from certain. In the cases of China and India, energy sufficiency would require these two countries to switch from imported oil to domestic coal, and to generate more hydropower by building more Three Gorges Damtype of projects.6 This means that the only way that India and China could attain energy sufficiency without emitting even more GHG and tearing up more of their natural environments would be if there were revolutionary technological breakthroughs in solar power, wind power, and carboncapture-and-sequestration. Such technological breakthroughs are, however, just as likely to occur under the “think globally, and act locally” policy regime as under the self-sufficiency policy regime. Of course, the actual measure of “Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability” (“The State of the Natural Environment and Its Management”) used in constructing our Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) takes many more factors into consideration and not just the value of (GHG/GDP). There should be no confusion that the above discussion on GHG is meant to illustrate the basic differences in philosophy that guide the measurement of ecological sustainability in our GLCI study and some major studies, e.g., the

5 This is why one measure of a country’s efforts to increase sustainability that we use in the empirical is

(G/GDP) rather than the commonly-used G or (G/P). 6 The reader interested in the environmental challenges of China could find a brief review in Woo (2007).

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

What Makes a City More Liveable?

b1411-ch01

15

global-citizen approach versus the survivalist approach. As detailed later, our measure of “Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability” is constructed from 15 environmental sustainability indicators at the city level; and these 15 indicators could be grouped under three categories: 1. extent of air and water pollution 2. extent of depletion of natural resources 3. extent of government involvement in efforts to protect the environment

1.4 PREVIEW The Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) is constructed by aggregating over the five dimensions of liveability (freedom from want, the state of the natural environment and its management, freedom from fear, socio-cultural conditions, and public governance). A total of 85 indicators were used, and 64 major cities were ranked. The top ten cities in the GLCI ranking are (1) Geneva; (2) Zurich; (3) Singapore; (4) Copenhagen and Helsinki (tied); (6) Luxembourg; (7) Stockholm; (8) Berlin; (9) Hong Kong; (10) Auckland and Melbourne (tied). And, the bottom ten cities in the GLCI ranking are (55) Ahmedabad; (56) Pane; (57) Bangalore; (58) Chennai; (59) Delhi; (60) Mumbai; (61) Manila; (62) Moscow; (63) Sao Paulo; (64) Jakarta.7 Seven of the ten most liveable cities are in Europe, two in Asia, and two in Oceania. If we extend the list to the 20 most liveable cities, then 9 are in Europe, 3 in Oceania, 5 in Asia, and 4 in North America. We agree that there are many deficiencies in summing up all aspects of a city by a single number. However, the simplicity and ease of communications in using a single number to convey to the residents of a city about the seriousness of the city’s problems might justify its use. The examination 7 Jakarta has the lowest ranking because it is particularly deficient in the “environmental friendliness

and sustainability” and “socio-cultural conditions” categories (it is ranked last in both). The Indonesian government has under-invested in infrastructure for the poor, especially during the long reign of the Soeharto government when Indonesia was receiving high oil revenue. For example, the proportion of the population with access to ‘improved sanitation facilities’ in Indonesia has gone up minimally, from 51% in 1990 to 52% in 2006, compared to the rise in the Philippines from 58% to 78% over the same period (Woo, 2010, pp. 42). The proportion of the urban population in Indonesia that had (a) access to improved sanitation facilities fell from 73% in 1990 to 67% in 2006; and (b) access to improved water source fell from 92% to 89%.

June 19, 2012

13:32

16

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch01

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

of the five dimensions of the GLCI provides a yardstick for policy makers to make cross-city comparisons and, hence, able to identify quickly the aspects of liveability that need improvement through new policy initiatives. The outcome is that the cities which achieve high liveability rankings will serve as a source of motivation for cities that are lagging behind. Furthermore, given the fluidity of financial and human capital, the GLCI can also be used as a city-marketing tool to inform investors and talented professionals on their selection of habitat. The rest of the book is structured as follows. Chapter 2 1. presents a comparison of the main methodologies that have been commonly applied to rank countries and cities in various dimensions like economic competitiveness, global political influence, and luxurious living; 2. develops the methodology underlying the GLCI ranking 3. selects the data that are used to compute the GLCI ranking; 4. presents the computation algorithm; and 5. conducts a policy simulation exercise. In addition, problems in the implementation of the framework and the treatment of unavailable data are discussed. Chapter 3 reports the ranking of the GLCI ranking and of the five components of GLCI. Chapter 4 focuses on the efforts to improve liveability in the city-states of Hong Kong and Singapore. It discusses their efforts at product differentiation because of their locations in different neighbourhoods. The geo-economics and geo-politics of Hong Kong and Singapore are facts rather than choices, and their policy options are many times restricted to balancing trade-off among the different elements in their objectives. Chapter 5 compares the GLCI ranking with a number of major studies on city ranking to identify the strengths of GLCI. It also offers practical recommendations to low ranking cities and how to improve their liveability.

June 19, 2012

13:32

Chapter

2

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

THE EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK: METHODOLOGY, DATA AND COMPUTATION ALGORITHM

2.1 COMPARISON OF EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORKS USED IN RANKING There are countless studies that rank countries, cities and organizations on a wide variety of dimensions, including economic competitiveness, urbanization, quality of life, gross national happiness, crisis management, and environmental sustainability. We have selected 21 ranking frameworks for comparison so we can identify the strengths and limitations of these empirical frameworks. The following seven tables, Tables 1 to 7, compare these 21 frameworks. From our review of the 21 empirical frameworks, there are five that are most relevant to developing the empirical framework for GLCI, and they are from: (a) World Competitiveness Yearbook (Framework 2, Table 1) (b) Mercer Human Resource’s worldwide Quality of Living Survey (Framework 5, Table 2) (c) Yale & Columbia University’s 2005 Environment Sustainability Index (Framework 7, Table 3) (d) The Global City Indicators Program (Framework 10, Table 4) (e) Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines & Methodology (Framework 12, Table 4) Studies by the World Competitiveness Yearbook generally look at countries rather than cities, with the main focus on economic competitiveness and with little or no regard to the role of the government. The Mercer study essentially deals with professional human resources, which understandably 17

June 19, 2012

13:32

18

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 1

Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 1 to 3). (1) Global Competitiveness Report

(2) World Competitiveness Yearbook

(3) Eurostat Structural Indicators

Eurostat International Institute for Management Development Country Number 133 57 42 Types Major Global Industralized & European Regions, Economics Developing Japan & United Countries States Facilitate economic Analyze and rank Objectives Understand the key policy the abilities of factors that coordination nations to create determine among member and maintain an economic growth states and provide environment that and analyze why essential statistics sustains the some countries to monitor competitiveness perform better European Union of enterprises than others by strategic measuring national objectives competitiveness Indicators Number 110 329 79 Categories 1. Basic 1. Economic 1. General performance requirements economic 2. Government 2. Efficiency background efficiency enhancers 2. Employment 3. Business 3. Innovation & 3. Innovation & efficiency sophistication research 4. Infrastructure factors 4. Economic reform 5. Social cohesion 6. Environment Data Source International Publicly available International organizations data organizations Survey data Survey data Survey data Publisher

World Economic Forum

Source: Adapted from “Part I: Ranking of 2009 Global Liveable Cities Index”, Final-Year Project No. 4751, Nanyang Technological University.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

Empirical Framework in Ranking Table 2

Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 4 to 6). (4) Economic Freedom of the World

Publisher Country

Number Types

Objectives

19

The Fraser Institute

(5) Quality of Living Survey

(6) Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific

Asian Development Bank 141 48 Worldwide Asia Pacific Countries Measure the degree to Needs and concerns Understand how dynamism can be of expats on which the policies fostered in Asia’s accomodation, and institutions of small and economic and countries are medium social supportive of enterprises by environment economic freedom looking at the actual and expected impacts of the current global economic crisis 49 39 174

Indicators Number Categories 1. Size of Government: expenditure, taxes and enterprises 2. Legal structure and security of property rights 3. Access to sound money 4. Freedom to trade internationally 5. Regulations of credit, labour and business Data Source Publicly available data

Mercer Human Resource 450 Worldwide

1. Rental & housing 2. Schools & education 3. Public & private transportation 4. Political & social environment 5. Recreation & eco-friendliness

1. People 2. Economy and output 3. Money, finance and prices 4. Globalization 5. Infrastructure 6. Government and governance 7. Energy and environment

Survey data Survey data

Publicly available data

Source: Adapted from “Part I: Ranking of 2009 Global Liveable Cities Index”, Final-Year Project No. 4751, Nanyang Technological University.

June 19, 2012

13:32

20

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 3

Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 7 to 9). (7) The 2005 Environment Sustainability Index

Publisher

Yale University & Columbia University Country Number 146 Types Worldwide Objectives Measure and rank the level of environmental stewardship among countries and serve as an environmental decision making tool Indicators Number 76 Categories 1. Environment systems 2. Environment stresses 3. Human vulnerability to environmental stresses 4. Societal capacity to respond to environmental challenges 5. Global stewardship

Data Source

International organizations

(8) (9) Report on Developing Urban Environment Statistics Indicators for and Managing Mega Climate Change Cities United Nations Economic & Social Council — Africa Region Anchor environment statistics as part of official statistics by improving and strengthening basic environmental data

International Federation of Surveyors 15 Worldwide Identify the risks of urbanization and how cities address these urgent issues

106

27

1. Natural disasters and environmental performance 2. Air 3. Land use 4. Agriculture 5. Forests & woodlands 6. Coastal & marine resources 7. Fresh water 8. Biodiversity 9. Energy & minerals 10. Waste health & environment International organizations Survey data

1. Social indicators 2. Economic indicators 3. Ecological indicators

International organizations

Source: Adapted from “Part I: Ranking of 2009 Global Liveable Cities Index”, Final-Year Project No. 4751, Nanyang Technological University.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

Empirical Framework in Ranking Table 4

Publisher

Country

Number Types Objectives

Indicators

Number Categories

Data Source

21

Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 10 to 12). (10) Global City Indicators Program

(11) The Millennium Development Goals Report

Global City Indicators Facility

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 217 Worldwide Give an overview of the progress towards the 8 goals as well as track improvements to social and economic conditions in the world’s poorest countries

19 Worldwide Provide an established set of city indicators with a globally standardized methodology that allows for global comparability of city performance and knowledge sharing 22 1. City services 2. Quality of life

International organizations

60 1. Eradicate extreme poverty & hunger 2. Achieve universal primary education 3. Promote gender equality & empower women 4. Reduce child mortality 5. Improve maternal health 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases 7. Ensure environmental sustainability 8. Develop a global partnership for development Publicly available data

(12) Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines & Methodologies United Nations

— Worldwide Guide nations in reviewing their existing indicators or developing new indicators to measure progress towards nationally defined goals for sustainable development

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

96 Poverty Governance Health Education Demographics Natural hazards Atmospheres Land Oceans, seas & coasts Freshwater Biodiversity Economic development Global economic partnership Consumption & production pattern

International organizations

Source: Adapted from “Part I: Ranking of 2009 Global Liveable Cities Index”, Final-Year Project No. 4751, Nanyang Technological University.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

22

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 5

Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 13 to 15). (13) Sustainable Transportation Indicators

Publisher

Country

Number Types

Objectives

Indicators

Number Categories

Data Source

Transportation Research Board — — Identify indicators that can be used for sustainable transportation evaluation as well as for development & application of suitable sustainable transportation indicators worldwide 30 1. Travel activity 2. Air pollution emissions 3. Noise pollution 4. Traffic risk 5. Economic productivity 6. Overall accessibility 7. Land use impacts 8. Equity 9. Transport policy & planning

—

(14) FCM Quality of Life Reporting System

(15) Measuring Progress, Strengthening Governance and Promoting Positive Change

Federation of Canadian Municipalities

International Institute for Sustainable Development 1 — Canada Winnipeg’s First Nations Provide a method of Identify past successes, monitoring quality diagnose critical of life that is of problems and value to Canadian vulnerabilities so as communities and act to develop a set of as a tool to identify goals and specific issues of quality of targets life and provide solutions to them

52 1. Population resources 2. Community affordability 3. Quality of employment 4. Quality of housing 5. Community stress 6. Health of community 7. Community safety 8. Community participation 9. Quality of environment 10. Social infrastructure Publicly available data Survey data

34 1. Environment domain 2. Economic domain 3. Social domian 4. Culture domain

Publicly available data

Source: Adapted from “Part I: Ranking of 2009 Global Liveable Cities Index”, Final-Year Project No. 4751, Nanyang Technological University.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

Empirical Framework in Ranking Table 6

Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 16 to 18). (16) Gross National Happiness Index

Publisher

Center for Bhutan Studies Country Number 1 Types Bhutan Objectives Used as tools of accountability and ministerial planning; foster vision and a common sense of purpose by addressing inadequacy of GDP as a performance measurement Indicators Number 72 Categories 1. Psychological well-being 2. Time use 3. Community vitality 4. Culture 5. Health 6. Education 7. Environmental diversity 8. Living standards 9. Governance

Data Source

23

Survey data

(17) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Indicators

(18) Sustainable Development in the European Union (EU)

OECD Publishing

Eurostat

30 OECD Countries Provide broad information on social dimensions across OECD countries and track the development in social status across time among countries

33 European Region Improve the quality of life and well-being for present and future generations in the EU by linking economic development, protection of the environment and social justice

31 General context Self-sufficiency Equity Health Social cohesion

140 1. Socioeconomic development 2. Sustainable consumption & development 3. Social inclusion 4. Demographic changes 5. Public health 6. Climate change & clean energy 7. Sustainable transport 8. Natural resources 9. Global partnership 10. Good governance International organizations Survey data

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

International organizations

Source: Adapted from “Part I: Ranking of 2009 Global Liveable Cities Index”, Final-Year Project No. 4751, Nanyang Technological University.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

24

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 7

Comparison of Existing Frameworks (Frameworks 19 to 21).

Publisher Country

Number Types Objectives

Indicators

Number Categories

Data Source

(19) Sustainable Governance Indicators 2009

(20) World Development Indicators

(21) Urban Indicators For Managing Cities

Bertelsmann Stiftung

Development Data Group 209 Worldwide Measure the progress of development in various nations while providing high quality data for crisis management purposes

Asian Development Bank

30 OECD Countries Measure OECD governments’ capabilities of identifying and implementing reforms in order to ensure sustainable policy outcomes 149 1. Economic & policy-specific performance 2. Status of democracy 3. Executive accountability 4. Executive capacity

Survey Data

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

>800 World view People Environment Economy States & markets Global links

International organizations

18 Asia Pacific Establish a policy-oriented urban indicators database for bench-marking and comparison of performance between cities for the purpose of improving policy formulation 140 1. Population, migration & urbanization 2. Income disparity, unemployment & poverty 3. Health & education 4. Urban productivity & competitiveness 5. Technology & connectivity 6. Housing 7. Urban land 8. Municipal services 9. Urban environment 10. Urban transport 11. Cultural 12. Local government finance 13. Urban governance & management International organizations

Source: Adapted from “Part I: Ranking of 2009 Global Liveable Cities Index”, Final-Year Project No. 4751, Nanyang Technological University.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

Empirical Framework in Ranking

b1411-ch02

25

and narrowly focuses on the quality of living across cities for expatriates and is at best, a partial study. The Yale & Columbia study focuses on environment sustainability with an emphasis on ‘green’ indicators. The 2005 Environment Sustainability Index (ESI) was established as part of the initiative between the Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy and the Centre for International Earth Science Information Network of Columbia University, with the objective of measuring the level of environmental stewardship among countries and to likewise serves as an environmental decision making tool. The ESI is a useful tool for comparative analysis across these five fundamental components of sustainability: (1) Environmental systems, (2) environmental stresses, (3) human vulnerability to environmental stresses, (4) societal capacity to respond to environmental challenges and (5) global stewardship. Its ability to be used as a mechanism for benchmarking also allows leaders and laggards to be identified so that the latter can adopt the best practices from those leaders. However, the ESI is an inadequate tool in measuring the liveability of a city because it does not address the issue of quality of life. Moreover, environmental initiatives and collaboration on a local scale are not taken into account in the ESI, which focuses only on international initiatives. The Global City Indicators Program (GCIP) is an initiative by the Global City Indicators Facility. It is governed by a board of directors made up of various city managers as well as key personnel from The World Bank (TWB), Local Government for Sustainability and UN-Habitat. It aims to provide an established set of city indicators with a globally standardized methodology that allows for comparability of performance. It also seeks to achieve sharing of knowledge to facilitate the growth and improvement of participating cities. Due to the focused objectives of this program, a total of 22 indicators were separated into two main categories, ‘City Services’ and ‘Quality of Life’. The primary focus of both categories is the social wellbeing of citizens and encompasses indicators ranging from healthcare and transportation to technology. However, the GCIP alone is insufficient to measure the liveability of a city due to limited coverage study of government leadership of a city with ‘percentage of women employed in the city government workforce’ as a sole indicator. Factors like policy making and its implementation, government systems, transparency, corruption and foreign affairs are all absent from the GCIP.

June 19, 2012

13:32

26

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

Indicators of Sustainable Development (ISD) are produced by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat to enhance countries’ understanding of the various dimensions of sustainable development to facilitate policy-making. A total of 96 indicators were developed to calibrate progress toward sustainable development encompassing themes such as poverty, governance, health, education and economic development. The merit of this report lies in the way indicators were classified — core set versus non-core indicators. Core indicators are those readily available while others are relevant for smaller set of countries in providing complementary information to core indicators. ISD provides a multi-dimensional nature for measuring sustainability. However, some indicators have thematic linkages such that they may fall into multiple categories. Hence, it would be restrictive to group them under one category. For instance, indicator such as “proportion of household without electricity” may be a manifestation of slow economic development or poverty. As a result, the approach used by ISD may be more suited for measuring a single nation’s development rather than for making comparisons between cities.

