H1 THEME 2: URBAN CHANGE

TOPIC 2.2: LIVEABILITY IN CITIES

CAN A CITY BE BOTH LIVEABLE AND SUSTAINABLE?

Learning Objectives

▪ Describe and explain how to define and measure urban liveability

▪ Explain liveability and its relationship with sustainable urban development

▪ Evaluate the political, socio-economic and environmental factors that affect urban liveability

1. WHAT IS URBAN LIVEABILITY?

"Generally understood to encompass those elements of home, neighbourhood, and metropolitan area that contribute
to safety, economic opportunities and welfare, health, convenience, mobility and recreation”
A definition of liveability, Vuchic
(1999)

“Liveability” in laymen’s terms means “how fit to live in”. Broadly, urban liveability refers to the assessment of an urban
area on the quality of living and is about the relationship between people and the urban environment.

Urban liveability is the degree to which a city is able to satisfy the physical and psychological needs and wants of
its residents (expats, residents!). It encompasses the idea of urban environmental quality which gives an
objective perspective on the quality of life in urban space.

Urban liveability is seen as a function of both

● Objective assessment of the physical characteristics of the urban environmental quality

● Subjective assessment of individual behaviour – there is a need to consider both people’s perceptions of the
city (in their mind), their lived experiences of the city (on the ground), and where they want to live.
● And more crucially, the interaction between the two.

However, it is seen as a relative term whose precise meaning also depends on the place, time and purpose of the
assessment, who is the person assessing and what he or she deems is important to the liveability of the area (a
behaviour based on the interaction of a person and his or her environment).

2. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIVEABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY?

To examine the relationship between the two concepts, we need to look at their similarities and differences, as well as
whether their respective goals are reinforcing or contradictory. In essence these two concepts can be seen as two
interlocking ideas but driven by different policy context and ideologies.

The model in Figure 1 below places liveability within the broader sustainability agenda, differentiating between the
longer-term and global perspective of sustainability and the more localised and immediate concerns of liveability.

1
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
 Figure 1: Liveability as a subset of sustainability

The table below summarises the key similarities and differences between these two concepts:

Criteria Liveability Sustainability

Literature Concept emerged in the 1990s, Concept emerged in the 1980s, with
associated with Creative City the Brundtland Report (1987) and its
Ranking/Index application to urban areas.

Time Frame Here and now- present generation Emphasis on long term outlook (the
with less regard for liveability of the ‘there’ and ‘then’) – concerned about
future the needs of both present and future
generations

Scale Smaller scale - city or even specific Several scales – as large as national
neighbourhood scale to city-scale.

Measurements Both objective and subjective, More objective indicators , mostly

mostly based on a particular group based on general population or area /
of people/community (e.g. elderly, environment
migrants)

Project involvement Range of community to city Range of community to city

government. government to global governance.

Mostly neighbourhood/ community Mostly city govt.

teams

Table 1: Summary of key similarities and differences

1) Mutually Reinforcing Relationship

Both liveability and sustainable urban development are key urban goals that are mutually reinforcing. Liveability
derives significantly from the urban environmental quality of a dwelling, neighborhood, and city where factors such as
ambient air quality, indoor air quality, noise, solar access, and access to green space (public open spaces, private
garden space) combine to deliver a level of satisfaction with living in particular places.

Conversely, a low level of liveability can constrain sustainability just as how sustainable outcome result over time
through a series of liveability outcomes. For example, economic development through pollutive industries is
environmentally unsustainable and can lead to a lowered level of urban liveability. There may be a lowered quality of
life due to air pollution in major cities.

Liveability studies can therefore inform policies that increase urban sustainability, in particular within the social and
environmental dimension.

2
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
 Fig 2: Relationship between Ecological Footprint and Liveability Index

2) Potentially Contradictory Relationship

While a liveable city is generally one that meets the needs of the present generation, it does not necessarily translate
to sustainability in the long run. Attempts to increase liveability can may not lead to urban sustainable development in
the long run, e.g., government legislation on reducing inflation can lead to the over consumption of resources. In the
figure above, it is evident that the liveability of cities is being achieved at the expense of environmental sustainability:
that high levels of urban resource consumption, linked to both physical built environment and resident demands, are
underpinning a city’s position on the global ladder of liveability.

