Who’s right and who’s wrong when it comes to selecting the world’s most liveable – not necessarily the most loveable – cities? The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has Hong Kong at the top of its list, while the new listing from Singapore’s Asia Competitiveness Institute has Geneva in first place. What’s being measured and what means the most? All very subjective, of course. Read More

New index for ranking world’s cities

By The Straits Times (3 July 2012):

A Singapore institute has come up with its own ranking of the world’s cities, which it believes is more comprehensive than others in the market.

Its creators at the Asia Competitiveness Institute, which is part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, also tout the index as more representative of ordinary city residents’ concerns, and also more constructive.

The Global Liveable Cities Index, which was released at the World Cities Summit 2012 yesterday, ranks Singapore third, after Swiss cities Geneva and Zurich.

Senior research fellow Woo Wing Thye said rankings typically measure either a city’s clout in the world or the comfort it offers to its inhabitants. But the new index marries both measurements.

‘We are a happy medium between the two,’ he said.

One major difference is that the index uses indicators that apply to the ordinary city dweller earning the median income, instead of a member of the social elite or an expatriate, as many other indexes tend to do.

Such a dweller has a limited budget and is concerned with issues like the average quality of education and the cost of health care, noted Professor Woo.

The index also tries to go beyond ranking just for ranking’s sake: Researchers took each city’s 20 weakest indicators and simulated its new rankings if it improved in these areas, to encourage cities to work on their weaknesses.

The Global Liveable Cities Index, which covers 64 Asian, European and American cities, is based on five categories: economic vibrancy and competitiveness; environmental friendliness and sustainability; domestic security and stability; social-cultural conditions; and public governance.

Singapore was ranked within the top five in all categories except for the environmental segment, where it placed 14th.

The co-director of Asia Competitiveness Institute, Dr Tan Khee Giap, indicated that Singapore could have done better if indicators such as water leakage in pipes and biodiversity were included. They were omitted because comparable data in other cities could not be found.

The lack of data also led to San Francisco – a strong contender as a liveable city – being left out.

To address such limitations, the researchers aim to conduct more field surveys to collect local data, and cover more cities.

To refine the index, ordinary city folk will also be polled for their own weightage of indicators. The index is scheduled to be published again in 2014.

The push for a new index came from the Government four years ago. It had ‘noticed gaps in numerous well-known liveability rankings of cities… each catering to very specific purposes and targeted audiences’, and commissioned the institute to start the project in 2008, the team said in a book on the index.

But Prof Woo dismissed any suggestion of the index being tilted in favour of Singapore, saying it gave equal weightage to all five categories of indicators used.

The new index also addresses a sticking point in some studies that rank Singapore poorly for environmental impact.

While those studies use criteria such as the amount of pavement used or the capacity to produce food, the Singapore institute’s index looks at a city’s carbon emissions measured against economic growth.

Prof Woo said ‘the goal is a higher level of income’ without polluting more than what one can take responsibility for.

Source: www.eco-business.com

Hong Kong named world’s best city in new index

AAP (5 July 2012):

HONG Kong is the best city in the world to live followed by Amsterdam, according to a new ranking focusing on green space.

The list of the world’s best cities to live in combines Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) global “liveability” rankings with new criteria that examine “spatial characteristics”.

Hong Kong was judged the best city, followed by Amsterdam, Osaka and Paris, after additional criteria including urban sprawl, connection and proximity to other cities, and pollution were taken into account.

European cities took five of the top ten ranking spots, with three cities from Asia, one from North America and one from Australia.

Amsterdam was named the world’s second best city in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Best Cities Index.

Sydney was the only Australian city to make the top 10, coming in at number five.

Its ratings in these categories pushed it down from the number two rank in the classic EIU Liveability index, but gave Hong Kong a boost from number 10 to the top spot.

“Sydney scores well for having low pollution levels and lots of green space in the additional indicators,” EIU editor Jon Copestake said in a statement.

“Although it was hampered slightly because of the isolation of Australian cities and the urban sprawl of the city.”

Hong Kong scored poorly for pollution and cultural assets, but scored on natural assets and low urban sprawl.

“Hong Kong is a very compact city that has managed to maintain its natural heritage, create a dense network of green spaces and enjoy extensive links to the rest of the world,” the report said.

“It responded very well to the addition of spatial characteristics to the liveability index.”

Tehran scored the lowest on the best cities index, followed by African cities Nairobi and Lusaka.

The index ranked 140 cities against one another.

The top 10

1. Hong Kong

2. Amsterdam

3. Osaka

4. Paris

5. Sydney

6. Stockholm

7. Berlin

8. Toronto

9. Munich

10. Tokyo

Source: www.news.com.au