2.2 FLESHING OUT THE GLOBAL LIVEABLE CITIES INDEX FRAMEWORK In Chapter 1, we had identified five dimensions of liveability for a city: (1) economic vibrancy and competitiveness, (2) environmental friendliness & sustainability, (3) domestic security & stability, (4) socio-cultural conditions and (5) political governance. Table 8 highlights some of the elements in the framework for constructing the GLCI.

2.2.1 Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness ‘Economic vibrancy & competitiveness’ is defined as macroeconomic efficiency in terms of growth, sustainable prosperity, value creation for enterprises, economic freedom and linkages to the world economies (McNulty, Jacobson and Penne, 1985). Three sub-categories serve to provide a holistic assessment of a city’s economic vibrancy and sustainability. They are: economic performance; economic openness; and infrastructure.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

Empirical Framework in Ranking Table 8 (1) Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness 1. Economic performance 2. Economic openness 3. Infrastructure

b1411-ch02

27

Framework for Constructing Global Liveable Cities Index. (2) Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability

(3) Domestic Security & Stability

1. Crime rate 1. Pollution 2. Threats to 2. Depletion of national natural resources stability 3. Environmental 3. Civil unrest initiatives

(4) Quality of Life & Diversity

(5) Good Governance & Effective Leadership

1. Medical & healthcare 2. Education 3. Housing, sanitation & transportation 4. Income equality & demographic burden 5. Diversity & community cohesion

1. Policy making & implementation 2. Government system 3. Transparency & accountability 4. Corruption

1. Economic Performance It is imperative to include economic performance because it determines job opportunities and the generation of revenue growth to fund public services for the city’s inhabitants. 2. Economic Openness Economic openness provides valuable information regarding a city’s policy towards capital and trade, which in turn have profound implications on the city’s ability to attract talents, capital and high net worth individuals as well as businesses. 3. Infrastructure Good and adequate infrastructure are indispensable to a successful city because they are the facilitators and enablers of economic activities (The Cities Alliance, 2007).

2.2.2 Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability Cities today face increasing challenges in integrating environmental aspects into urban planning. Economic growth for most cities has led to environmental degradation, and so there has to be a balance between the

June 19, 2012

13:32

28

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

two. We have three subcategories to indicate the degree of environmental friendliness and sustainability: pollution; depletion of natural resources; and environmental initiatives. 1. Pollution Pollution arising from industrial activities, transportation, and inept management of resources has both immediate and long run implications. This is exemplified by the case of Hong Kong which incurred a cost of US$300 million in medical bills and lost productivity due to severe air pollution (Hanny, 2006). As such, it is necessary to include aspects of resource and waste management as indicators of the quality of a city’s living environment. 2. Depletion of Natural Resources The depletion of a city’s natural resources includes the extent of loss in biodiversity, forests, and non-renewable resources. Cities attract prospective investments when they can show that sustainable resource use has been factored into the city development strategy, especially the cost of known constraints such as finite water supplies and energy (Batool, 2008). 3. Environmental Initiatives The dire consequences of pollution and depletion of natural resources warrant the need to deploy resources to ensure the ecological sustainability of cities. The number of green investments by policy makers, and the number of cooperative arrangements with international agencies and partnerships with the private sector for environmental protection are indicators of the seriousness of the efforts to ensure sustainability.

2.2.3 Domestic Security & Stability Under this category are factors measuring peace and stability of the city, political harmony, and the threat of terrorism, i.e., the prevalence of petty and violent crimes, civil unrest and terrorism. The three subcategories are: crime rate; threats to national security; and civil unrest. 1. Crime Rate The crime rate measures the intensity of crime prevalent in cities and accord recognition to cities that invest time and money into developing an effective police force and safe community.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

Empirical Framework in Ranking

b1411-ch02

29

2. Threats to National Stability A city with a history of high levels of terrorism may generate fear amongst its inhabitants and face disruptions in the daily functioning of the economy. As occurrences of natural disasters also threaten, the frequency of natural disaster is included as a measurement of a city’s liveability (a feature that is also in the Mercer Quality of Life index). 3. Civil Unrest As civil unrests threaten production, the aim of this sub-category is to capture any forms of riots that may reduce a city’s internal harmony and stability.

2.2.4 Socio-Cultural Conditions The Socio-Cultural Conditions are captured by five sub-categories: medical & healthcare; education; housing, sanitation & transportation; income equality & demographic burden; and diversity & community cohesion. 1. Medical & Healthcare According to Martin Luther King, “of all the forms in inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane.” Highly liveable cities should therefore provide a basic level of healthcare to their inhabitants, with the costs distributed according to one’s ability to pay (World Health Organization, 2000). Moreover, a good healthcare system shows the capacity of a city to contain any major disease outbreak in a short time. 2. Education This is a human right as well as an economic investment. It is unfortunate that, according to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), more than 836 million adults in the developing world are illiterate. Therefore, as a city pursues its competitive goals, it must emphasize education as a means to improve the quality of life of its people. 3. Housing, Sanitation & Transportation Good housing, sanitation and transportation are indisputable aspects in any good urban planning. The density of cities is expected to increase significantly in the future, and the problems associated with it include

June 19, 2012

13:32

30

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

affordable good housing and living environments, increased traffic which leads to increased pollution, and the suboptimal use of space for car parks. 4. Income Equality & Demographic Burden Income inequality and ageing population exert great influence on the social atmosphere of a city. 5. Diversity & Community Cohesion The United States of America is a melting pot that attracts talents from all parts of the world. A diverse population not only promotes sharing of knowledge and heritage, it also creates a strong identity among its citizens and allows differences to flourish throughout the whole city. As such, a city will be deemed to be more liveable if it possesses a diverse make-up of its population.

2.2.5 Political Governance The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators measure the quality of governance of different countries using six key dimensions of governance: voice & accountability; political stability & absence of violence/terrorism; government effectiveness; regulatory quality; rule of law; control of corruption (Kaufmann, Kraay and Mastruzzi, 2010) . However, this study is at best a partial study on efficiency of government, with little or no attention being given to the role of government in terms of leadership, innovation, policy formulation and execution capability. In order to fully assess the efficiency of political governance, we look at four sub-categories: policy making & implementation; government system; transparency & accountability; and corruption. 1. Policy-Making & Implementation Indicators of the quality of public administration should include the responsiveness of the bureaucracies, and public perceptions regarding the capability of the government. 2. Government System Successful political governance of a city requires the participation of her citizens. Besides the element of public inclusion, there must also

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

Empirical Framework in Ranking

31

be mechanisms for checks and balances in order for inhabitants to have confidence in the government system. Indicators of the quality of the government system are the degree of justice and equality (as indicated by the effectiveness of the judiciary), and the degree of democracy. 3. Transparency & Accountability Accountability and transparency give rise to pressure for leaders to act carefully. This would be difficult to attain, however, without the liberalization of media in disseminating information to the mass public. Accountability is important to pressuring cities to develop the institutional capacities to improve the government system. 4. Corruption Our study includes the wages of civil servants as it is felt that a reasonable level of wage may reduce incentives for corruption. Media freedom should be counted as an anti-corruption measure.

2.3 SELECTING INDICATORS FOR THE GLOBAL LIVEABLE CITIES INDEX: IDEAL VERSUS PRACTICAL Tables 9 to 13 list the ideal indicators for each of the five categories of the GLCI framework. Theory suggests a total of 133 indicators. The proposed ideal indicators for GLCI constitute a quantitative attempt to identify and rank cities globally according to a set of defined concepts which would best reflect the ‘liveability’ of a city. The main functions of the indicators are to assess conditions and trends relating to goals and targets, and to compare across places and situations. An indicator is an operational representation of an attribute such as quality, characteristics or property of a system that is defined in terms of a specific measurement or observation procedure. However, because of data unavailability and cost constraints, the large number of theoretical indicators would have be reduced to a set of practical indicators. Tables 14 to 18 list the practical indicators for each of the five categories of the GLCI framework. There is a total of 85 practical indicators The selection of relevant indicators is always a subject of intense debate. The inclusion and appropriateness of current indicators are subject to review

June 19, 2012

13:32

32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 9

Ideal Indicators for Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness.

1

Ideal Indicators for Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness (24 Indicators) 1.1 Economic Performance 1.1.1 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) A basic measure of a country’s overall economic output 1.1.2 Real GDP Growth Rate To measure the growth of economy 1.1.3 Labour Productivity Per Hour A measure of output per labour-hour 1.1.4 Household Consumption Expenditure A measurement of volume of Per Capita expenditure on goods and services by households 1.1.5 Unemployment Rate Percentage of unemployed individuals 1.1.6 Resilience of Economy To measure the ability of a city to recover from any economic turmoil 1.1.7 Gross Fixed Capital Formation Measurement of the net value of acquisitions of new or existing fixed assets in the city 1.1.8 Growth Rate of Consumer Price To measure inflation rate Index (CPI) 1.1.9 Debt to Gross National Income Ratio To measure the level of debt relative to gross national income 1.2 Economic Openness 1.2.1 Foreign Direct Investment Measures the level of inflow of foreign investments 1.2.2 Trade to GDP Ratio Measurement of total amount of traded goods 1.2.3 State Ownership of Enterprises To measure the level of government owned enterprises 1.2.4 Prevalence of Trade Barriers To measure the ability of imported goods to compete in the domestic market 1.2.5 Number of Trade Embargo To measure the number of foreign countries that the city does not wish to trade with 1.2.6 Number of Free Trade Agreements To measure the number of treaties that allow foreign countries to trade without paying tariffs 1.2.7 Ease of Doing Business To measure the level of bureaucratic process required to set up a business 1.2.8 Prevalence of Foreign Ownership To measure the concentration of foreign companies 1.2.10 Economic Freedom To measure economic freedom 1.2.11 Hotel Occupancy Rates To measure the rate at which hotel rooms are utilized (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

Empirical Framework in Ranking Table 9 1.2.12 International Tourist Arrivals 1.3 Infrastructure 1.3.1 Telephone Lines (Fixed & Mobile) 1.3.2

Computers Ownership

1.3.3

Level of Internet Access

Table 10

33

(Continued) To measure number of tourist arrivals To measure communication capability within the city To measure the number of people who owns a computer To measure the number of people with Internet access

Ideal Indicators for Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability.

2

Ideal Indicators for Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability (30 Indicators) Pollution 2.1 2.1.1 Greenhouse Gases Emissions To measure the amount of harmful gases such as greenhouse gases emitted 2.1.2 Sulphur Dioxide Emission To measure the amount of harmful gases such as sulphur dioxide emitted 2.1.3 CO2 Emissions in 2006 To measure the amount of harmful gases such as carbon dioxide emitted 2.1.4 CFC Emission To measure the amount of chlorofluorocarbon emitted to the environment 2.1.5 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) To measure the amount of Emission Biochemical Oxygen Demand emitted to the environment 2.1.6 Quality of the Natural Environment To give an overview of the health status of the environment 2.1.7 Industrial Waste Discharge into To measure all types of industrial Water Sources waste discharge into water sources 2.1.8 Industrial Waste Buried in Landfills To measure all types of industrial waste buried in landfills 2.1.9 Water Pollution To measure the amount of water pollution released to the environment 2.1.10 Nitrogen Oxide Emission To measure the amount of harmful gases such as nitrogen dioxide emitted 2.1.11 Recycling Rate To measure the rate of recycling taking place (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

34

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 10

(Continued)

2

Ideal Indicators for Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability (30 Indicators) 2.2 Depletion of Natural Resources 2.2.1 Rate of Deforestation The rate of decrease in the size of forest area 2.2.2 Electricity Generated from The amount of electricity generated Renewable Sources from sources that will not cause a depletion of natural resources 2.2.3 Consumption of Oil To measure the amount of oil used by commercial industries and households 2.2.4 Ecological Footprint Per Capita To measure human demand on earth’s ecosystems 2.2.5 Threatened Species To measure the number of species that are nearing extinction 2.2.6 Unaccounted Water To measure the amount of unaccounted water 2.3 Environmental Initiatives 2.3.1 Participation in Selected International To measure the international Environmental Agreements involvement of a city in conserving their environment 2.3.2 Stringency of Environmental To measure level of control of Regulations regulations in protecting the environment 2.3.3 Grants to Conservation Efforts in To measure the amount of money a Plants & Animal Species city is willing to invest in protecting their environment 2.3.4 Funding for Research & Development To measure the amount of money a of Renewable Energy city is willing to invest to reduce the extraction of natural resources 2.3.5 Reforestation Rate To measure the rate of replanting trees into the environment 2.3.6 Number of Environmental To measure the concentration of Non-Government Organization environmental conservation efforts in a city 2.3.7 Terrestrial Protected Area To measure the level of forest area protected by government 2.3.8 Protected Marine Area To measure the level of marine area protected by government 2.3.9 Enforcement of Environmental To measure enforcement of Regulation environmental regulation in the country 2.3.10 Waste Management To measure the waste management efforts in the country (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

Empirical Framework in Ranking

35

Table 10 (Continued) 2.2 Depletion of Natural Resources 2.3.11 Preserving Biodiversity To measure conservation of biodiversity 2.3.12 Number of Energy Efficient Products To measure the number of energy in Public Infrastructure efficient street lighting and transport infrastructure in a city 2.3.13 Number of Green/Sustainable To measure the number of green Buildings buildings in a city

Table 11

Ideal Indicators for Domestic Security & Stability.

3 Ideal Indicators for Domestic Security & Stability (19 Indicators) 3.1 Crime Rate 3.1.1 Number of Burglary Cases Measurement of crime rates concerning burglary 3.1.2 Number of Homicides Cases Measurement of crime rates concerning homicides 3.1.3 Number of Fraud Cases Measurement of crimes rates concerning fraud 3.1.4 Number of Drug Offences (New) Measurement of illegal drug activities 3.1.5 Business Cost of Crime and Violence Economic loss due to crimes committed 3.1.6 Reliability of Police Services Measurement of the effectiveness of police force 3.2 Threats to National Stability 3.2.1 Direct Military Threats Measurement of the probability of a country being attacked by foreign countries Measurement of susceptibility to internal 3.2.2 Vulnerability to Fallout from conflict due to socio-political tension Socio-Political Instability in Other Countries Measurement of potential political 3.2.3 Vulnerability to Policy Changes by Governments in Other Countries turmoil in other countries that impacts the local environment negatively 3.2.4 Business Costs of Terrorism Economic loss due to terrorism 3.2.5 Threat of Terrorism The probability of a city being targeted by terrorist activists 3.2.6 Fatalities of Terrorist Attacks To measure lives lost due to terrorist attacks 3.2.7 Natural Disaster Death Toll To measure lives lost due to natural disasters (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

36

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 11

(Continued)

3 Ideal Indicators for Domestic Security & Stability (19 Indicators) 3.3 Civil Unrest 3.3.1 Risk of Disruptive Political Transition Potential for political unrest due to changes in the political leaders 3.3.2 Severity of Political Violence Measurement of intensity of political violence 3.3.3 Conflicts of Ethnic, Religious, Measurement of conflicts between Regional Nature various religious groups 3.3.4 Number of Racial Riots Measurement of conflicts between different races 3.3.5 Number of Strikes/Labour Activism Measurement of dissatisfaction within labour force 3.3.6 Violent Social Conflicts Measurement of conflicts in the country Table 12

Ideal Indicators for Socio-Cultural Conditions.