For example, the process of gentrification in retrofitting many urban neighbourhoods that go through urban (or inner
city decline) may have improved liveability or many inner cities. However, continuous gentrification and the resultant
rising housing process have forced lower income residents to move out of these areas and into inner city slums which
are worse off than before - making these gentrification projects socially unsustainable.

3) Conceptual Linkages and the dual concepts’ usefulness in urban planning (see next page)

Sustainability is considered an elusive concept, which is difficult to understand, and even more challenging to
implement in practice. In contrast, liveability brings a necessary pragmatism to the abstract philosophical visions of
sustainability. Liveability is about “now” and “here”, and focused on immediate and tangible conditions and
interventions, and therefore interpreted as more achievable. Understanding the relationship between liveability and
sustainability will help urban planners bridge the desires in the present moment with longer-term needs associated
with a sustainability vision. Urban planners will need to acknowledge the conflicting yet interconnected relationship
between the two concepts, and the balancing of these different perspectives can inform the design of liveable cities
that are also sustainable.

3
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
 Fig 3. Conceptual Linkages between Liveability and Sustainability (Gough, 2015)

4
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
3. HOW DO WE MEASURE URBAN LIVEABLITY?

Liveability is one key characteristic of cities that enable them to attract a disproportionate amount of the globally-
mobile resources (e.g. talents, high net worth individuals, investors, innovators and capital) that are recognised to
make positive contributions in areas such as economic growth, economic resilience and global political influence.

Cities that are deemed as liveable thus fare better in the competition for these globally-mobile resources and become
an epicentre for advanced economic and cultural activities. Thus, the growing popular interest in the liveability of cities
would lead to an increasing desire to rank the liveability of cities that will help policy makers frame appropriate
policies:

There are 3 key aspects to liveability:

- Personal wellbeing – standard of living (livelihood, health, education, safety and security)
- Environmental wellbeing – pollution, climate, cleanliness
- Richness of lifeworlds – existence of convivial spaces with vibrant and friendly community interactions. More
immaterial in nature than the other 2 aspects of personal and environmental wellbeing.

As such, these aspects to liveability are affected by various factors (a list of things to consider that are familiar to you
by now):

● Economic vibrancy and competitiveness

● Domestic security and stability

● Socio-cultural conditions

● Demographic – the population size, composition and structure will affect people’s perception of the
vibrancy and safety of the area
● Public Governance

● Environmental friendliness and sustainability

The concept of urban liveability is a relative term whose precise meaning depends on the place, time and purpose of
assessment and on the value system of the individual assessor.

Assessments of urban liveability have been based on objective indicators (describe the environments within
which people live and work) such as the extent and distribution of substandard housing as well as more subjective
indicators (describe the ways in which people perceive and evaluate conditions around them) that include qualitative
expressions of personal satisfaction (e.g. people’s perceptions of the health services available to them).

Indicators based on objective Indicators based on subjective components

components

What? Assessment based on explicit criteria Assessment based on subjective components, such
that can be observed or measured. as a personal perception or a personal evaluation

Measured by? By external observers, mostly based on By the individuals whose lived experiences are being
available data measured

Examples Single-focused indicators, e.g. Index or ranking based on perception surveys, e.g.
percentage of city that is occupied by perception of availability and quality of health
substandard housing, consumer price services, sense of security within the neighbourhood
index

Composite indicators: Physical Quality

of Life (PQLI)

TABLE 2

● Liveability can be measured through single vs composite indicators

5
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
 o Single indicators – specific and easy to target, easy to collect and reliable, easy to collect
▪ Tends to be collected at a manageable scale (e.g. neighbourhood)

▪ Can collect quantitative or qualitative data.

▪ For example, a liveability study conducted at the scale of the neighbourhood 🡪 allows us to
examine and understand how liveability is like for a particular social group. For the elderly, for
example, research conducted may focus on the availability of healthcare amenities, and the
availability/ distribution of ramps and longer green-man lights for traffic. (Add in field research
survey results on Bedok liveabiltiy)
▪ Eg. In terms of quantitative data, liveability in this manner pedestrian count to assess the
vibrancy of the area based on its overall foot traffic across different times of the day. Counting
the number of ample street benches (allows elderly or residents to take a rest when tired,
improving their mobility) and lamp posts (to provide well lit walkways at night, boost
convenience and deter crimes), to assess the walkability and safety of the neighbourhood,
which are both important indicators for liveability
▪ In terms of qualitative data 🡪 Survey of the area to find resident’s perceptions of the area’s
liveability

