Heightened fears over terrorism have downgraded 29 cities out of 140 (20%) where people would most like to live, according to the latest ‘Economist Intelligence Unit Global Liveability Ranking’.

 

The report says that 10 cities in Western Europe (Zurich, Geneva, Frankfurt, Berlin, Oslo, Luxembourg, Brussels, Paris, Rome and Lisbon) have seen declines in ‘liveability’, mostly stemming from heightened fears of terrorism in the wake of attacks in Paris and Brussels.

 

It adds that urban centres in proximity to Brussels and Paris have raised their terror alert and also been subject to heightened risk over the past year, negatively affecting both local and regional averages.

 

The findings show that liveability scores have decreased by between 1.2% and 1.3% in Zurich and Geneva, as well as Luxembourg, Oslo, Rome and Lisbon. Berlin and Frankfurt have also seen similar declines, having suffered from protests and social unrest in the past year.

 

US CITIES RANKED LOWEST…

While ‘social unrest and regular incidences of mass shootings have led to declines in the scores of five leading American cities’ (Chicago, Atlanta, Cleveland, San Francisco and New York), Cleveland and Atlanta both saw the steepest ranking decline, falling nine and 14 places respectively. More positively, the report points to Melbourne, Australia as having retained its crown as the world’s most liveable city

 

The Economist’s researchers say that the overall 29-city decline is mainly due to concerns over terrorism following ‘more than 1,000 reported attacks in 2016 so far’, with incidents in France, Turkey, the US and Belgium being the most high profile.

 

The Economist adds: “Factors such as social unrest in many US cities due to the deaths of black people in police custody, tensions in Eastern Europe and Asia and the ongoing civil wars in Ukraine, Syria and Libya have compounded the decline.”

 

 

MULTIPLE CONCERNS…
Jon Copestake, Editor of the report said: “The latest rankings paint a very somber picture. The global trend for declining liveability has become depressingly familiar in recent years as acts of terror in major cities are becoming an increasingly common occurrence.

 

 

“But even discounting terrorism, we are seeing greater instability around the world, including unrest in the US, political disruption in Turkey and Thailand and geopolitical disputes in Eastern Europe and Asia.”

 

 

ASIA IS NOT IMMUNE…
The report’s findings also show that Australia – traditionally home to many of the world’s most liveable cities – is also not immune. The Economist says that a hostage-taking incident in Sydney back in 2014 has raised terror concerns there, pushing the Australian city out of the ten most liveable.

 

 

It claims that heightened tensions in the South China Sea have also lowered liveability scores for Chinese cities. The steepest score declines came from Tripoli in Libya which crumbled 4.1% and Lagos in Nigeria dropping 3.7%.

 

 

Only six cities have managed to buck the trend, with improving liveability, although of these, only Tehran has seen a noteworthy change. The Iranian capital has benefitted from the thawing of international relations, moving four places up the ranking and out of the very bottom tier of liveability.

Meanwhile, back in Europe, Manchester is now rated as ‘a more liveable destination than London’ according to this research, coming in at number 43 compared to London’s 53rd-place position.

ABOUT THE LIVEABILITY SURVEY:

TRBusiness contacted The Economist directly to provide more information on its assment criteria. As such, it told us today that its liveability survey assesses which locations around the world provide the best or the worst living conditions, with this survey actually forming part of its Worldwide Cost of Living Survey. This quantifies the challenges that might be presented to an individual’s lifestyle in 140 cities worldwide.

 

Each city is assigned a score for over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors across five broad categories of Stability, Healthcare, Culture and environment, Education and Infrastructure. Each factor in each city is rated as acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, undesirable or intolerable. The categories are compiled and weighted to provide an overall rating of 1–100, where 1 is considered intolerable and 100 is considered ideal. The report considers that any city with a rating of 80 or more will have few, if any, challenges to living standards.