4 Ideal Indicators for Socio-Cultural Conditions (38 Indicators) 4.1 Medical & Healthcare 4.1.1 Infant Mortality Rate Number of infant deaths per 1000 live births 4.1.2 Life Expectancy A measure of overall quality of life in a country and the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year 4.1.3 Government Health Expenditure Amount of money spent by the Per Capita government in healthcare areas divided by the population figure 4.1.4 Population with Access to Primary To measure the availability of basic Health Care Facilities healthcare services for people 4.1.5 Number of Hospital Beds A count of the total number of hospital beds 4.1.6 Densityof Physicians A count of the total number of doctors 4.2 Education 4.2.1 Quality of Education System To measure the comprehensiveness and standard of education available 4.2.2 Adult Literacy Rate The proportion of the adult population aged 15 years and over who are able to read and write 4.2.3 Tertiary Enrolment Rate The number of people who gained admission to colleges, universities and polytechnics each year (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

Empirical Framework in Ranking Table 12

b1411-ch02

37

(Continued)

4.2.4

Government Expenditure on Education

4.2.5

Higher Education Achievement

4.3

Housing, Sanitation & Transportation Government Expenditure on Housing Amount of money spent by government & Community Amenities to improve the quality of housing Percentage of Urban Population To measure the percentage of people Living in Slums living in slums in urban areas Percentage of Population using Percentage of population that are Improved Sanitation provided with basic sewage infrastructure Population Using an Improved Water Percentage of population with access to Source drinkable water Quality of Ground Transport Network Measure the opinion if national ground transport network (buses, trains, taxis, etc.) offers efficient, accessible transportation to a wide range of travelers to key business centers and tourist attractions within your country Affordability of Housing To measure the cost of housing in comparison to incomes earned Number of Taxis & Cabs Measurement of transportation accessibility by taxis and cabs Coverage of Public Bus Service Measurement of area accessible by Public bus Quality of Passenger Rail & Subways Measurement of standard of service and density of network of Passenger Rail and Subway Quality of Roads A measure of the level of development of road systems Quality of Railroad Infrastructure A measure of the stability, reliability and density of railroad transport system Quality of Electricity Supply A measure of the stability in electricity supply Car Ownership To measure the number of cars owned per household Hybrid Vehicle Ownership To measure the number of hybrid vehicles owned per household

4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3

4.3.4 4.3.5

4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9

4.3.10 4.3.11 4.3.12 4.3.13 4.3.14

Amount of monetary resources pumped in by government to increase access to education and improve the quality of education system Percentage of population that has attained at least tertiary education for persons 25–34

(Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

38

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 12

(Continued)

4 Ideal Indicators for Socio-Cultural Conditions (38 Indicators) 4.4 Income Equality & Demographic Burden 4.4.1 GINI Index Measurement of disparity of income level 4.4.2 Number of Hours Worked Per Year Measurement of time spent working 4.4.3 Human Poverty Index Measurement of poverty lines 4.4.4 Child Dependency Ratio Those aged under 15 years old expressed as a percentage of working population 4.4.5 Old Age Dependency Ratio Those aged above 65 years old expressed as a percentage of working population 4.5 Diversity & Community Cohesion 4.5.1 Percentage of (Foreigners/Immigrants) Measurement of concentration of immigrants 4.5.2 Number of Religions Measurement of quantity of different religions of residents 4.5.3 Number of Races Measurement of quantity of various ethnicity of residents 4.5.4 Number of Languages A measure of quantity of languages used by a substantial number of residents 4.5.5 Attitudes Towards Foreign Visitors Measurement of local’s acceptance level of foreign visitors 4.5.6 Community Cohesion Index A measure of cohesiveness between different groups of people in the society 4.5.7 Religious and Racial Tolerance A measure of acceptance level of various religions and races in the community 4.5.8 Integration Policy Effectiveness of policies to promote harmony and cohesiveness between the foreigners and locals

Table 13

Ideal Indicators for Political Governance.

5 Ideal Indicators for Political Governance (22 Indicators) 5.1 Policy Making & Implementation 5.1.1 Public Acceptance of Policies Made A survey used to measure whether people agree and are willing to follow policies made by government 5.1.2 Quality of Public Administration Assessment of the efficiency of public administration services 5.1.3 Government Effectiveness To measure the success of government policies (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

Empirical Framework in Ranking

Table 13 5.1.4 Government Consumption Expenditure

5.1.5 Collected Total Tax Revenues 5.1.6 Regulatory Quality

5.2 Government System 5.2.1 Electoral Process & Pluralism 5.2.2 Functioning of Government System 5.2.3 Political Participation

5.2.4 Effectiveness of Judicial System 5.2.5 Effectiveness of Tax Collection Agency 5.2.6 Quality of E-Government

5.2.7 Political Stability No Violence

5.2.8 Rule of Law

5.2.9 Representation of Minorities

b1411-ch02

39

(Continued) A measurement of the level of government spending on consumption for goods and services produced by the economy To measure the amount of tax collected from its people Measures the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development Proponents of modern democracy to be the interests of her people A comprehensive measurement of government performance The general level of participation in a society to which the people as a whole are active in politics The level of performance by the court in enforcing law and fairness The capacity of tax administration in collection of taxes An assessment of quality of e-government base on reviews of official government websites Measures the perceptions of the likelihood that the government will be destabilized or overthrown by possibly unconstitutional and/or violent means, including domestic violence and terrorism Measures the perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence To measure the participation of minority races in the parliament (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

40

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

Table 13

(Continued)

5 Ideal Indicators for Political Governance (22 Indicators) 5.3 Transparency & Accountability 5.3.1 Transparency of Public Action Level of information available to public regarding government plans and their agendas 5.3.2 Transparency of Economic Policy Level of disclosure of economic plans and strategies 5.3.3 Voice and Accountability The extent to which citizens are able to participate and monitor the actions of government 5.3.4 Freedom of Press The extent of government openness to media comments and opinions 5.4 Corruption 5.4.1 Control of Corruption The extent to which government implement measures to curtail corruption 5.4.2 Corruption Perceptions Index The degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians 5.4.3 Average Annual Wage of Civil To measure income earnings of Servants government workers

Table 14 1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.1.5 1.1.6 1.1.7 1.1.8 1.1.9

Practical Indicators for Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness.

Practical Indicators for Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness (23 Indicators) Economic Performance Units GDP US$ billions Real GDP Growth Rate Percentage Change Labour Productivity Per Hour GDP per person employed per hour, US$ Household Consumption Expenditure US$ Billion Per Capita Unemployment Rate Percentage of labor force Resilience of Economy Index Gross Fixed Capital Formation Percentage of GDP Growth Rate of Consumer Price Percentage Change Index (CPI) Debt to Gross National Income Ratio Percentage of GDP (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

Empirical Framework in Ranking

Table 14 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.2.8 1.2.9 1.2.10 1.2.11 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3

Economic Openness Foreign Direct Investment Trade to GDP Ratio State Ownership of Enterprises Prevalence of Trade Barriers Number of Free Trade Agreements Ease of Doing Business Prevalence of Foreign Ownership Tourism Receipts Economic Freedom Hotel Occupancy Rates International Tourist Arrivals Infrastructure Telephone Lines (Fixed & Mobile) Computers Ownership Level of Internet Access

Table 15 2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6 2.1.7 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

41

(Continued) Units Percentage of GDP Ratio Index Index List of notified RTAs in force Index Index Percentage of GDP Index As A Percentage Number of international tourist arrival Units Mobile line subscribers per 100 people Number of computers per 1000 people Percentage population

Practical Indicators for Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability.

Practical Indicators for Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability (15 Indicators) Pollution Units Greenhouse Gas Emissions mio. tonnes of CO2 equivalent per unit output Sulphur Dioxide Emission Micrograms per cubic metre per unit of output CO2 emissions in 2006 mio. tonnes per unit of output Quality of the Natural Environment Index Water Pollution Kilograms per day per worker Nitrogen Oxide Emission Weighted PM10 micrograms per cubic meter Particulate Matter Concentration Weighted PM10 micrograms per cubic meter Depletion of Natural Resources Units Electricity Generated from Percentage of total electricity generated Renewable Sources Consumption of Oil BBL per day Threatened Species Percentage of total animal species (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

42

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 15

2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5

b1411-ch02

(Continued)

Practical Indicators for Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability (15 Indicators) Environmental Initiatives Units Participation in Selected International No. Out of a Total of 11 Environmental Agreements Stringency of Environmental Index Regulations Terrestrial Protected Area Percentage of total land area Protected Marine Area Percentage of total marine area Enforcement of Environmental Index Regulation

Table 16

Practical Indicators for Domestic Security & Stability.

3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2

Practical Indicators for Domestic Security & Stability (10 Indicators) Crime Rate Units Number of Homicides Cases Cases per 10,000 Capita Number of Drug Offences (New) Cases per 100,000 Capita Business Cost of Crime And Violence Index Reliability of Police Services Index Threats to National Stability Units Business Costs of Terrorism Soft Data (Survey) Fatalities of Terrorist Attacks No of Deaths Per Million Capita Natural Disaster Death Toll No of Deaths Per Million Capita Civil Unrest Units Severity of Political Violence Index Conflicts of Ethnic, Religious, Index Regional Nature 3.3.3 Violent Social Conflicts Index Table 17

Practical Indicators for Socio-Cultural Conditions.

4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3

Practical Indicators for Socio-Cultural Conditions (24 Indicators) Medical & Healthcare Units Infant Mortality Rate Deaths per 1000 live births Life Expectancy Years Government Health Expenditure US Dollar Per Capita Per Capita 4.1.4 Number of Hospital Beds Per 1,000 Population 4.1.5 Densityof Physicians Per 10,000 Population (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

Empirical Framework in Ranking

Table 17 4 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.4.5 4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3

43

Practical Indicators for Socio-Cultural Conditions.

Practical Indicators for Socio-Cultural Conditions (24 Indicators) Education Units Quality of Education System Index Tertiary Enrolment Rate As A Percentage Government Expenditure on As A Percent of GDP Education Higher Education Achievement As A Percentage Housing, Sanitation & Transportation Units Percentage of Urban Population As a Percentage Living in Slums Percentage of Population using As A Percentage Improved Sanitation Population Using an Improved Water As A Percentage Source Quality of Ground Transport Network Index Quality of Roads Index Quality of Railroad Infrastructure Index Quality of Electricity Supply Index Income Equality & Demographic Units Burden GINI Index Index Number of Hours Worked Per Year Index Human Poverty Index Index Child Dependency Ratio Ratio Old Age Dependency Ratio Ratio Diversity & Community Cohesion Units Percentage of Foreigners/Percentage As A Percentage of Total Population of immigrants Number of Religions Index Attitudes Towards Foreign Visitors Index

Table 18

Practical Indicators for Political Governance.

5 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2

Practical Indicators for Political Governance (13 Indicators) Policy Making & Implementation Units Government Effectiveness Index Government Consumption Percentage of GDP Expenditure 5.1.3 Collected Total Tax Revenues Percentage of GDP 5.1.4 Regulatory Quality Index (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

44

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 18

5 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2

(Continued)

Practical Indicators for Political Governance (13 Indicators) Government System Units Functioning of Government System Index Effectiveness of Judicial System Index Quality of E-Government Index Political Stability No Violence Index Rule of Law Index Transparency & Accountability Units Transparency of Economic Policy Index Voice and Accountability Index Corruption Units Control of Corruption Index Corruption Perceptions Index Index

and new indicators may be used when new information becomes available, or when changes in the environment or trend causes certain indicators to become important in the future.

2.4 DATA SOURCES, CONSTRAINTS & PROXIES Only data from credible survey agencies, reputable organizations, statistical boards and international research companies are used, e.g., data from International Financial Statistics, ASEAN Secretariat, Bank for International Settlements, Political & Economic Risk Consultancy, Governance Metrics International, and World Development Indicators. Constructing ranking indices for cities is more challenging than constructing ranking indices for countries because most data is available at the national rather than city level. There are acute difficulties regarding data availability as well as the quality or accuracy of the available data at the city level. The less developed cities do not possess the resources or capabilities to collect and provide information to the public, while some developed cities do not feel the need to provide comprehensive and accurate information for disclosure to the public. The lack of complete city level data available means that proxies have to be used. Three proxy techniques are used to replace the missing data gaps in this study.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

Empirical Framework in Ranking

b1411-ch02

45

The first proxy technique replicates the approach used by the World Competitiveness Yearbook. The missing data are replaced with the mean value of the city figures available for that particular indicator. This technique ensures that the affected city is not severely penalized nor unduly rewarded due to unavailable data for the specific indicator. The second proxy technique is used to address the lack of city level indicators. In the event that a particular indicator data is not collected at city level, data at the national level are used to proxy the city data. Such an approach is generally appropriate for indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality rate. The third proxy technique is employed when the data is unavailable for a particular theoretical indicator. In this situation, an alternate indicator similar to the ideal one with considerable data would replace it as the practical indicator.

2.5 THE SELECTION OF CITIES To provide comprehensive coverage of the major cities for all continents, the cities selected for the computation of their GLCI values are: • the megacities (cities with population exceeding 10 million inhabitants) • the major cities in most of the developed countries; and • the major cities in most of the important emerging countries. Table 19 lists the 64 global cities included in the GLCI. Data unavailability for most of the practical indicators is the cause for why some major cities are not on our list. Table 20 lists the 36 Asian cities included in the GLCI.

2.6 COMPUTATION OF RANKINGS: THE ALGORITHM The ranking methodology follows the methodology employed by the WCY. A step-by-step description of the ranking process is described below for N cities, M practical indicators and C categories, with each category comprising S sub-categories.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

46

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

List of 64 Global Cities for Computation of GLCI Ranking.

City

Country

Abu Dhabi Ahmedabad Amman Amsterdam Auckland Bangalore Bangkok Barcelona Beijing Berlin Boston Buenos Aires Cairo Chennai Chicago Chongqing Copenhagen Damascus Delhi Geneva Guangzhou Hanoi Helsinki Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Incheon Istanbul Jakarta Jerusalem Karachi Kuala Lumpur Los Angeles

United Arab Emirates India Jordan Netherlands New Zealand India Thailand Spain China Germany United States Argentina Egypt India United States China Denmark Syria India Switzerland China Vietnam Finland Vietnam China Korea Turkey Indonesia Israel Pakistan Malaysia United States

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

City

Country

London Luxembourg Madrid Manila Melbourne Mexico City Moscow Mumbai Nanjing New York Osaka-Kobe Paris Philadelphia Phnom Penh Prague Pane Riyadh Rome Sao Paulo Seoul Shanghai Shenzhen Singapore Stockholm Sydney Taipei Tianjin Tokyo Vancouver Washington DC Yokohama Zurich

United Kingdom Luxembourg Spain Philippines Australia Mexico Russia India China United States Japan France United States Cambodia Czech Republic India Saudi Arabia Italy Brazil Korea China China Singapore Sweden Australia Taiwan China Japan Canada United States Japan Switzerland

Algorithm 1: Ranking Methodology (1) Compute the mean value of practical indicator j (j = 1, . . . , M), X¯ j = N 1
Xij where Xij represents the value that city i (i = 1, . . . , N) takes N i=1

for practical indicator j.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

Empirical Framework in Ranking Table 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

47

List of 36 Asian Cities for Computation of GLCI Ranking.

City

Country

Abu Dhabi Ahmedabad Amman Auckland Bengaluru Bangkok Beijing Chennai Chongqing Damascus Delhi Guangzhou Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Incheon Istanbul Jakarta Karachi

United Arab Emirates India Jordan New Zealand India Thailand China India China Syria India China Vietnam China Korea Turkey Indonesia Pakistan

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

City

Country

Kuala Lumpur Manila Melbourne Mumbai Nanjing Osaka-Kobe Phnom Penh Pune Riyadh Seoul Shanghai Shenzhen Singapore Sydney Taipei Tianjin Tokyo Yokohama

Malaysia Philippines Australia India China Japan Cambodia India Saudi Arabia Korea China China Singapore Australia Taiwan China Japan Japan

(2) For each practical indicator j (j = 1, . . . , M), calculate its standard deviation (SD),   N 1   2 SDj =  Xij − X¯ j . N i=1

(3) Compute the standardized value of indicator (SVI) that each city i (i = 1, . . . , N) takes under each of the practical indicators j (j = X −X¯

1, . . . , M), SVIij = ijSDj j . (4) Compute the ‘ranked’ standardized value of indicator (RSVI) that each city i (i = 1, . . . , N) takes under each of the practical indicators j (j = 1, . . . , M):  SVIij , if a lower value is better RSVIij = −SVIij , if a higher value is better. (5) For each of the practical indicators j (j = 1, . . . , M), a ranking can be obtained for cities: cities with a lower value of RSVI for indicator j are ranked ahead of those with a higher value.

.

June 19, 2012

13:32

48

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

(6) For each city i (i = 1, . . . , N), calculate the RSVI for each sub-category k (k = 1, . . . , S) belonging to category l (l = 1, . . . , C), RSVIi,lk = ylk 1
RSVIi,jlk,p where ylk is the total number of practical indicators ylk p=1

under sub-category k of category l and (RSVIi,jlk,1 , . . . , RSVIi,jlk,ylk )are the RSVIs for city i that make up sub-category k of category l. (7) For each city i (i = 1, . . . , N), calculate the RSVI for each category l S
(l = 1, . . . , C),RSVIi,l = RSVIi,lk where (RSVIi,l1 , . . . , RSVIi,lS ) are k=1

the RSVIs for the S sub-categories under each category l.
(8) Overall rank score of city i (i = 1, . . . , N), Ri = C1 C l=1 RSVIi,l ; cities with a lower Ri are ranked ahead of those with higher value of Ri , and the city with the lowest Ri is the most liveable city. Step (5) of Algorithm 1 provides the ranking of each city for each individual practical indicator. To achieve this ranking, Step (4) of Algorithm 1 adjusts the value of the SVIs so that a lower value will lead to a better ranking in terms of ‘liveability’. Depending on the nature of the indicator in question, a higher or lower value may reflect a more ‘liveable’ city. Take for instance the practical sub-indicators ‘1.1.1 GDP’ and ‘1.1.5 Unemployment Rate’ of Table 14. A higher GDP but a lower ‘unemployment rate’ suggest better economic performance which makes a city more ‘liveable’. In most cases where a higher value is better (e.g., GDP), the negative of the SVIs of cities are considered, and those with a lower ‘negative SVI’ will have a better ranking. However, for indicators where the inverse is true (e.g., unemployment rate), the SVI itself is compared between cities and a lower SVI value will lead to a better ranking. Step (4) of Algorithm 1, thus, seeks to make all standardizes values of all practical indicators consistent for ranking purposes. Step (6) of Algorithm 1 determines the sub-category rankings of each city. The average RSVI of all the indicators in the sub-category are calculated and compared to other cities. Cities with a lower average RSVI rank better in the sub-category. Similar to WCY, unavailable data for a particular city is replaced by the average of existing data within the sub-category. This fixes the weight of the sub-category independently of the number of criteria contained, so that each sub-category has an equal impact on the overall ranking.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch02

Empirical Framework in Ranking

49

To arrive at the city ranking for each category, the RSVIs of the subcategories are aggregated as detailed by Step (7) of Algorithm 1. Finally, Step (8) of Algorithm 1 requires the RSVI values of each category to be totaled to determine the overall ranking of the city. Cities with a lower RSVI are ranked ahead of those with a lower RSVI. Although the number of sub-categories and indicators varies for each main category, the aggregate score for each main category is given an equivalent weighting — 20% of the GLCI. Identical weights are assigned to each category as they represent equivalent significance to the computation of the GLCI. This method is repeated and applied consistently across all the cities to ensure precision of the rankings. Mathematically, this can be illustrated as follows: Global Liveable Cities Index = 20% × (Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness) + 20% × (Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability) + 20% × (Domestic Security and Stability) + 20% × (Socio-Cultural Conditions) + 20% × (Political Governance).