● Apart from single indicators, composite indicators are also used to measure liveability, at the scale of
the city.
o There is no one single measurement for liveability as each indicator takes into account
different aspects of urban liveability and may afford different weightings to each aspect in its
measurement. Thus, liveability is often measured using composite indicators (i.e. a single index
made up of different indicators) or using ranked lists (e.g. ranked scores given based on various
indicators).
o Urbanisation is occurring in countries all over the world, and has taken on new momentum with the
rapid growth of economies in Asia. New patterns of urbanization can tell us much of changing
reconfigurations of economic activity in the world, including the shifts in the global distribution of
power and wealth. The use of composite indices tend to assess these urbanization trends against
key indicators of liveability.
o They are usually developed by organisations for effective comparison across cities. These
organisations also compile reports to evaluate each city’s future importance and influence.
o These indices represent part of the efforts in city benchmarking which is the measuring and
monitoring the performance of cities against a number of comparable and/or best practice cities.

Currently, there are now several ranking tables of cities targeting specific audience groups
- Money Magazine: mature North Americans with high household income (HHI)
- Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) and Mercer: expatriate senior managers
- Monocle: young creative professionals

6
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
 Fig. Overview of Liveability Indices (Centre for Liveable Cities)

Fig. Top 10 cities for each index

Examples of Indexes measuring liveability include:

Mercer Quality of Living Survey

Objective: The Mercer Quality of Living Survey is designed to assist people moving internationally and companies
who relocate employees. It is based upon externally sourced data and provides an indication of how “attractive” cities
may be to investors and international talent, revealing a tangible connection between liveability and productivity.

Score: Cities are ranked against the base city, New York, which has a score of 100. The scores attributed to each
factor, which are weighted to reflect their importance to expatriates, permit objective city-to-city comparisons.

Criteria: It is a measurement based on 39 factors that are grouped in 10 key categories, including political and social
environment, housing and recreation.

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Quality of Life Index

Objective: A measure of liveability that has been developed to specially identify cities that would be attractive to
highly-skilled people is the EIU’s international liveability index.
7
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
Score: Index is measured from a score of 1 to 100.

Criteria: The EIU Quality of Life Index considers both objective and subjective indicators. Living conditions are
assessed using about 30 indicators that links the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys to the objective
determinants of quality of lie. Measures look at aspects of political stability, healthcare, culture and environment.

Monocle Global Quality of Life Survey

Objective: A culture and lifestyle magazine based in London, it has compared the quality of lie of cities around the
globe. Indicators include both objective and subjective ones like unemployment rates, housing affordability to factors
such as tolerance, joy of lie and a vibrating night life. It also includes specific attributes such as the number of
bookshops and museums, whether the cities are dog-friendly.

Score: Ranking based on the various data and opinions of city dwellers

Criteria: Both objective and subjective data are used.

Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS)

Objective: People walking in and around their neighbourhoods is one of the best markers of a healthy, vibrant
community. Walkability is the quality of the walking experience for the pedestrian. A walkable neighbourhood is
one in which all of the built environment works together to welcome and support people to walk - it includes good
public transport, quality footpaths and places that people want to walk e.g. shops, school, sport grounds. That is,
walkable neighbourhoods are useful, safe, comfortable, and interesting.

Score: Statements to elicit respondents’ attitudes or behaviour were each rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) for most items.
Criteria: Subjective data is used. 67 items are grouped into the following factors:

▪ Residential density – types of residences in the neighbourhood

▪ Land use mix – diversity and access

▪ Street connectivity – includes streets, places for walking and cycling and neighourhood surroundings

▪ Infrastructure – places for walking and cycling

▪ Aesthetics (Neighbourhood surroundings)

▪ Traffic safety

▪ Safety from crime

(SEE APPENDIX A FOR LKY GLOBAL LIVEABLE CITIES INDEX)

Video shown: Ten most liveable cities in the world from expats’ point of view (EIU Index)
London - crime rate and also expensive!

Melbourne, Adelaide and healthcare system with affordable high quality care
Vancouver, Calvary and Toronto - universal healthcare and education, highly well managed, little to fear geo-political
and USA as a diret neighbour
Vienna - Mercer also ranked it highly. Economic political and cultural centre Most prosperous cities music architecture
Hamburg, Helsinki, healthcare and infrastrucure and employment, clean water, right to be educated,

The importance of walkability in liveability

- street lights, sidewalks
-
Challenges to Measuring Urban Liveability

1. Deciding which variables to measure and weighting of indicators – The concept of liveability is an elusive
one and a relative term whose precise meaning depends on the place, time and purpose of the assessment and
reflect the value system/agenda of the assessor.
▪ Many of these measures are disproportionately driven by economic growth.
8
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
 ▪ Some measurements are narrow and do not take into consideration indicators such as population density,
GDP or inequality measures. For example, the Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey and EIU’s Global
Liveability ranking do not take into account unemployment rates and GINI coefficient even though they
have a significant impact on the quality of life.
▪ In addition, when data is aggregated to form indices, ranking agencies have to make the choice on the
weights to allocate to each indicator. These decisions usually reflect value judgements, are not
transparent, and can be controversial.
▪ These issues raise the question of validity - Credibility of organisations compiling measures? Reliability of
measures – are they standardised over time?

2. Non-representation and exclusion of perspectives - Many prominent city liveability studies privilege the study
of expatriates and neglect the perceptions of day-to-day residents about city life. This begs the question of
liveability for whom? Many factors, including personal and social characteristics such as age, income, education
and health status, intervene between the objective world and an individual’s perception of it. Moreover, to be of
real value to both citizens and policy makers, liveability studies should be directed to the appropriate social groups
or constituencies. Measuring liveability for the masses – e.g. NUS City and Neighbourhood Report: Kunming,
China.

3. Indicators only provide a proxy for performance - The relationship between liveability indicators and overall
city performance is not straightforward. Furthermore, indicators of averages (e.g. per capita indices) tend to omit
the range and distribution of data, thus hiding spatial variations or variations between particular socio-economic
groups within a city. In addition, while a single composite indicator (e.g. the Mercer and EIU Surveys) facilitates
spatial and temporal comparisons, the significance and meaning of the separate components are lost in the
process of aggregation

4. Lack of Data Availability - These limit the scope, depth and diversity of what can be measured, in turn limiting
the extent to which indicators can be used to compare and monitor city performance. Key problems include data
gaps across indicators and cities, the reliability and regularity of data sets and the methodological differences in
data collection and classification.

While the term is complex, subjective and therefore difficult to measure, being rated as a good or bad place to live can
have a significant impact on a city’s ability to compete in the national and global market-place for inward-investment,
industries, tourism and new residents. It is criticised as its use as a public relations (PR) tool by cities.

▪ Positive rating: aides local place ‘boosterism’ strategies, enhances civic pride

▪ Poor rating: negative impact on local and residents, enrage civic leaders

*Interesting note:

▪ ‘the most liveable city isn’t necessarily the best city… simply the least challenging in which to live in’ (Jon
Copestake, Chief Retail and Consumer Goods Analyst at EIU)
▪ mid-sized cities in developed countries with low population densities tend to be the best performances.

▪ Cities with ‘big city buzz’ (eg global cities) fare less well due to the strain population places on infrastructure,
crime rates eg. Cities that fare worst see the impact of instability affecting other areas (eg infrastructure,
healthcare, culture) Source: http://www.eolasmagazine.ie/measuring-liveability/

4. WHAT ARE THE FACTORS THAT AFFECT URBAN LIVEABILITY?

There can be various factors that influence the liveability of an urban area. However, these factors are not assessed
only based on characteristics of the location (i.e. built environment including streets, public transport services etc.) but
also the differing characteristics of the urban population. Which group of factors do you think are the most influential in
affecting urban liveability?

9
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
For every factor, in the way we explain, we are able to tell the logic links and how it looks in terms to high AND low .
for each factor make the logic links - what will make high liveability and low liveability?
Characteristics of the urban population Place or Locational Characteristics

Age, Gender, Income level, Language, Political Factors: Quality of Governance, Urban planning etc
occupation, lifestyle, aspiration etc.
Economic Factors: Cost of Living and employment etc

Environmental Factor: Climate, Natural Hazards, Pollution

A) DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

This refers to population size and density and the composition of population (although this also links to social
factors).
Eg. of logic link - Population size → overcrowding and difficulty in getting around → stress → low liveability
● How overcrowding of inner city areas (alongside poorly maintained infrastructure) motivated middle class
urban dwellers to move to the suburbs with perceived higher liveability.