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

This page intentionally left blank

b1411-ch02

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

Chapter

3

THE EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND POLICY SIMULATION

3.1 GLOBAL LIVEABLE CITIES INDEX RANKING Tables 21 to 26 show the results of the ranking exercise. Table 21 shows the overall ranking for the 64 global cities, while Tables 22 to 26 show the ranking by the five categories listed in Table 8. In terms of overall ranking of the global cities, five Asian cities are in the top twenty ranking. These five Asian cities are Singapore, Hong Kong, Osaka-Kobe, Tokyo and Yokohama. In category ‘economic vibrancy & competitiveness’ (see Table 22), Hong Kong and Singapore are ranked fourth and fifth respectively amongst the top twenty global cities. Table 23 shows the ranking for the category ‘environmental friendliness & sustainability’. In this category, only three Asian cities are ranked amongst the top twenty. They are Tokyo (thirteenth position), Singapore (fourteenth position) and Osaka-Kobe (sixteenth position). On ‘domestic security & stability’ (see Table 24), Singapore (score of 4.90) emerged top with Hong Kong (score of 10.70) in second position. We note the rather large gap in the standardized scores between these two cities. Table 25 shows the ranking for the category ‘Socio-Cultural Conditions’. In this category, Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Osaka-Kobe and Yokohama are amongst the top 20 cities. For the category ‘Political Governance’ (see Table 26), only two Asian cities made it to the top twenty ranking. Singapore and Hong Kong did well in this category, taking the third and fourth positions, respectively.

51

June 19, 2012

13:32

52

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 21

Overall Ranking for 64 Global Cities. Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Geneva Zurich Singapore Copenhagen Helsinki Luxembourg Stockholm Berlin Hong Kong Auckland Melbourne Sydney Paris Vancouver Amsterdam Osaka-Kobe New York Tokyo Los Angeles Philadelphia Yokohama Boston London Chicago Washington DC Barcelona Taipei Prague Seoul Madrid Incheon Abu Dhabi Kuala Lumpur Rome Amman Jerusalem Sao Paulo Riyadh Shanghai

Europe Europe ASEAN Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Asia Oceania Oceania Oceania Europe North America Europe Asia North America Asia North America North America Asia North America Europe North America North America Europe Asia Europe Asia Europe Asia Mid East ASEAN Europe Mid East Asia South America Mid East Asia

3.40 4.60 5.60 7.00 7.00 7.80 8.20 11.20 11.20 11.60 11.60 12.00 12.40 16.20 16.80 17.80 18.20 18.60 18.80 21.40 21.40 21.60 21.60 22.40 22.80 23.20 24.00 25.80 26.20 27.00 27.40 32.00 32.00 34.00 36.60 37.00 43.40 44.00 45.00

1 2 3 4 4 6 7 8 8 10 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 21

53

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Nanjing Bangkok Shenzhen Ahmedabad Cairo Tianjin Beijing Chennai Guangzhou Pune Mexico City Damascus Chongqing Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Bengaluru Mumbai Delhi Buenos Aires Istanbul Karachi Phnom Penh Moscow Manila Jakarta

Asia ASEAN Asia Asia Mid East Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia North America Mid East Asia ASEAN ASEAN Asia Asia Asia South America Mid East Mid East ASEAN Europe ASEAN ASEAN

45.20 45.80 45.80 46.00 46.00 47.40 47.80 48.20 48.20 48.20 48.40 48.60 48.80 48.80 48.80 49.00 49.00 50.20 50.60 52.20 53.00 53.80 55.20 56.60 57.40

40 41 41 43 43 45 46 47 47 47 50 51 52 52 52 55 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Table 22

Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness Ranking for 64 Global Cities. Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Luxembourg Copenhagen Geneva Hong Kong Singapore Melbourne

Europe Europe Europe Asia ASEAN Oceania

16.13 17.78 18.43 18.87 19.78 20.57

1 2 3 4 5 6 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

54

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 22

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Helsinki Sydney Zurich Amsterdam Stockholm London Auckland Paris Berlin New York Barcelona Los Angeles Prague Philadelphia Boston Vancouver Kuala Lumpur Osaka-Kobe Taipei Jerusalem Washington DC Abu Dhabi Incheon Seoul Tokyo Yokohama Rome Chicago Riyadh Nanjing Madrid Cairo Shenzhen Tianjin Guangzhou Bangkok Chongqing Phnom Penh Shanghai

Europe Oceania Europe Europe Europe Europe Oceania Europe Europe North America Europe North America Europe North America North America North America ASEAN Asia Asia Asia North America Mid East Asia Asia Asia Asia Europe North America Mid East Asia Europe Mid East Asia Asia Asia ASEAN Asia ASEAN Asia

20.96 20.96 21.35 22.65 23.22 23.30 23.91 24.87 25.17 26.43 26.48 26.87 26.91 27.39 27.48 27.91 28.74 29.09 29.09 29.30 29.43 29.61 29.65 30.00 30.35 30.48 30.91 31.22 31.26 31.43 31.70 32.48 32.65 32.87 33.65 33.91 34.39 34.65 34.83

7 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 22

55

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Karachi Beijing Amman Damascus Istanbul Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Mexico City Jakarta Ahmedabad Pune Bengaluru Chennai Delhi Mumbai Manila Moscow Sao Paulo Buenos Aires

Mid East Asia Mid East Mid East Mid East ASEAN ASEAN North America ASEAN Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia ASEAN Europe South America South America

34.83 35.04 36.04 36.09 36.09 36.17 36.17 37.87 39.09 39.96 40.09 40.57 41.48 41.57 41.78 42.22 42.78 43.13 44.09

45 47 48 49 49 51 51 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Table 23 Cities.

Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability Ranking for 64 Global Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Stockholm Geneva Zurich Luxembourg Berlin Auckland Paris Helsinki London Barcelona Madrid

Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Oceania Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe

8.47 11.73 11.73 13.47 14.60 16.93 17.00 18.27 19.67 20.60 20.93

1 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

56

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 23

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Sao Paulo Tokyo Singapore Copenhagen Osaka-Kobe Melbourne Sydney Prague New York Los Angeles Vancouver Chicago Amsterdam Rome Yokohama Kuala Lumpur Amman Seoul Taipei Jerusalem Philadelphia Boston Washington DC Bangkok Hong Kong Incheon Buenos Aires Mexico City Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Karachi Mumbai Manila Riyadh Abu Dhabi Ahmedabad Bengaluru Shanghai Nanjing

South America Asia ASEAN Europe Asia Oceania Oceania Europe North America North America North America North America Europe Europe Asia ASEAN Mid East Asia Asia Asia North America North America North America ASEAN Asia Asia South America North America ASEAN ASEAN Mid East Asia ASEAN Mid East Mid East Asia Asia Asia Asia

21.47 22.47 22.53 23.00 23.73 24.07 24.27 25.40 25.93 26.20 26.33 26.40 26.87 27.00 27.47 27.60 29.13 29.67 29.73 29.93 30.93 30.93 30.93 30.93 31.93 31.93 32.67 32.93 33.93 33.93 34.40 34.47 34.93 35.60 35.73 36.20 36.20 36.27 36.87

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 32 32 36 36 38 39 40 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 47 49 50 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 23

57

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Shenzhen Delhi Phnom Penh Moscow Chennai Istanbul Cairo Pune Damascus Guangzhou Beijing Tianjin Chongqing Jakarta

Asia Asia ASEAN Europe Asia Mid East Mid East Asia Mid East Asia Asia Asia Asia ASEAN

36.87 36.93 37.00 37.00 37.27 37.73 38.40 38.40 42.27 43.07 43.27 43.80 44.20 44.93

50 52 53 53 55 56 57 57 59 60 61 62 63 64

Table 24

Domestic Security & Stability Ranking for 64 Global Cities. Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Singapore Hong Kong Copenhagen Auckland Helsinki Paris Berlin Taipei Luxembourg Geneva Zurich Vancouver Melbourne Sydney Tokyo Osaka-Kobe Yokohama

ASEAN Asia Europe Oceania Europe Europe Europe Asia Europe Europe Europe North America Oceania Oceania Asia Asia Asia

4.90 10.70 12.90 13.00 15.10 16.40 17.60 17.70 18.10 19.10 19.10 20.40 20.70 20.70 22.50 22.50 22.50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 12 13 13 15 15 15 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

58

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 24

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Stockholm Prague Seoul Incheon Amsterdam Cairo Abu Dhabi Amman New York Los Angeles Chicago Philadelphia Boston Washington DC Damascus Barcelona Madrid London Rome Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Kuala Lumpur Sao Paulo Shanghai Nanjing Shenzhen Guangzhou Beijing Tianjin Chongqing Buenos Aires Jakarta Riyadh Phnom Penh Mumbai Ahmedabad Bengaluru Delhi Chennai

Europe Europe Asia Asia Europe Mid East Mid East Mid East North America North America North America North America North America North America Mid East Europe Europe Europe Europe ASEAN ASEAN ASEAN South America Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia South America ASEAN Mid East ASEAN Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia

23.20 23.20 23.40 23.40 25.30 25.50 27.10 27.80 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 29.90 30.00 30.00 30.30 30.60 31.50 31.50 32.60 33.20 33.40 33.40 33.40 33.40 33.40 33.40 33.40 33.90 34.80 37.70 39.20 40.30 40.30 40.30 40.30 40.30

18 18 20 20 22 23 24 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 32 33 33 35 36 37 37 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 48 49 50 51 52 52 52 52 52 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 24

59

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Pune Istanbul Karachi Moscow Bangkok Jerusalem Mexico City Manila

Asia Mid East Mid East Europe ASEAN Asia North America ASEAN

40.30 42.30 42.70 42.70 43.00 43.80 47.40 49.90

52 58 59 59 61 62 63 64

Table 25

Socio-Cultural Conditions Ranking for 64 Global Cities. Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Geneva Zurich Stockholm Copenhagen Singapore Helsinki Vancouver Amsterdam Paris Hong Kong Berlin Tokyo Osaka-Kobe Yokohama Luxembourg Melbourne Sydney New York Los Angeles Chicago Philadelphia Boston Washington DC Abu Dhabi

Europe Europe Europe Europe ASEAN Europe North America Europe Europe Asia Europe Asia Asia Asia Europe Oceania Oceania North America North America North America North America North America North America Mid East

14.21 14.21 15.67 16.54 16.83 17.17 18.50 18.83 18.96 19.63 20.54 21.79 21.79 21.79 22.21 22.46 22.46 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 22.83 23.54

1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 15 16 16 18 18 18 18 18 18 24 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

60

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 25

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Seoul Incheon Madrid Jerusalem Barcelona Auckland Prague London Taipei Kuala Lumpur Amman Rome Riyadh Moscow Bangkok Damascus Beijing Shanghai Buenos Aires Mexico City Ahmedabad Chennai Pune Tianjin Nanjing Shenzhen Guangzhou Chongqing Cairo Istanbul Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Delhi Bengaluru Mumbai Manila Sao Paulo Karachi Phnom Penh Jakarta

Asia Asia Europe Asia Europe Oceania Europe Europe Asia ASEAN Mid East Europe Mid East Europe ASEAN Mid East Asia Asia South America North America Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East Mid East ASEAN ASEAN Asia Asia Asia ASEAN South America Mid East ASEAN ASEAN

23.67 23.67 24.29 24.29 24.46 24.54 25.92 26.04 26.08 27.13 29.21 32.17 33.00 35.63 37.04 37.08 37.42 38.29 39.25 39.29 39.71 39.71 39.71 39.75 39.79 39.79 39.79 40.08 40.21 40.29 42.96 42.96 43.58 43.75 43.96 44.54 44.92 46.54 47.13 48.75

25 25 27 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 45 45 48 49 49 49 52 53 54 55 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 26

61

Political Governance Ranking for 64 Global Cities. Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Geneva Zurich Singapore Hong Kong Auckland Melbourne Sydney Stockholm Helsinki Luxembourg Copenhagen New York Los Angeles Chicago Philadelphia Boston Washington DC Vancouver Berlin Amsterdam London Tokyo Osaka-Kobe Yokohama Taipei Paris Seoul Incheon Madrid Barcelona Ahmedabad Chennai Pune Delhi Bengaluru Mumbai Kuala Lumpur Abu Dhabi Jerusalem

Europe Europe ASEAN Asia Oceania Oceania Oceania Europe Europe Europe Europe North America North America North America North America North America North America North America Europe Europe Europe Asia Asia Asia Asia Europe Asia Asia Europe Europe Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia ASEAN Mid East Asia

12.38 12.38 13.69 14.77 15.15 16.15 16.15 16.62 16.77 17.00 18.08 18.08 18.08 18.08 18.08 18.08 18.08 18.15 18.15 19.77 19.77 23.15 23.15 23.15 26.54 27.00 29.69 29.69 29.69 29.69 31.15 31.15 31.15 31.15 31.15 31.15 31.23 33.62 34.62

1 1 3 4 5 6 6 8 9 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 18 18 20 20 22 22 22 25 26 27 27 27 27 31 31 31 31 31 31 37 38 39 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

62

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 26

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Rome Sao Paulo Prague Mexico City Istanbul Chongqing Tianjin Amman Shanghai Beijing Nanjing Shenzhen Guangzhou Riyadh Manila Bangkok Jakarta Karachi Phnom Penh Cairo Buenos Aires Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Damascus Moscow

Europe South America Europe North America Mid East Asia Asia Mid East Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East ASEAN ASEAN ASEAN Mid East ASEAN Mid East South America ASEAN ASEAN Mid East Europe

35.62 36.08 36.38 38.31 39.15 39.23 39.31 39.46 39.85 39.92 40.15 40.15 40.15 41.92 42.23 43.92 45.77 46.92 48.54 49.15 49.31 49.69 49.69 52.62 57.54

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 50 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 61 63 64

3.2 POLICY SIMULATION We now conduct a policy simulation to explore the extent to which the city is able to improve on its ‘liveability’ ranking. The simulation is based on two policy assumptions. The first policy assumption is that each city will work on areas where their rankings are worst. Specifically, each city will work in the areas identified by their 20% lowest (worst-performing) practical indicators. The weakest 20% indicators for each city were selected from the entire list

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation

b1411-ch03

63

of practical indicators regardless of which category they belong to.8 The bottom 20% is chosen because resources are limited and it is not possible for a city to work on all areas concurrently. The second policy assumption is that, after identifying the indicators where the city performance is most lagging, the cities would implement policies to raise its scores on those indicators to the ‘average’ score of that particular indicator for all cities (computed using the original data). As no city is expected to score high on all aspects in the near future, such a simulation would not result in a decline in a city’s rankings as measured by any practical indicator. The potential for improvement is revealed by the change in overall rankings after the simulation. Apart from their usefulness to policymakers, the results of the simulation will also be helpful to the business community and to potential investors. Information on the potential of cities in ‘liveability’ will enable informed decision-making on business ventures.

3.3 SIMULATION RESULTS Tables 27 to 32 shows the results of the simulation exercise. Table 27 shows the overall ranking for the 64 global cities before and after simulation, while Tables 28 to 32 compares the ranking by the five categories listed in Table 8, before and after simulation. It should be noted that the simulated rankings are static: the ‘after’ rankings’ of each city are determined assuming the particular city improves on the performance of its 20% worst performing indicators, holding the indicator performance of other cities constant. Table 28 shows the results of the ranking before and after simulation. Looking only at the category ‘economic vibrancy & competitiveness’, allowing for improvements made by cities to their 20% worst performing indicators show a significant change in rankings for many cities (e.g., Chicago improving from 34 to 5, Shanghai from 45 to 20, and Amman from 48 to 20). These cities’ poor performing indicators are probably in this category. 8 Because each of the 5 main categories comprises a different number of indicators, the subjecting of the

weakest 20% indicators to category limitations or the setting of an equal number of indicators for each category would introduce biasness into the weightings of the simulation.

June 19, 2012

13:32

64

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 27

Overall Ranking for 64 Global Cities after Simulation. Overall Liveability

City

Region

Geneva Zurich Singapore Copenhagen Helsinki Luxembourg Stockholm Berlin Hong Kong Auckland Melbourne Sydney Paris Vancouver Amsterdam Osaka-Kobe New York Tokyo Los Angeles Philadelphia Yokohama Boston London Chicago Washington DC Barcelona Taipei Prague Seoul Madrid Incheon Abu Dhabi Kuala Lumpur Rome Amman Jerusalem Sao Paulo Riyadh Shanghai

Europe Europe ASEAN Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Asia Oceania Oceania Oceania Europe North America Europe Asia North America Asia North America North America Asia North America Europe North America North America Europe Asia Europe Asia Europe Asia Mid East ASEAN Europe Mid East Asia South America Mid East Asia

Before

After

1 2 3 4 4 6 7 8 8 10 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 34 35 36 37 38 39

1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 4 2 5 4 8 6 8 9 12 8 12 14 14 14 10 14 14 15 20 16 16 15 19 22 23 29 30 26 32 35 34 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 27

65

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Nanjing Bangkok Shenzhen Ahmedabad Cairo Tianjin Beijing Chennai Guangzhou Pune Mexico City Damascus Chongqing Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Bengaluru Mumbai Delhi Buenos Aires Istanbul Karachi Phnom Penh Moscow Manila Jakarta

Asia ASEAN Asia Asia Mid East Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia North America Mid East Asia ASEAN ASEAN Asia Asia Asia South America Mid East Mid East ASEAN Europe ASEAN ASEAN

Before

After

40 41 41 43 43 45 46 47 47 47 50 51 52 52 52 55 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

34 36 35 37 35 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 35 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 53 39 41

Table 28 Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness Ranking for 64 Global Cities after Simulation. Overall Liveability City

Region

Before

After

Luxembourg Copenhagen Geneva Hong Kong Singapore

Europe Europe Europe Asia ASEAN

1 2 3 4 5

1 1 1 1 1 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

66

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 28

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Melbourne Helsinki Sydney Zurich Amsterdam Stockholm London Auckland Paris Berlin New York Barcelona Los Angeles Prague Philadelphia Boston Vancouver Kuala Lumpur Osaka-Kobe Taipei Jerusalem Washington DC Abu Dhabi Incheon Seoul Tokyo Yokohama Rome Chicago Riyadh Nanjing Madrid Cairo Shenzhen Tianjin Guangzhou Bangkok Chongqing Phnom Penh

Oceania Europe Oceania Europe Europe Europe Europe Oceania Europe Europe North America Europe North America Europe North America North America North America ASEAN Asia Asia Asia North America Mid East Asia Asia Asia Asia Europe North America Mid East Asia Europe Mid East Asia Asia Asia ASEAN Asia ASEAN

Before

After

6 7 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 7 3 5 7 5 10 5 5 6 14 7 13 16 4 14 11 10 7 10 16 5 18 16 13 37 18 33 36 31 32 37 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 28

67

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Shanghai Karachi Beijing Amman Damascus Istanbul Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Mexico City Jakarta Ahmedabad Pune Bengaluru Chennai Delhi Mumbai Manila Moscow Sao Paulo Buenos Aires

Asia Mid East Asia Mid East Mid East Mid East ASEAN ASEAN North America ASEAN Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia ASEAN Europe South America South America

Before

After

45 45 47 48 49 49 51 51 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

20 41 36 20 23 39 31 41 38 53 32 32 40 38 42 40 54 48 34 53

Table 29 Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability Ranking for 64 Global Cities after Simulation. Overall Liveability City

Region

Before

After

Stockholm Geneva Zurich Luxembourg Berlin Auckland Paris Helsinki London Barcelona

Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Oceania Europe Europe Europe Europe

1 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 2 4 4 4 6 5 6 10 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

68

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 29

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Madrid Sao Paulo Tokyo Singapore Copenhagen Osaka-Kobe Melbourne Sydney Prague New York Los Angeles Vancouver Chicago Amsterdam Rome Yokohama Kuala Lumpur Amman Seoul Taipei Jerusalem Philadelphia Boston Washington DC Bangkok Hong Kong Incheon Buenos Aires Mexico City Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Karachi Mumbai Manila Riyadh Abu Dhabi Ahmedabad Bengaluru Shanghai

Europe South America Asia ASEAN Europe Asia Oceania Oceania Europe North America North America North America North America Europe Europe Asia ASEAN Mid East Asia Asia Asia North America North America North America ASEAN Asia Asia South America North America ASEAN ASEAN Mid East Asia ASEAN Mid East Mid East Asia Asia Asia

Before

After

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 32 32 36 36 38 39 40 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 47 49

11 12 11 6 7 13 10 10 10 13 13 13 19 10 20 20 17 22 19 29 19 26 26 26 28 21 26 24 32 32 32 42 43 36 29 28 47 47 36 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 29

69

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Before

After

Nanjing Shenzhen Delhi Phnom Penh Moscow Chennai Istanbul Cairo Pune Damascus Guangzhou Beijing Tianjin Chongqing Jakarta

Asia Asia Asia ASEAN Europe Asia Mid East Mid East Asia Mid East Asia Asia Asia Asia ASEAN

50 50 52 53 53 55 56 57 57 59 60 61 62 63 64

38 38 50 44 45 55 29 32 57 57 40 40 40 40 57

Table 30 Domestic Security & Stability Ranking for 64 Global Cities after Simulation. Overall Liveability City

Region

Singapore Hong Kong Copenhagen Auckland Helsinki Paris Berlin Taipei Luxembourg Geneva Zurich Vancouver Melbourne Sydney Tokyo Osaka-Kobe

ASEAN Asia Europe Oceania Europe Europe Europe Asia Europe Europe Europe North America Oceania Oceania Asia Asia

Before

After

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 12 13 13 15 15

1 2 3 2 5 6 5 8 9 6 6 7 10 10 10 10 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

70

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 30

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Yokohama Stockholm Prague Seoul Incheon Amsterdam Cairo Abu Dhabi Amman New York Los Angeles Chicago Philadelphia Boston Washington DC Damascus Barcelona Madrid London Rome Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Kuala Lumpur Sao Paulo Shanghai Nanjing Shenzhen Guangzhou Beijing Tianjin Chongqing Buenos Aires Jakarta Riyadh Phnom Penh Mumbai Ahmedabad Bengaluru Delhi Chennai

Asia Europe Europe Asia Asia Europe Mid East Mid East Mid East North America North America North America North America North America North America Mid East Europe Europe Europe Europe ASEAN ASEAN ASEAN South America Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia South America ASEAN Mid East ASEAN Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia

Before

After

15 18 18 20 20 22 23 24 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 32 33 33 35 36 37 37 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 48 49 50 51 52 52 52 52 52

10 12 15 20 20 22 23 24 25 22 22 22 22 22 22 32 22 22 15 24 36 36 37 25 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 26 32 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 30

71

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Pune Istanbul Karachi Moscow Bangkok Jerusalem Mexico City Manila

Asia Mid East Mid East Europe ASEAN Asia North America ASEAN

Table 31 lation.

Before

After

52 58 59 59 61 62 63 64

51 50 50 59 50 39 52 51

Socio-Cultural Conditions Ranking for 64 Global Cities after SimuOverall Liveability

City

Region

Geneva Zurich Stockholm Copenhagen Singapore Helsinki Vancouver Amsterdam Paris Hong Kong Berlin Tokyo Osaka-Kobe Yokohama Luxembourg Melbourne Sydney New York Los Angeles Chicago Philadelphia Boston Washington DC Abu Dhabi

Europe Europe Europe Europe ASEAN Europe North America Europe Europe Asia Europe Asia Asia Asia Europe Oceania Oceania North America North America North America North America North America North America Mid East

Before

After

1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 15 16 16 18 18 18 18 18 18 24

1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 10 11 11 12 12 15 12 12 15 12 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

72

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 31

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Seoul Incheon Madrid Jerusalem Barcelona Auckland Prague London Taipei Kuala Lumpur Amman Rome Riyadh Moscow Bangkok Damascus Beijing Shanghai Buenos Aires Mexico City Ahmedabad Chennai Pune Tianjin Nanjing Shenzhen Guangzhou Chongqing Cairo Istanbul Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Delhi Bengaluru Mumbai Manila Sao Paulo Karachi Phnom Penh Jakarta

Asia Asia Europe Asia Europe Oceania Europe Europe Asia ASEAN Mid East Europe Mid East Europe ASEAN Mid East Asia Asia South America North America Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East Mid East ASEAN ASEAN Asia Asia Asia ASEAN South America Mid East ASEAN ASEAN

Before

After

25 25 27 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 45 45 48 49 49 49 52 53 54 55 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

12 12 12 16 12 12 16 24 31 16 31 34 36 38 36 38 37 37 38 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 38 38 42 42 39 39 45

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 32

73

Political Governance Ranking for 64 Global Cities after Simulation. Overall Liveability

City

Region

Geneva Zurich Singapore Hong Kong Auckland Melbourne Sydney Stockholm Helsinki Luxembourg Copenhagen New York Los Angeles Chicago Philadelphia Boston Washington DC Vancouver Berlin Amsterdam London Tokyo Osaka-Kobe Yokohama Taipei Paris Seoul Incheon Madrid Barcelona Ahmedabad Chennai Pune Delhi Bengaluru Mumbai Kuala Lumpur Abu Dhabi Jerusalem

Europe Europe ASEAN Asia Oceania Oceania Oceania Europe Europe Europe Europe North America North America North America North America North America North America North America Europe Europe Europe Asia Asia Asia Asia Europe Asia Asia Europe Europe Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia ASEAN Mid East Asia

Before

After

1 1 3 4 5 6 6 8 9 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 18 18 20 20 22 22 22 25 26 27 27 27 27 31 31 31 31 31 31 37 38 39

1 1 1 4 1 4 4 1 3 6 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 6 6 6 10 22 22 22 25 22 27 27 25 25 27 31 31 31 31 31 27 31 27 (Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

74

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 32

(Continued) Overall Liveability

City

Region

Rome Sao Paulo Prague Mexico City Istanbul Chongqing Tianjin Amman Shanghai Beijing Nanjing Shenzhen Guangzhou Riyadh Manila Bangkok Jakarta Karachi Phnom Penh Cairo Buenos Aires Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Damascus Moscow

Europe South America Europe North America Mid East Asia Asia Mid East Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East ASEAN ASEAN ASEAN Mid East ASEAN Mid East South America ASEAN ASEAN Mid East Europe

Before

After

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 50 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 61 63 64

38 40 38 40 43 43 43 38 41 43 42 42 43 41 43 41 43 40 44 44 53 41 41 40 55

For the category ‘environmental friendliness & sustainability’ (see Table 29), originally only three Asian cities are ranked amongst the top twenty. They are Tokyo (thirteenth position), Singapore (fourteenth position) and Osaka-Kobe (sixteenth position). The simulation shows that Asian cities such as Yokohama, Kuala Lumpur, Seoul and Jerusalem can also make their way to a better ranking, and possibly amongst the top twenty, if they work to improve on the indicators of this category. Table 30 compares the ranking of cities before and after simulation for the category ‘domestic security & stability’. The simulation shows the rankings of cities like Seoul, Incheon and Riyadh remain unchanged, while a large

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation

b1411-ch03

75

jump in ranking is observed for cities like Sao Paulo (from 40 to 25) and Jerusalem (from 62 to 39). Unlike the latter group of cities, the former group probably have their worst performing indicators in other categories rather than ‘domestic security & stability’ thus explaining the indifference of their ranking in this category after simulation. Table 31 lists the ranking before and after simulation for the category ‘Socio-Cultural Conditions’. Similar to the category ‘economic vibrancy & competitiveness’, significant improvements in rankings are made by some cities in this category when improvements to their worst performing indicators are allowed for. In fact, several cities are observed to rise rather significantly in rankings, indicating that many cities have yet to achieve a reasonable level of ‘Socio-Cultural Conditions’ relative to some cities. For the category ‘Political Governance’ (see Table 32), the rankings of cities are fairly stable for most after simulation.

3.4 ASIAN LIVEABLE CITIES RANKING Tables 33 to 38 shows the ranking when only Asian cities are taken into account of. Table 33 shows the overall ranking for the 36 Asian cities. In terms of overall ranking, Singapore (1.80) is well ahead of other Asian cities, with Hong Kong (4.80) in second position. For the category ‘economic vibrancy & competitiveness’ (see Table 34), Hong Kong ranks first of all cities in Asia, ahead of Sydney and Singapore which rank second and third respectively. Table 35 shows the ranking for the category ‘environmental friendliness & sustainability’. In this category, Auckland (7.60) scores best, with a relatively large gap in terms of standardized score from Singapore (10.80) which is second in place. As for the category ‘domestic security & stability’ (see Table 36), Singapore, Hong Kong and Auckland are the top three cities in Asia. Table 37 shows the ranking of cities in Asia in terms of ‘Socio-Cultural Conditions’. In this category, Singapore takes the top position, while Tokyo, Osaka-Kobe and Yokohama share the second position. Finally, Hong Kong, Singapore and Auckland did well by clinching the top three positions respectively for the category ‘Political Governance’ (see Table 38).

June 19, 2012

13:32

76

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 33

Overall Ranking for 36 Asian Cities. Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Singapore Hong Kong Auckland Sydney Melbourne Osaka-Kobe Tokyo Yokohama Seoul Taipei Incheon Kuala Lumpur Abu Dhabi Amman Nanjing Shanghai Shenzhen Tianjin Beijing Chongqing Guangzhou Ahmedabad Riyadh Chennai Bangkok Bengaluru Mumbai Pune Delhi Ho Chi Minh City Damascus Istanbul Karachi Phnom Penh Manila Jakarta

ASEAN Asia Oceania Oceania Oceania Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia ASEAN Mid East Mid East Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East Asia ASEAN Asia Asia Asia Asia ASEAN Mid East Mid East Mid East ASEAN ASEAN ASEAN

1.80 4.80 5.00 5.20 5.40 6.20 7.00 7.80 8.20 8.60 8.80 12.00 15.60 16.60 19.60 20.20 20.60 21.20 21.60 21.80 22.00 22.20 22.40 23.00 23.20 23.60 23.60 23.80 24.60 25.80 26.00 28.00 28.80 29.80 31.40 32.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 34 Cities.

77

Economic Vibrancy & Competitiveness Ranking for 36 Asian Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Hong Kong Sydney Singapore Melbourne Auckland Taipei Kuala Lumpur Osaka-Kobe Nanjing Incheon Seoul Yokohama Tokyo Shenzhen Tianjin Abu Dhabi Guangzhou Shanghai Chongqing Riyadh Beijing Bangkok Istanbul Karachi Phnom Penh Amman Ho Chi Minh City Damascus Ahmedabad Pune Bengaluru Jakarta Mumbai Chennai Delhi Manila

Asia Oceania ASEAN Oceania Oceania Asia ASEAN Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East Asia Asia Asia Mid East Asia ASEAN Mid East Mid East ASEAN Mid East ASEAN Mid East Asia Asia Asia ASEAN Asia Asia Asia ASEAN

9.74 10.13 10.17 10.22 12.96 14.13 14.48 14.65 14.91 15.09 15.22 15.39 15.57 15.65 15.78 15.96 16.22 16.57 16.61 16.96 17.09 17.78 18.22 18.74 19.00 19.22 19.74 19.96 20.43 20.48 20.96 21.00 21.09 21.35 21.48 23.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

June 19, 2012

13:32

78

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 35 Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability Ranking for 36 Asian Cities. Overall Liveability City

Region

Score

Rank

Auckland Singapore Melbourne Sydney Tokyo Osaka-Kobe Seoul Amman Kuala Lumpur Yokohama Incheon Bangkok Taipei Mumbai Hong Kong Chennai Ahmedabad Bengaluru Delhi Karachi Ho Chi Minh City Manila Riyadh Pune Abu Dhabi Shanghai Nanjing Shenzhen Istanbul Phnom Penh Guangzhou Beijing Damascus Tianjin Chongqing Jakarta

Oceania ASEAN Oceania Oceania Asia Asia Asia Mid East ASEAN Asia Asia ASEAN Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East ASEAN ASEAN Mid East Asia Mid East Asia Asia Asia Mid East ASEAN Asia Asia Mid East Asia Asia ASEAN

7.60 10.80 10.93 11.00 11.07 11.40 12.73 13.20 13.27 13.67 14.20 14.67 14.73 15.40 15.93 16.00 16.60 16.60 16.93 17.07 17.13 17.27 17.53 17.87 17.93 18.07 18.67 18.67 18.67 19.00 19.87 21.07 21.67 22.73 23.07 23.20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 27 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 36

79

Domestic Security & Stability Ranking for 36 Asian Cities. Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Singapore Hong Kong Auckland Taipei Seoul Incheon Melbourne Sydney Tokyo Osaka-Kobe Yokohama Abu Dhabi Amman Ho Chi Minh City Shanghai Nanjing Shenzhen Guangzhou Beijing Damascus Tianjin Chongqing Kuala Lumpur Jakarta Riyadh Phnom Penh Mumbai Chennai Ahmedabad Bengaluru Delhi Pune Karachi Bangkok Istanbul Manila

ASEAN Asia Oceania Asia Asia Asia Oceania Oceania Asia Asia Asia Mid East Mid East ASEAN Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East Asia Asia ASEAN ASEAN Mid East ASEAN Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East ASEAN Mid East ASEAN

3.10 4.30 7.20 7.50 9.60 9.60 11.20 11.20 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.10 13.40 14.70 15.30 15.30 15.30 15.30 15.30 15.30 15.30 15.30 17.10 19.10 19.90 21.10 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.70 24.50 24.50 28.20

1 2 3 4 5 5 7 7 9 9 9 12 13 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 23 24 25 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 33 34 34 36

June 19, 2012

13:32

80

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 37

Socio-Cultural Conditions Ranking for 36 Asian Cities. Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Singapore Tokyo Osaka-Kobe Yokohama Hong Kong Abu Dhabi Seoul Incheon Melbourne Sydney Taipei Kuala Lumpur Auckland Amman Riyadh Beijing Bangkok Damascus Shanghai Chongqing Tianjin Nanjing Shenzhen Guangzhou Chennai Ahmedabad Pune Istanbul Delhi Bengaluru Mumbai Ho Chi Minh City Manila Karachi Phnom Penh Jakarta