When will ethnic composition and diversity lead to high liveability

E.g. of logic link - Diverse ethnic composition (what is the precondition)? There might be mutual respect and understanding →
differences not a point to divide but a resource to unite; and to make the place more distinctive and enhances place distinctiveness
-- multi-cultural outcomes and cosmopolitanism → access to amenities, and services , highly liveable
Diverse diversity & distinctions in class and economic status, access to jobs → multiple dimensions of deprivation; can lead to
white flight and also ‘infilling’ of more migrants

● Perceived lower liveability of inner city areas due to perceived the higher proportion of minorities living in
these areas. In the case of London: Ethnic groups can also help to either add cultural diversity to the city to
improve the extent of liveability. At the same time, they also engender feelings of xenophobia and create
ethnic enclaves. Places generally perceived to be less safe tend to be also those in the Inner City location,
e.g. boroughs like Hackney or Newham
● It is important to note the extent to which liveability can vary within a city due to demographic factors – in the
context of London particular boroughs are associated with multiple dimensions of deprivation; can lead to
white flight and also ‘infilling’ of more migrants

B) POLITICAL FACTORS

Quality of Governance: The quality of governance in administering the place will influence its urban liveability.
● As the state is a key provider of public goods and services, it may be crucial for the state (perhaps
through public-private partnerships) to ensure a reliable provision of these goods and services.
● The engagement of citizenry’s involvement in various dimensions is crucial to encourage a more
participatory society and provide help for the poor and the marginalized communities in society.

Urban Planning: This can involve the creation of economic spaces, cultural spaces and green spaces. Urban
planning must also take into account transport management as well as the investments in other physical and
social infrastructure (e.g. provision of utilities, telecommunications, roads). Urban design can be incorporated to
create a more walkable city, “pro-pedestrian” city, to increase sheltered walkways and building of communal
spaces to promote sense of “neighbourliness”.

For example, Singapore’s role creating a “garden” in the city centre 🡪 Gardens by the Bay is not only an
environmental green space, but also a social space with free access to the public.

C) SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS

10
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
 Economic Opportunities and Jobs – this includes the availability of job opportunities and They may also include
dimensions of the labour market which include the number of hours works, wage rates, retirement benefits and
these aspects have bearings upon the social dimension.

Cost of Living – The increasing cost of living may make cities unappealing – e.g. Mercer’s cost of living index ->
ranks HK as most expensive and Singapore as 4 th most expensive. However, this measurement may be relative
as cities which have high urban liveability tend to have a higher cost of living tend to have a higher cost of living
than their surrounding areas, e.g. Tokyo, Singapore and London.

Economic Vibrancy – can refer to the broader economic outlook, which influences the flow of FDI, creating jobs
and more economic activities in the process (multiplier effect). Cities which are highly liveable, have vibrant
economic prospects, and are adaptable enough to attract “footloose” TNCs to stay. The economic vibrancy is
imperative as it determines the extent to which a city can protect the environment, improve education standards,
help the urban poor and implement other social programmes to improve its liveability.

Sociocultural Vibrancy – can refer to ethnic diversity, young and old, rich and poor populations. Cities which
have urban liveability tend to have diverse population structures, whether in the form of age, income levels,
ethnicities and nationalities. Social acceptance, tolerance and empathy for the less fortunate are factors which can
influence urban liveability. The availability of cafes, unique food, nightlife, arts are aspects of cultural vibrancy
which play role in attracting the creative class, as well as high net-worth individuals.

Safety and Crime - Cities which have higher crime rates and lower perceptions of personal safety tend to
contribute to low urban liveability. The high crime rates may be due a combination of factors including the lack of
assistance to the socioeconomically vulnerable in society, the ineffective and insufficient investment in law
enforcing, and corruption along multiple levels in society, the ineffective and insufficient investment in law
enforcing, and corruption in society and the government.

D) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Geographical Location, Climatic conditions and Natural Hazards – Cities in certain geographical locations
with extreme climates (e.g. too dry or too hot) may affect the environment quality. Mexico City is commonly cited
as a case where altitude and topography (the city is surrounded on three sides by mountains) combine to present
challenges for the dispersal of atmospheric pollutants, especially from industry and motor cars.