ASEAN Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East Asia Asia Oceania Oceania Asia ASEAN Oceania Mid East Mid East Asia ASEAN Mid East Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East Asia Asia Asia ASEAN ASEAN Mid East ASEAN ASEAN

8.79 9.33 9.33 9.33 9.71 11.00 11.29 11.29 11.33 11.33 12.50 12.50 12.75 13.25 16.17 18.42 18.50 18.58 18.63 19.17 19.50 19.54 19.54 19.54 20.04 20.04 20.04 20.13 22.08 22.21 22.38 22.67 23.08 24.92 25.63 26.67

1 2 2 2 5 6 7 7 9 9 11 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 22 25 25 25 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation Table 38

81

Political Governance Ranking for 36 Asian Cities. Overall Liveability

City

Region

Score

Rank

Hong Kong Singapore Auckland Melbourne Sydney Tokyo Osaka-Kobe Yokohama Taipei Kuala Lumpur Seoul Incheon Chennai Ahmedabad Pune Delhi Bengaluru Mumbai Abu Dhabi Chongqing Tianjin Amman Shanghai Beijing Nanjing Shenzhen Guangzhou Istanbul Riyadh Manila Bangkok Jakarta Karachi Phnom Penh Ho Chi Minh City Damascus

Asia ASEAN Oceania Oceania Oceania Asia Asia Asia Asia ASEAN Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East Asia Asia Mid East Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Mid East Mid East ASEAN ASEAN ASEAN Mid East ASEAN ASEAN Mid East

5.85 6.38 8.00 8.23 8.23 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.92 13.69 14.62 14.62 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 15.15 19.46 19.54 19.62 20.08 20.15 20.31 20.31 20.31 20.38 20.46 22.77 23.23 24.54 25.38 25.38 27.08 28.85

1 2 3 4 4 6 6 6 9 10 11 11 13 13 13 13 13 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 25 28 29 30 31 32 33 33 35 36

June 19, 2012

13:32

82

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch03

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

3.5 DISCUSSION OF THE GLOBAL LIVEABLE CITIES INDEX RANKING The overall liveability results of the GLCI ranking have placed Geneva in the top position followed by Zurich and Singapore in the second and third position respectively. Sharing the fourth position are Copenhagen and Helsinki while Luxembourg takes the sixth position. From the standardized values, Geneva has a lead over the other cities as it performed exceptionally well in four out of the five GLCI categories, namely economics, environment, social and governance aspects. The European cities dominate the top ten. These European cities also perform well in categories like ‘economic vibrancy & competitiveness’, ‘environmental friendliness & sustainability’, and ‘socio-cultural conditions’. In the aspects of ‘domestic security & stability’, Geneva and Zurich performed relatively less well in the number of new drug cases and fatalities from terrorist attacks, thus pulling its security ranking below cities like Hong Kong and Singapore. Since Zurich and Geneva are both cities of Switzerland, they have similar rankings in terms of government, social and environment aspects as a result of the proxy technique of replacing national statistics for city statistics when the latter is absent. Switzerland’s internal stability, environment friendliness, great public services and transportation have aided its cities to achieve a higher rating in liveability. However, Zurich did not perform as well as Geneva in terms of economic performance, thus explaining its second place. Singapore, placed third, performs strongly in areas of political governance, socio-cultural conditions, and domestic security and stability. The city has performed especially well in the security and stability category because it has the least number of homicide cases per 10,000 capita, and had very few cases of civil unrest or violence. Singapore’s performance in ‘political governance’ stands out because of its outstanding scores in the subcategories ‘policy making & implementation’ and ‘corruption’. However, in terms of ‘environment friendliness & sustainability’, Singapore fares badly compared to other high ranking cities. This poor performance can be attributed to the lack in ‘terrestrial protected area’, ‘protected marine area’ and ‘electricity generated from renewable sources’. One reason for the poor showing in these sub-categories could be because Singapore is one of

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

The Empirical Findings and Policy Simulation

b1411-ch03

83

the smallest cities in terms of land area, and is thus unable to compete with cities that have abundant land. It must be admitted that the ranking of cities is full of controversies. The first type of controversy is the big picture controversy of whether one could capture in a meaningful way the many qualitatively different aspects of city life with a single number. If the addition of six oranges to six apples is said to equal twelve imaginary opples, would the addition of eleven oranges to one apple also equal to 12 imaginary opples? There is no answer to this big picture controversy, but there is a heuristic response that seems sensible. If we admit that there is indeed the phenomenon of some people missing the big picture by seeing only the trees and not the forest, then we could say that whether we take the forest as the unit of analysis or the tree as the unit of analysis depends on the question that we are asking. If we are asking about liveability, then it is hard to avoid looking at a bundle of attributes. The second type of controversy in the ranking of cities is the small picture controversies: the quibble over technical details on each issue. For example, what are the weights that we should put on oranges and apples after we decided that we could indeed add them up? The EIU-Competitiveness Index assigns different weights to its categories without offering explanation or apologies. The GLCI adopts the maximum entropy principle (actually “maximum agnosticism principle”) by putting equal weights on every category. Maybe, perhaps, the next step in the research is to obtain the weights from a survey on people’s preferences. But then, what should be the composition of the survey sample? This technical question is only the first of the taxing questions on technical details. For example, should the weights on the categories depend on the income level of that city because we know that a consumer’s taste on goods and services depends on her income level? Should the comparison of cities be done by income groups, i.e., one could legitimately compare Lagos with Kolkata but not with Geneva? Clearly, there is a lot of interesting work to be done in the next phase of our city-ranking project.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

This page intentionally left blank

b1411-ch03

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch04

Chapter

4

THE LIVEABLE CITY-STATES OF HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE

4.1 HOW SINGAPORE AND HONG KONG DIFFER IN CONDITIONS Hong Kong and Singapore are more than cities, they are also de facto sovereign city-states. This chapter is a case study of this special category of cities. Hong Kong is much bigger than Singapore because of its possession of the New Territories. Hong Kong is still, however, more densely populated than Singapore. To overcome spatial size and to optimize the sea-front for aesthetic views and sea breezes, both city-states have built skyward and tunnel down deep. Hong Kong has hill-views and heights, and Singapore has man-made islands. The geo-economics and geo-politics are more facts than choices for Hong Kong and Singapore, and so they have stressed different policy objectives. Both city-states influenced by the politics of neighbourly rivalry. Singapore is multi-racial while Hong Kong predominantly Chinese has dominance. In Singapore, cohesive multi-racial society and community are in-built in its extensive public housing estates, in that each housing estate has various ethnic groups with sufficient diversities. Ethnic enclaves are politically unacceptable because of the history of communal riots and the negative reactions of neighbouring countries to this kind of riots.

85

June 19, 2012

13:32

86

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch04

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

Both city-states have a similar British colonial legacy and owed their initial economic development to being entrepôt gateways. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are now knowledge-based economies which, in their own different ways, attract multinational corporations (MNCs), direct foreign investment (DFI) and knowledge workers. Both city-states tout themselves to be appealing places to work, play, live and raise families. They both have to be fashionably cosmopolitan in order to become the locations for international financial centres, business headquarters, and economic hubs for trade, commerce sectors, and high-technology manufacturing. With a rising China (now the world’s second-largest economy) at its doorstep, Hong Kong certainly seems to enjoy greater economic sustainability than Singapore. Hong Kong’s proximity to China gives Hong Kong firms the scalability and market size that makes Singapore go green with envy. Hong Kong is generally more laissez-faire than Singapore (Low, 2006), which is why it is often said that Hong Kong is run by tycoons, Singapore is run by bureaucrats. Roughly speaking, Singapore has an Asian welfare system in the sense that individuals and households have to provision for their education, health and social security safety nets, because the state does not provide them free (Low and Aw, 2004). Over the years, however, Singapore has tried to become more liberal in order to attract foreign investment and talents; and Hong Kong has began undertaking some benign state interventions, especially in managing crises in the stock and real estate markets. Hong Kong thrives on day-to-day street-life, and Singapore has created artificial street performances in order to prevent performance in public places for gratuities. The great buzz of chaos on Hong Kong streets reflects a way of life as much as Singapore’s orderliness as a ‘fine’ city with penalties imposed on what is deemed ‘un-Singaporean’ behaviour. In contrast to Singapore’s legalistic approach, there is the well-known case of a Kyoto lady who gamely picks up rubbish left by non-Japanese visitors in her beloved clean Kyoto. Furthermore, some ugly Singaporeans are, reportedly, gleefully escaping from their ‘fine’ home-city to despoil their nearest neighbour, Malaysia. In short, what constitutes liveability in freestyle Hong Kong or sanitized Singapore or selfless Kyoto is as basic as the cultural DNA of each of these Asian cities.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

The Liveable City-States of Hong Kong and Singapore

b1411-ch04

87

4.2 SINGAPORE’S PUSH FOR ECOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY Singapore in the last 25 years has doubled in population to over 5 million. Singapore is managing its vulnerability to water shortage by having four national taps • • • •

imported Malaysian water, own reservoirs, desalinated water and NEWater (which is recycled water that is potable).

In the last quarter of century, the green cover of planted areas in Singapore has grown from some one-third of its land mass to over one-half (International Herald Tribune, 2011). The plan for Singapore in the 1960s and 1970s was to become a garden city. Singapore now has a 10-year green development plan to make Singapore into a city in a garden or a green biopolis in the whole garden-island adorned by creating pervasive greenery, biodiversity, wildlife all around the island city-state. Some 10% of the total land area has been set aside for more parks and nature reserves in the next 10–15 years. This will expand the green lungs of Singapore from the present 3,300 hectares to 4,200 hectares. Singapore has been a fast learner from other global cities about how to reinvent itself with a new green vision. An example that has been influential on Singapore’s policy switch is the emergence of London Sustainable Industries Park (SIP) at Dagenham Dock from the ashes of its dirty industrial past as the location of a coal-fired power station to become one of the largest concentration environmental business the UK (London, CNN, 2012). Another influential example is the establishment of an eco-industrial park in the city of Kalundborg in Denmark in 1972. Singapore’s latest biodiversity scheme is a S$1billion (US$829 million) “Gardens by the Bay” project on reclaimed land in Marina. The first phase is a 101-hectare green site at Bay South Garden that would open in 2012. While there are no plans to introduce wildlife into the gardens, the National Parks Board is going to populate the gardens with newly resurgent species like hornbills, kingfishers, and dragonflies. The Bay South Garden has two

June 19, 2012

13:32

88

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch04

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

giant conservatories with new architectural landmarks: • a 1.2-hectare Flower Dome conservatory to replicate the Mediterranean climate including the semi-arid subtropical environment; and • a 0.8 hectare Cloud Forest conservatory replicates the cool-moist climate tropical mountain regions as 1,000–3,500 meter or half to 2-mile above sea level. Such green lungs enhance the quality of urban environment, just as New York’s Central Park and London’s Hyde Park have done. It is wellknown that the value of land adjacent to significantly well-designed green space features could rise by 15–20%. It might not have been a conscious idea for Singapore in the 1960s to conserve biodiversity when it implemented its garden city policy, but the resulting creation of value by biodiversity prompted a creative innovative policy for bio-polis. Even Changi International Airport in Singapore has a butterfly park built with man-made glass. Singapore’s legendary orderliness is now taking a new turn. The 1970s practice of all-purpose, useful, roadside trees of the same height is being replaced by a more natural second-phase biomimicry as exemplified by the Bay South Garden project. Singapore’s policy shift is part of the global effort to reconnect cities to nature as called for in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya in October 2011. This UN Convention has formulated a strategic plan to conserve planet biodiversity over the next 10 years by setting 20 ambitious targets; amongst which are: • restoring at least 15% degraded areas; • extending protected terrestrial areas from the present 13% of land to 17% of land; and • expanding protected marine areas from 1% to 10%. Singapore is responding to this global wake-up call with its liveable city concept which is contributing to its competitiveness as well as a strategy for attracting creative and innovative global talents.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch05

Chapter

5

THE GLOBAL LIVEABLE CITIES INDEX IN PERSPECTIVE

5.1 THE HARD QUESTIONS So what now that we have the Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) in hand? This is the most natural question indeed. It is justified to ask how the GLCI is different from the city indices constructed by other researchers. More relevantly, is the GLCI better than the other city indices? Are there any important facets of liveability that GLCI captures that the major city indices have overlooked or downplayed? And, what should be the work agenda for our continued efforts to improve the accuracy of GLCI as the indicator of the liveability of a city? The answers to these hard questions require a systematic comparison of the GLCI with the existing major city indices. After reviewing many city indices, we have selected the following six major city indices for comparison with the GLCI: 1. the Global Power City Index issued by the Mori Memorial Foundation, which we will call the Mori Index; 2. the Global Cities Index issued jointly by the Foreign Policy magazine, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and A.T. Kearney (a management consulting firm), which we will call the Foreign Policy Index; 3. the Global Cities Index issued jointly by Knight Frank (a wealth management consulting firm) and Citi Private Bank, which we will call the Knight Frank Index; 4. the Global City Competitiveness Index issued jointly by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) of The Economist magazine and CitiGroup, which we will call the EIU-Competitiveness Index; 89

June 19, 2012

13:32

90

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch05

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

5. the Quality of Living Index issued by Mercer, a management consulting firm, which we will call the Mercer Index; and 6. the Liveability Ranking issued by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), which we will call the EIU-Liveability Index.

5.2 DETAILS OF THE SIX OTHER CITY INDICES The Mori Index “evaluates and ranks thirty-five major cities according to their magnetism i.e., their comprehensive power to attract creative people and excellent companies from around the world amidst accelerated interurban competition. … Thirty-five of the world’s major cities are selected and evaluated on six main functions representing city strength” which are identified as9 : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Economy Research & Development Cultural Interaction Liveability Environment; and Accessibility.

The discussion in the Mori Index report puts special emphasis on the performance of Tokyo in relation to the other cities: “It is hoped that these results will serve as a benchmark of the strengths and weaknesses which Tokyo and other global cities possess, and be utilized as a helpful resource in the development of urban policies and corporate strategies (pp. 1)”. The Knight Frank Index is contained in The Wealth Report: A Global Perspective on Prime Property and Wealth 2011.10 The objective behind this index of forty cities is “to assess key markets across the world in terms of their provision of investment opportunities and their influence on global business leaders and the political elite.” (pp. 18). The four dimensions that comprise the Knight Frank index are: 1. Economic activity 2. Political power 9 Preceding quote and following list of dimension as in pp. 1 of Mori Memorial Foundation (2011). 10 See Knight Frank (2011a) and Knight Frank (2011b).

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

The Global Liveable Cities Index in Perspective

b1411-ch05

91

3. Quality of life 4. Knowledge and Influence The Wealth Report of 2011 claims to have reached “an even better understanding of what motivates ultra-high net worth individuals (UHNWIs) around the world when it comes to their attitudes towards wealth and the decisions that shape their investments. The results of our unique Attitudes Survey are more global than ever before and reflect the sentiments of almost 5,000 UHNWIs worth on average more than $100 m each (pp. 5). … The Wealth Report Attitudes Survey 2011 was completed online at the beginning of 2011 by 160 Citi Private Bank wealth advisers representing almost 5,000 UHNWIs from 36 countries and worth on average more than $100 m. Responses were based either on the adviser’s own opinion or their understanding of their clients’ attitudes (pp. 62)”. The Foreign Policy Index is reported in The Urban Elite: The A.T. Kearney Global Cities Index 2010 issued by A.T. Kearney (2010) and in Foreign Policy (2010). This index ranks sixty-five global cities which it describes as “the ports of the global age, the places that both run the global economy and influence its direction . . . In a word, they have clout” (Kearney, 2010, pp. 1). The Foreign Policy Index incorporates the following five dimensions and attaches weights on each of them: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Business activity (weight = 30%) Human capital (weight = 30%) Information exchange (weight = 15%) Cultural experience (weight = 15%) Political engagement (weight = 10%)

The EIU-Competitiveness Index covers 120 cities and seeks to “rank cities according to their demonstrated ability to attract capital, businesses, talent and visitors” (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2011, pp. 3). This index aggregates eight dimensions with the following weights attached: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Economic strength (weight = 30%) Physical capital (weight = 10%) Financial maturity (weight = 10%) Institutional effectiveness (weight = 15%) Social and cultural character (weight = 5%)

June 19, 2012

13:32

92

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch05

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

6. Human capital (weight = 15%) 7. Environment and natural hazards (weight = 5%) 8. Global appeal (weight = 10%) The Mercer Index is based on a survey of the living standard in 221 cities. The objective of the Mercer Index is “to help governments and multi-national companies compensate employees fairly when placing them on international assignments. Mercer’s Quality of Living reports provide valuable information and hardship premium recommendations for major cities throughout the world” (Mercer, 2011). Mercer summarises the living conditions in each city by grouping 39 factors under the following 10 categories: 1. Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc.) 2. Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc.) 3. Socio-cultural environment (censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc.) 4. Health and sanitation (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc.) 5. Schools and education (standard and availability of international schools, etc.) 6. Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transport, traffic congestion, etc.) 7. Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc.) 8. Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc.) 9. Housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc.) 10. Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters) The EIU-Liveability Index is similar to the Mercer Index in that it “originated as a means of testing whether Human Resource Departments needed to assign a hardship allowance as part of expatriate relocation packages.” According to Wikipedia, the “Economist Intelligence Unit’s

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch05

The Global Liveable Cities Index in Perspective

93

livability also uses data from the Mercer consulting group”.11 This index considers five dimensions and assigned the following weights to each dimension for 140 cities: 1. Stability (prevalence of petty crime, violent crime, threat of military and civil conflict, and threat of terrorism), weight = 25% 2. Healthcare (availability and quality of private and public healthcare, general healthcare indicators, availability of over the counter drugs, healthcare rating), weight = 20% 3. Culture and Environment (humidity/temperature rating; social/religious/press restrictions, sporting and cultural availability, food and drink, consumer goods and services), weight = 25% 4. Education (availability and quality of private education, public education indicators), weight = 10% 5. Infrastructure (quality of road network, energy, housing, water, telecommunications, international links, public transport), weight = 20% We note that the professed objective of the Mercer Index and the EIULiveability Index is to focus on the quality of life in the sense of “pleasant living, especially for the expatriate”.

5.3 THE CLOUT CLUB AND THE COMFORT CLUB Table 39 reports the 10 top-rated cities according to the above six city indices and GLCI. (The top 10 cities in GLCI actually turn out to be 11 cities because Auckland and Melbourne tied for the 10th place.) Because there is some overlap in the contents of each index, the seven city indices contain 34 different cities. The information in Table 39 is processed in: • Table 40 to show the number of times that a city appears in the indices, i.e., a city citation record; • Table 41 to show how many indices that a particular index overlaps with, i.e., an index citation record; and • Table 42 to show what cities overlap when a bilateral comparison is made. 11 Wikipedia, “World’s most livable cities,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_most_livable_

cities. Accessed on March 15, 2012.

June 19, 2012

The Top 10-Ranked Cities in Each City Index.

Foreign Policy and AT Kearney

Knight Frank and Citibank

Economist Intelligence Unit and Citibank

Economist Intelligence Unit

Name of Index

Global Power City

Global Cities

Global Cities

Global City Competitiveness

Livability

Year

Centre for Liveable Cities

Quality of Life

Global Livable Cities

35

65

40

120

140

221

64

2011

2010

2011

2011

2011

2011

2010

Rank

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

1

New York

New York

New York

New York

Melbourne

Vienna

Geneva

2

London

London

London

London

Vienna

Zurich

Zurich

3

Paris

Tokyo

Paris

Singapore

Vancouver

Auckland

Singapore

4

Tokyo

Paris

Tokyo

Paris

Toronto

Munich

Copenhagen

5

Singapore

Hong Kong

Brussels

Hong Kong

Calgary

Dusseldorf

Helsinki

6

Berlin

Chicago

Los Angeles

Tokyo

Sydney

Vancouver

Luxembourg

7

Seoul

Los Angeles

Singapore

Zurich

Helsinki

Frankfurt

Stockholm

8

Hong Kong

Singapore

Beijing

Washington DC

Perth

Geneva

Berlin

9

Amsterdam

Sydney

Toronto

Chicago

Adelaide

Bern

Hong Kong

Frankfurt

Seoul

Berlin

Boston

Auckland

Copenhagen

Auckland

10 10

Melbourne

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

Sample Size

Mercer

9in x 6in

Mori Memorial Foundation

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

Source of Index

13:32

94

Table 39

b1411-ch05

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch05

The Global Liveable Cities Index in Perspective

95

Table 40 Citation Record of Each City. Of the 34 Different Cities that Occupy the Top 10 Spots of Each of the 7 Indices, How Often is a Particular City Mentioned? City Singapore Hong Kong London New York City Paris Tokyo Auckland Berlin Zurich Chicago Copenhagen Frankfurt Geneva Helsinki Los Angeles Melbourne Seoul Sydney Toronto Vancouver Vienna Adelaide Amsterdam Beijing Bern Boston Brussels Calgary Dusseldorf Luxembourg Munich Perth Stockholm Washington DC

Frequency Mentioned 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Note: EIU-C = EIU-Competiveness EIU-L = EIU-Liveability

Listed in Top Ten in the City Index of:

Mori, Foreign Policy, Knight Frank, EIU-C, GLCI Mori, Foreign Policy, EIU-C, GLCI Mori, Foreign Policy, Knight Frank, EIU-C Mori, Foreign Policy, Knight Frank, EIU-C Mori, Foreign Policy, Knight Frank, EIU-C Mori, Foreign Policy, Knight Frank, EIU-C EIU-L, Mercer, GLCI Mori, Knight Frank, GLCI EIU-C, Mercer, GLCI Foreign Policy, EIU-C Mercer, GLCI Mori, Mercer Mercer-GLCI EIU-L, GLCI Foreign Policy, Knight Frank EIU-L, GLCI Mori, Foreign Policy Foreign Policy, EIU-L Knight Frank, EIU-L EIU-L, Mercer EIU-L, Mercer EIU-L Mori Knight Frank Mercer EIU-C Knight-Frank EIU-L Mercer GLCI Mercer EIU-L GLCI EIU-C

June 19, 2012

13:32

96

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch05

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 41

City Index GLCI Foreign Policy Mori Knight Frank EIU-Competitiveness EIU-Liveability Mercer

Citation Record of Each City Index. Number of Indices With Which This Index Has Overlap

Number of Cities in This Index Which Appears in Other Indices

6 5 5 5 5 4 3

9 9 8 8 7 6 5

Table 40 shows that Singapore appears five times12 , making it the most cited city in the Top-10 cities of the seven city indices. Five cities appear four times, and they are Hong Kong, London, New York City, Paris and Tokyo. Three cities (Auckland, Berlin and Zurich) appear three times; 12 cities appear twice; and 13 cities appear only once. Since the highest citation is five and it is only for one city, and that the second highest citation of four was achieved by only five cities, it appears that there is not too much overlap in the Top-10 cities of the seven indices. Table 41 documents the number of indices that a particular index overlaps with. GLCI has overlap with all six of the other indices. Mori Index, Knight Frank Index and EIU-Competitiveness Index each overlaps with five other indices. EIU-Liveability overlaps with four other indices, and the Mercer Index overlaps only with three other indices. The differences in overlap among the seven city indices might suggest that the GLCI contains many of the characteristics of the other six indices, and that the characteristics of the Mercer Index are substantially different from the characteristics of the Mori Index, the Foreign Policy Index, and the Knight Frank Index. This interpretation is boosted by that nine cities in the Top-10 list of GLCI are in the Top-10 lists of the other six indices, whereas only five cities in the Top-10 list of the Mercer Index are in the Top-10 lists of other indices. In short, there is significant disparity in the citation record of the seven city indices, and the GLCI is the most cited city index. 12 This means that Singapore is in the Top-10 cities of the Mori Index, the Foreign Policy Index, the

Knight Frank Index, the EIU-Competitiveness Index, and GLCI.

June 19, 2012

Mori

EIU- Competitiveness

EIUCompetitiveness

EIU-Livability

Mercer

GLCI

6 overlap: 6 overlap: New York, New York, London, Paris, London, Paris, Tokyo, Tokyo, Singapore, Singapore, Hong Kong Berlin

no overlap

no overlap

3 overlap: Singapore, Hong Kong, Berlin

6 overlap: 6 overlap: New York, New York, London, Paris, London, Paris, Tokyo, Tokyo, Singapore, Singapore, Hong Kong Los Angeles

1 overlap: Sydney

no overlap

2 overlap: Singapore, Hong Kong

5 overlap: New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore

1 overlap: Toronto

no overlap

2 overlap: Singapore, Berlin

no overlap

1 overlap: Zurich

3 overlap: Singapore, Hong Kong, Zurich

b1411-ch05

97

(Continued)

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

Knight Frank

Knight Frank

The Global Liveable Cities Index in Perspective

Foreign Policy

7 overlap: New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore, Hong Kong, Seoul

Overlap of Cities in the Seven City Indices.

9in x 6in

Mori

Foreign Policy

13:32

Table 42

June 19, 2012

EIUCompetitiveness

EIU-Livability

Mercer 1 overlap: Vienna

GLCI

GLCI

b1411-ch05

Note: The suggested interpretations of the patterns in Table 40 and Table 41 are supported by the degree of overlap between any two indices reported in Table 42. There is very large overlap in the Top-10 lists of the Mori Index, the Foreign Policy Index, and the Knight Frank Index. The top 4 cities in these four indices are the same: New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo. These four cities are also found in the Top-10 list of the EIU-Competitiveness Index, but are absent from the Top-10 lists of the EIU-Liveability Index, the Mercer Index and GLCI. As there is general agreement that New York, London, Paris and Tokyo are strong global centers of economic, financial, political, and cultural power, we call this grouping of the Mori Index, the Foreign Policy Index, the Knight Frank Index and the EIU-Competitiveness Index the “Clout Club Indices”. And we will call the top 10 cities in these four indices the Clout Club Cities. The lower rank of Tokyo in the EIU-Competitiveness Index (6th spot) than in the other three indices in the Clout Club is possibly the result of the former giving attention to the quality of life of the working professionals as well as to the quality of life of the financial and cultural elite. For the working professionals, factors like “the quality of the public school system”, “the adequacy of the mass transit system” and “the cost of healthcare” matter greatly, as they have less money and connections than the elite in overcoming inadequacies on these fronts. The Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU, 2011a) pays some attention to the working professional because the “one thing that can stop a city cold in its tracks is not having the right kind of talented people, or not being able to attract those kinds of people.”

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

3 overlap: Helsinki, Melbourne, Auckland 4 overlap: Zurich, Geneva, Copenhagen, Auckland

9in x 6in

Mercer

Knight Frank

13:32

EIU- Livability

Foreign Policy

(Continued)

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

Mori

98

Table 42

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

The Global Liveable Cities Index in Perspective

b1411-ch05

99

The EIU (2011a) noted that such “talented individuals are also typically highly mobile” and cited Kuala Lumpur as “an example of a city whose otherwise strong growth prospects are set back by talent shortages, exacerbated by the steady emigration of skilled locals” (pp. 19).13 This attention to the quality of life for the working professionals explains: • why Tokyo has the lower rank in the EIU-Competitiveness Index than in the Mori, Foreign Policy and Knight Frank indices; and • why there is no match between the Top-10 cities in Mori, Foreign Policy and Knight Frank indices and the Top-10 cities in the Mercer Index, and why the Top-10 cities of EIU-Competitiveness and Mercer overlap (only minimally because only Zurich is common to both indices). In a word, the EIU-Competitiveness Index is the “wet” (soft member) in the Clout Club.14 In general, the indices of the Clout Club value cities that are global centres of financial power, economic prowess, political influence, social status, and cultural leadership. All four indices of the Clout Club have five common members in their Top 10 lists: New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, and Singapore. Hong Kong appears in three of the indices (Mori, Foreign Policy, and EIU-Competitiveness). To use our terminology consistently, Singapore is a core member of the Clout Club Cities (like New York, London, Tokyo and Paris), and Hong Kong is the “wet” in the core group. The remaining Clout Club Cities — Berlin, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seoul, Amsterdam, Beijing, Boston, Frankfurt, Sydney, Toronto, Washington D.C., and Zurich — are ordinary members. The reason why Singapore and Hong Kong are core members of the Clout Club Cities lies not just in these cities being the central nodes of financial and economic decision-making in their geographical regions but also in these two cities being the central nodes of knowledge and cultural propagation from the West for their geographical regions. In the last two decades, both Singapore and Hong Kong have also increased greatly their capabilities in knowledge generation, and improved tremendously their liveability through innovative urban investments. 13 Woo (2011) argues that this brain drain from Malaysian is one of the important reasons why Malaysia

is now stuck in the middle income trap. 14 A “wet” is “a politician with liberal tendencies, especially as regarded by the right-wing members of his party” (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993, pp. 3659).

June 19, 2012

13:32

100

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch05

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

As noted, both the EIU-Liveability and the Mercer indices emphasize “pleasant living” and so we will call this grouping the “Comfort Club Indices”; and the top 10 cities in each index the Comfort Club Cities. We note, however, that these two self-professed “pleasantness-of-living” indices have very little overlap. Their respective Top-10 lists share only Vienna in common. One might think that we are flippant, but we are not, when we propose the hypothesis that the lack of overlap between the top 10 cities in Mercer and EIU-Liveability indices reflects the facts 1. that what is pleasant depends on one’s taste, and 2. that taste can differ substantially across individuals, even those at the same social level, with the same level of education, and from the same broad racial category. The substantiation of our bold hypothesis that the members of the Comfort Club Indices differ strongly in taste comes from the difference in the common language trait in the respective top 10 cities identified by the Mercer Index and the EIU-Liveability. Six of the top 10 cities in the Mercer Index (Vienna, Zurich, Munich, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, and Bern) are German-speaking, and two of them (Copenhagen and Geneva) are right on the border both of the Germanic cultural sphere and the Germanic geographical sphere. Auckland and Vancouver are the exceptions to the other eight cities. They are clearly outside of the Germanic geographical sphere and clearly more within the British cultural heritage of tea-and-scone than the Germanic cultural heritage of beer-and-sausage. In general, the Mercer Index favours the Germanic taste on what makes life pleasant. The EIU-Liveability Index, on the other hand, favours the British taste on the pleasantries in life. Eight of the top 10 cities in this index — Melbourne, Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, Sydney, Perth, Adelaide and Auckland — are English-speaking. It is, however, notable that no cities within the British Isles made it to this top 10 list, implying that home is less preferred than “home-like” (or, rather, “home-lite”). Vienna and Helsinki are the linguistic exceptions in the top 10 list of the EIU-Liveability Index. As Vienna appears in the EIU-Liveability and Mercer indices, it could be said that Vienna is the most pleasant city amongst the Comfort Club Cities, in that its appeal transcends simple national tastes.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch05

The Global Liveable Cities Index in Perspective

101

This description of Vienna as beyond simple ethnic classification is of course in line with its long history of being the political, intellectual, cultural, and economic centre of the wildly-diverse empires of the Habsburg dynasty (e.g., the Holy Roman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire). The important general point that emerges from the case of Vienna is that, given the diversity of tastes in a multi-ethnic world that is increasingly integrated, a city index that values pleasantness in everyday life should include indicators that capture a wide variety of tastes, from the availability of a wide range of high-quality cuisine to the acceptance of different modern religious practices and the diversity of cultural events. “Feely-touchy” might be the hallmark of the non-overlapping Comfort Club Indices which pick Vienna as the most liveable city, but it is certainly not a trait of the Clout Club Indices. Vienna is ranked 12th by the Mori Index, 18th by the Foreign Policy Index and 25th by the EIUCompetitiveness Index; and is absent from the Knight Frank Index.

5.4 WHICH CLUB DOES THE GLOBAL LIVEABLE CITIES INDEX BELONG TO? The GLCI overlaps with the Clout Club in four cities: Singapore (4), Hong Kong (3), Berlin (2) and Zurich (1). The number in the parenthesis reports the number of times that this GLCI Top-10 city appears in the Clout Club’s Top-10 lists. This degree of overlap between GLCI and the Clout Club Indices is substantially higher than the overlap between the Clout Club Indices and the Comfort Club Indices. The GLCI overlaps with the Comfort Club in six cities: Auckland (2), Copenhagen (1), Geneva (1), Helsink (1), Melbourne (1) and Zurich (1).15 Once again, the amount of overlap between GLCI and the Comfort Club Indices greatly exceeds the overlap between the Clout Club and the Comfort Club. The inescapable conclusion is that the GLCI belongs to both the Clout Club and the Comfort Club. The GLCI is, in short, a more balanced indicator than the other six city indices. The GLCI balances the emphasis of the Clout Club Indices on a city’s ability to project influence and to provide 15 The number in the parenthesis reports the number of times that this GLCI Top-10 city appears in the

Comfort Club’s Top-10 lists.

June 19, 2012

13:32

102

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch05

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 43 The Clout Club Indices’ Rankings of the Top 10 Cities Shared by: (a) GLCI and Mercer Index (b) GLCI and EIU-Liveability Index.

Auckland Copenhagen Helsinki Geneva Melbourne Zurich

Mori

Foreign Policy

Knight Frank

EIU-Competitiveness

— 19 — 17 — 14

— 37 — 32 — 24

— — — — — 22

36 23 — 13 16 7

economic opportunities against the emphasis of the Comfort Club Indices on a city’s capacity to delight the aesthetic senses and to provide recreational activities. This balancing aspect of GLCI can be seen in that it ranks the top four cities in the Mori, Foreign Policy and Knight Frank indices substantially lower. GLCI ranks New York as 17th, London as 22nd, Paris as 13th, and Tokyo as 18th — and this ranking is, in turn, substantially better than the ranking by the Mori Index, which puts New York as 47th, London as 38th, Paris as 30th, and Tokyo as 46th. Similarly, the balanced nature of the GLCI is also seen when we look at the rankings that the Clout Club Indices confers upon the six cities that are common to the Top-10 lists of GLCI and the Comfort Club Indices. Table 43 reports that the Knight Frank Index ignores five of these six cities, and that the Mori and Foreign Policy indices each ignores three of them. Copenhagen is ranked 19th by Mori, 37th by Foreign Policy, and 23 by EIU-Competitiveness; and Geneva is ranked 17th by Mori, 32th by Foreign Policy and 13th by EIU-Competitiveness. Zurich is also ranked harshly by Mori (14th), Foreign Policy (24th), and Knight Frank (22th) but it is ranked 7th by EIU-Competitiveness. (The fact that the EIUCompetitiveness Index also ignores only one of the six Comfort Club Cities confirms our depiction of this city index as the wet in the Clout Club.) In short, the Clout Club returns the despise of the Comfort Club, albeit, not in equal measure.