The type and frequency of natural hazards that a city may experience also affects its liveability. 8 out of 10 most
populous cities in the world are located on earthquake faults (e.g. Tokyo, Mexico City). Coastal areas, where
some of the highest rates of urban growth are occurring, are also at risk from many of the impacts of climate
change including sea level rise, tropical cyclones and flooding.

Pollution and Environmental Protection may affect the quality of living with many cities in China covered with
smog especially during winter months. The degree of environmental protection afforded by the local, regional and
national government is an essential factor in determining urban liveability. Having stringent environmental
standards for industries for industries help to protect the natural environment and increases the urban liveability of
a place.

CONCLUSION

Urban liveability is a concept that is growing in importance as urbanisation and city life becomes increasing
pervasive. However, questions abound when we try to measure it as perceptions of quality of life varies according
to different geographic locations, political context and socio-cultural backgrounds. While there have been
attempts to measure liveability and ratings of cities have been published, we would need to be critical to consider the
reliability of data collection, access to data and the political agenda behind some of these rankings. ( Built env and
social aspects; lived experiences. Also contested depending on the think tanks and agencies that drive the research).

PRACTICE QUESTIONS
11
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
Explain how urban liveability in residential neighbourhoods can be measured.

a) Single indicators (e.g. crime rate)

b) Composite indicator on neighbourhood walkability scale (79 items that takes into account 1
dimension); describe how it is taking place and how to measure
c) City authorities and Global Liveability Cities Index - takes into consideration of ordinary citizens and
environmental sustainability - taken into perspective and measurements are done by city authorities
d) For Mercer application with private housing and exparts - Broaden to include city-scale but can be
applied to expat neighbourhoods

Question 1

Explain the factors that affect urban liveability in cities with high levels of development. [9] (Adapted from
EJC Prelim 2019)

Question 2
‘Socio-economic factors are the main factors that affect urban liveability.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? [16] (Adapted from A Level H2/2018)

APPENDIX A

SINGAPO
RE - A new index advocating a new measure of liveability has ranked Singapore as the third most
liveable city in the world, lagging only Geneva and Zurich in Switzerland.

THE STRAITS TIMES

PUBLISHED DEC 12, 2014, 10:49 AM SGT
The Global Liveable Cities Index, described by its authors as a work in progress, measures 64 of
the world's most populous cities based on factors including economic vibrancy and
competitiveness, domestic security and stability, socio-cultural conditions, public governance,
environmental friendliness and sustainability.

12
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
Notably, New York City does not appear until number 17 in the rankings, despite consistently
topping the charts in most other indices. Tokyo ranks 18th and London is even lower down on the
scale, at 22nd place. Jakarta sits in last place, at number 64.

The surprising results are just what the authors were going for. Dr Tan Khee Giap of the National
University of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and colleagues at the University of
California, Davis, and Curtin University, in Bentley, Australia, sought out to build a
multidimensional index that make sense of the many existing global city livability rankings.

These indices, they say, can be divided into two groups. The first includes those that put a higher
value on cities based on economic-financial prowess, and strong global agenda-setting power in
political and cultural matters. The second ranks cities based on their having a pleasant living
environment, a mild climate and a scenic locale.

The new index, published in the World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable
Development, is intended to breach that divide.

Dr Tan's team is also simulating new rankings based on how environmental, political and
economic changes which may improve liveability could alter the existing order.

Their calclations have shown that Singapore could rise to join Geneva in first place. The same
changes could also see lower-ranked cities such as Chicago, Shanghai, Amman in Jordan and Abu
Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates climb up the league table.

"The rank of a city today is not necessarily a good indicator of its rank in the future," noted the
team.

"Environmental restoration and transport infrastructure improvements already underway in many

Asian, and specifically Chinese cities, could see the higher liveability today of European cities
outstripped as those developing cities develop further."

TOP TEN GLOBAL LIVEABLE CITIES

1. Geneva

2. Zurich

3. Singapore

4. Copenhagen

5. Helsinki

6. Luxembourg

7. Stockholm

8. Berlin

13
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)
9. Hong Kong

10. Auckland

14
Edited J.Chang (November 2020)