5.5 MORE HARD QUESTIONS We have now determined that the GLCI has captured the essences of both the Clout Club criterion and the Comfort Club criterion. At this point,

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

The Global Liveable Cities Index in Perspective

b1411-ch05

103

the use of a Freudian analogy is useful to help us highlight the next set of hard questions about the GLCI. In a serious sense, the GLCI is the “super-ego” that combines the “ego” of the Clout Club and the “id” of the Comfort Club. In Freudian analysis, the ego is the organized part of the psyche that operates according to the reality principle; the id is the set of unorganized instincts that operates according to the pleasure principle; and the super-ego is the critical and moralizing function that operates according to the perfection principle. These three concepts are respectively analogous to the hardnosed emphasis of the Clout Club on money and influence; the feely-touchy emphasis of the Comfort Club on pleasant living; and the allencompassing emphasis of the GLCI methodology. So we come to the next set of hard questions. Is the GLCI tilted towards ego or towards id? Or, is the GLCI no better than a simple-minded average of the two forces, and, hence a wishy-washy fence-sitter between these two sets of values? Can we identify the ethical bias, if any, in the GLCI ranking? We suggest that the way to answer the above questions is to first determine the degree of attractiveness that the GLCI ranking has for different audiences. Table 44 reports the city rankings of different types of individuals. Part A of Table 44 (reproduced from Knight Frank, 2011a, pp. 62) divides personalities into four types — the ultra-high net worth individual (UHNWI), the entrepreneur, the hedonist, and the romantic — and gives the top 20 city ranking for each personality type. Part B (from Mori, 2011, Figure 1–4 and Table 2–3) partitions personality types into the manager, the researcher, and the artist; and reports the top 20 cities for each group. We can identify the relevance of the GLCI ranking to each personality type by matching the GLCI ranking with the city preference ranking of each personality type in Table 43. We find that the GLCI has 13 matches with the Researcher type, 12 matches with the Manager type, 11 matches with the UHNWI type, 10 with the Artist type, 7 with the Hedonist type, 6 with the Romantic type, and 4 with the Entrepreneur type. Of these seven personality types, we would group • the Researcher, the Manager and the UHNWI types into the Ego category; • the Artist, the Hedonist, and the Romantic into the Id category, and • the Entrepreneur into the Risk-Lover category.

June 19, 2012

13:32

104

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch05

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES Table 44

The World’s Top 20 Cities for Different Types of people.

1. ACCORDING TO THE KNIGHT FRANK INDEX: The UHNWIs (Ultra-High Net Worth THE THE Individuals) ENTREPRENEUR HEDONIST 1 New York Shanghai New York 2 London Hong Kong Hong Kong 3 Hong Kong Beijing Tokyo 4 Singapore New York Paris 5 Beijing Mumbai London 6 Shanghai Singapore Shanghai 7 Tokyo London Rio 8 Paris Sao Paulo Barcelona 9 Geneva San Francisco Sydney 10 Zurich Palo Alto Dubai 11 Washington DC Dubai Bangkok 12 Dubai Rio Beijing 13 Mumbai Moscow Singapore 14 Berlin Sydney Rome 15 Sydney Delhi Las Vegas 16 Moscow Istanbul Monaco 17 San Francisco Jakarta Vancouver 18 Los Angeles Lagos San Francisco 19 Vancouver Dallas Prague 20 Sao Paulo Bangalore Miami

THE ROMANTIC Paris New York London Rome Tokyo Sydney Shanghai Hong Kong San Francisco Vancouver Rio Venice Las Vegas Buenos Aires Barcelona Istanbul Beijing Dubai Milan Miami

2. ACCORDING TO THE MORI INDEX The Manager The Researcher 1 London New York 2 Singapore Tokyo 3 Hong Kong London 4 New York Paris 5 Beijing Boston 6 Paris Seoul 7 Shanghai Singapore 8 Tokyo Los Angeles 9 Zurich San Francisco 10 Geneva Hong Kong 11 Amsterdam Sydney 12 Copenhagen Chicago 13 Seoul Berlin 14 Vancouver Vancouver

Memo Item: GLCI Geneva Zurich Singapore Copenhagen Helsinki Luxembourg Stockholm Berlin Hong Kong Auckland Melbourne Sydney Paris Vancouver

The Artist Paris London New York Tokyo Berlin Vienna Los Angeles Amsterdam Madrid Milan San Francisco Beijing Osaka Chicago

(Continued)

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

The Global Liveable Cities Index in Perspective Table 44 15 16 17 18 19 20

Vienna Berlin Frankfurt Sydney Toronto Taipei

Osaka Amsterdam Zurich Geneva Beijing Vienna

b1411-ch05

105

(Continued) Copenhagen Brussels Toronto Sydney Vancouver Frankfurt

Amsterdam Osaka-Kobe New York Tokyo Los Angeles Philadelphia

Our personal opinion is biased towards including the Risk-Lover into the “id” category, but we are not sure. The strong finding from the matching exercise is that the GLCI is most relevant for all the personality types in the Ego category, and quite relevant for the Artist type in the Id category. The GLCI declines rapidly in relevance when we move to the Hedonist type to the Romantic type, and then to the risk-loving Entrepreneur type. Another way of looking at the results is that the GLCI is closer to the Clout Club Indices than to the Comfort Club Indices, but the bias is not large because the spontaneous Artist type still has a 50 percent match compared with the 65 percent match of the highly analytical Researcher and the 60 percent of the hardnosed Manager type. The GLCI, in short, is most suited for identifying preferred cities for residence by ambitious, task-focused professionals who also value pleasant living; but would not accept the latter in the absence of good career opportunities.

5.6 THE PUNCHLINE The existing major city indices can be divided into two groups (1) those that value highly the cities with economic-financial prowess, and strong global agenda-setting power in political and cultural matters; and (2) those that value highly the cities with pleasant living in mild climate, scenic locations. The GLCI has been able to combine these two aspects by focusing more on the multi-dimensional needs of the working professionals. The ethical values embodied in the GLCI could be described as the maintenance of • a balance between work and play, with work coming before play; and • a consistency between responsible global citizenship and active local actions for environmental sustainability.

June 19, 2012

13:32

106

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-ch05

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

These are ethical values that we are comfortable in advocating to city we know, and which we think most people could accept. By spelling clearly the construction of GLCI and by selecting a wide range of indicators that are moderately easy to access, we have enabled a city that wishes to promote this kind of lifestyle to achieve it by investing in the areas identified as the lowscore components of its GLCI ranking. Our simulation exercise confirms the feasibility of doing so. International experiences have shown that the globalized world of very mobile capital and talents has forged a special kind of relationship between (a) the dynamism of the economic and social spheres of a city and (b) the liveability of that city. This relationship is special because it is a circular, cumulative, causational process, i.e., a virtuous cycle. It is, therefore, not speculative to expect that investments that bring a large improvement in the liveability of a city could kick-start this virtuous cycle of the liveability of the city and its economic-social dynamism. In short, our GLCI can be used to enable the fulfilment of, what we have termed earlier, the primal human desire for self-improvement. For us, who have described the GLCI as the super-ego (which operates according to the perfection principle), our desire for self-improvement will have us continue striving to perfect the GLCI as an indicator of liveability. We see lots of difficult challenges ahead, but, by residing in the highly liveable city of Singapore, this task becomes more pleasant to undertake. This is living life to the fullest.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-Biblio

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ang F.K., Chua C.M. and Toh M.S. (2010). Part I: Ranking of 2009 Global Liveable Cities Index, Applied Research Project, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore. A.T. Kearney (2010). The Urban Elite: The A.T. Kearney Global Cities Index 2010, Available at: http://www.atkearney.com/images/global/pdf/Urban_Elite-GCI_2010.pdf Batool, Huma (2008). Megacities and Climate Change — Sustainable Urban Living in a Changing World, Leadership for Environment and Development International. Benyus, Janine (1997 and 2002). Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, Perennial, imprint of Harper Collins Publishers. Cities Plus (2003). Forging a Sustainable Energy System in Greater Vancouver, Cities Plus Report. Meadows, D., Meadows, H. Dennis, L.M., Jørgen, R., and William, W.B. III (1972). The Limits to Growth, A Potomac Associates Book, NYC. Douglass, Mike (2002). From global intercity competition to cooperation for liveable cities and economic resilience in Pacific Asia, Environment & Urbanization, 14(1), 53–68. Economic Freedom of the World Annual Report, Available at: http://www.freetheworld. com/index.html Economist Intelligence Unit (2011a). Hot Spots: Benchmarking global city competitiveness, Available at: http://www.citigroup.com/citi/citiforcities/pdfs/hotspots.pdf Economist Intelligence Unit (2011b). A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview, August 2011, Available at: http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=Liveability2011 Environmental Sustainability Index (2005). SEDAC, Available at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/esi/ Eurostat Structural Indicators (2009). Eurostat, Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa. eu/portal/page/portal/structural_indicators/introduction Evans, Peter (2002). Liveable Cities — Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability, Berkeley: University of California Press.

107

June 19, 2012

13:32

108

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-Biblio

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

Knight, Frank (2011a). The Wealth Report: A Global Perspective on Prime Property and Wealth 2011, Available at: http://www.knightfrank.com/wealthreport/2011/images/ brochure.pdf Knight, Frank (2011b). Tales Of The Cities: Results Of The Knight Frank Global Cities Survey, 2011, Available at: http://www.knightfrank.com/wealthreport/2011/globalcities-survey/ Foreign Policy (2010). The Global Cities Index 2010, Available at: htp://www.foreignpolicy. com/node/373401 Glaeser, Edward (2011). Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier, The Penguin Press. Global City Indicators Program, Global City Indicators Facility, Available at: http://www. adb.org/Documents/Books/Key_Indicators/2009/pdf/Key-Indicators-2009.pdf Hasan, L. (2008). On Measuring the Complexity of Urban Living, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines & Methodologies, United Nations, Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/indisd-mg2001.pdf Kaufmann, D., Kraay A. and Mastruzzi M. (2010). The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues, The World Bank. Kelley, Michael (editor) (1998). Encyclopedia Of Aesthetics, 4 volumes, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Kotter, T. and Friesecke, F. (2008). Developing urban Indicators for Managing Mega Cities, Department of Urban Planning and Real Estate Management. Low, Linda (2006). The Political Economy in a City-state Revisited, Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International. Low, L. and Aw, T.C. (2004). Social Insecurity in the New Millennium: The Central Provident Fund in Singapore, Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International. Malthus, Thomas (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population (1st Edition), London: J. Johnson, in St. Paul’s Church-yard. McNulty, R., Jacobson, D.R. and Penne, R.L. (1985). The Economics of Amenity: Community Futures and Quality of Life — A Policy Guide to Urban Economic Development, Washington, DC: Partners for Liveable Places. Mercer (2011). 2011 Quality of Living worldwide city rankings — Mercer survey, Available at: http://www.mercer.com/qualityoflivingpr#city-rankings Mori Memorial Foundation (2011). Global Power City Index 2011: Summary, Available at: http://www. mori-m-foundation.or.jp/english/research/project/6/pdf/GPCI2011_ English.pdf Newton, P.W. (2009). Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2009, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. NCESI (2002). Environmental Stewardship Initiative Sustainability Definition, North Carolina Environmental Stewardship Initiative. Owen, David (2012). The Conundrum: How Scientific Innovation, Increased Efficiency, and Good Intentions Can Make Our Energy and Climate Problems Worse, Riverhead Books, Division of Penguin Group USA. Saskia, S. (1991). The Global City: New York, London,Tokyo, Princeton University Press. Saxena, N.C. (2011). Virtuous Cycles: The Singapore Public Service and National Development.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

Bibliography

b1411-Biblio

109

Tan, A. and Aw, G. Grace (2008). Liveable Cities for Tomorrow, Centre for Liveable Cities, Available at: http://www.clc.org.sg/sites/default/files/Liveable%20Cities%20for%20 Tomorrow.pdf Terre, Sacree (2008). Projected Dates for the Exhaustion of Exploitable Natural Resources at 2007 Consumption Rates, Available at http://terresacree.org/ressourcesanglais.htm The Cities Alliance (2007). Liveable Cities: The Benefits of Urban Environmental Planning, The Cities Alliance. The Global Competitiveness Report 2009–2010, World Economic Forum, Available at: http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/ index.htm The Millennium Development Goals Report 2009, Available at: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/ mdg/Default.aspx Timmer, V. and Nola-Kate S. (2006). The Liveable City — The World Urban Forum 2006, Vancouver Working Group Discussion Paper. International Centre for Sustainable Cities. Torrens, P.M. (2008). Modelling Megacity futures, Symposium on Megacities. United Nations (2010). World Population Prospects, United Nations Population Division. United Nations Economic and Social Council Statistics, Available at: http://www.uneca. org/statistics/statcom2008/documents/Report_EnvironmentStatistics.pdf University of British Columbia (2012). Taking the Earth’s pulse: UBC scientists unveil a new economic and environmental index, Media Release on February 20, 2012, Available at: http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2012/02/20/taking-the-earths-pulse-ubc-scientistsunveil-a-new-economic-and-environmental-index/ Urban Indicators and Management of Cities (2009). Development Indicators and Policy Research Division, Economics and Research Department, Asian Development Bank. Wan, Hanny (2006) The Standard, Bad Air Leaves firms gasping, The Standard Newspapers Publishing, May 2006, Available at http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp? pp_cat=13&art_id=19199&sid=8075973&con_type=1 Wikipedia, World’s most livable cities, Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World %27s_most_livable_cities; Accessed March 15, 2012. Woo, Wing Thye (2007). The Challenges of Governance Structure, Trade Disputes and Natural Environment to China’s Growth, Comparative Economic Studies, Volume 40, Issue 4, December 2007, pp. 572–602. Woo, Wing Thye (2008). Understanding the Sources of Friction in U.S.-China Trade Relations: The Exchange Rate Debate Diverts Attention Away from Optimum Adjustment, Asian Economic Papers, Vol. 7 No. 3, Fall 2008, pp. 65–99. Woo, Wing Thye (2011). Understanding the Middle-Income Trap in Economic Development: The Case of Malaysia, invited World Economy Lecture delivered at the University of Nottingham, Globalization and Economic Policy (GEP) conference, Globalization Trends and Cycles: The Asian Experiences, Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia, 13 January 2011; Available at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/gep/documents/lectures/ world-economy-asia-lectures/world-econ-asia-wing-thye-woo-2011.pdf Woo, Wing Thye and Chang, H. (2010). Indonesia’s economic performance in comparative perspective and a new policy framework for 2049, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, April 2010, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 33–64.

June 19, 2012

13:32

110

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-Biblio

RANKING THE LIVEABILITY OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CITIES

World Competitiveness Yearbook, Available at: http://www.imd.ch/research/publications/ wcy/World-Competitiveness-Yearbook-Results.cfm World Competitiveness Yearbook, Methodology & Principles of Analysis, Available at: http://www.worldcompetitiveness.com/Press/IMD_WCY11/pdf/Methodology.pdf World Health Organization (2000). Health Systems: Improving Performance, The World Health Report 2000. Yanikkaya H. (2003). Trade Openness and economic growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Investigation, Journal of Development Economics, pp. 57–89.

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

b1411-Index

Index Europe, 14 European Union, 18

A.T. Kearney, 89 act locally, 11 Adam Smith, 12 ageing, 30 agglomeration, 4 Asia, 6

feely-touchy, 101, 103 Foreign Policy, 89 garden city, 87 generations, 9 Geneva, 15 geo-economics, 16 geo-politics, 16 Glaeser, 4 Global Competitiveness Report, 18 Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI), 1 government, 6 Greenhouse Gases (GHG), 13 growth, 9 growth engines, 4 Guinness Book, 3

balances, 101 Bangalore, 15 biodiversity, 87 business, 6 city in a garden, 87 city-states, 85 climate changes, 12 clout, 93 Club of Rome, 4 comfort, 93 community, 6 crisis, 17 critical mass, 3 cross-border, 4

happiness, 17 Hedonist, 103 high net worth individuals, 4 Hong Kong, 15 human, 3

David Ricardo, 12 democracy, 31 density, 4 division of labour, 4

income, 9 Indicators, 17 inequality, 10 infrastructure, 3 innovation, 4

Eco2 Index, 11 EIU, 83 empirical frameworks, 17 entrepreneurs, 4 environment, 4

Jakarta, 15

111

June 19, 2012

13:32

9in x 6in

Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities

112 Knight Frank, 2 knowledge, 3 Kyoto, 86 Latin America, 6 leadership, 30 lifestyles, 4 liveability, 1 Malthus, 4 marketing, 16 Mercer, 2 mobility, 4 Mumbai, 15 neighbourhoods, 16 non-government organizations (NGOs), 6 North America, 14 Oceania, 15 Organization for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD), 23 Osaka-Kobe, 51 policy, 16 preferred habitat, 1 primal, 1 productivity, 6 professionals, 105 public goods, 6

b1411-Index

Index quality of life, 17 renewable, 28 resilience, 6 resources, 3 revealed preferences, 1 scenario, 6 Shanghai, 1 Singapore, 12 socio-cultural, 9 Soviet Union, 4 Switzerland, 12 talents, 4 taste, 100 technology, 6 themes, 8 think globally, 11 Tokyo, 51 United Nations, 6 urban, 6 urbanization, 6 Vienna, 100 virtuous cycle, 106 welfare, 9 World Competitiveness Yearbook, 17