2018 Global Liveable and Smart Cities Index on 78 World’s

2018 Global Liveable and Smart Cities Index on 78 World’s Major Cities

2018 Annual The World Bank Group - Asia Competitiveness Institute Conference Jointly Organised by

The World Bank Group&

Asia Competitiveness Institute (ACI) at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), National University of Singapore (NUS)

27 November 2018

In 2018, ACI was ranked 14th globally, 2nd in Asia and 1st in Singapore amongst 90 think tanks worldwide under the “Best University Affiliated Think Tank” category by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at the University of Pennsylvania, USA

Presenters:

Dr. ZHANG Yanjiang

Post-doctoral Fellow, ACI-LKYSPP, NUS

Mr LIM Tao Oei

Research Assistant, ACI-LKYSPP-NUS

Mr Isaac TAN

Research Assistant, ACI-LKYSPP-NUS

Associate Professor TAN Khee Giap

Co-Director, ACI-LKYSPP-NUS

Session 5

2

Books:

• Tan, K.G., Woo, W.T., Tan, K.Y., Low, L. and Aw, E.L.G.

(2012), Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major

Cities: the Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI), World

Scientific, Singapore.

• Tan, K.G., Nie Tongxin, Shinae Baek. (2015), Greater

China Liveability Index: The Emerging Concept of

Intelligent Cities, World Scientific, Singapore

Journal Papers:

• Tan, K.G., Woo, W.T. and Aw, G. (2014), “A New

Approach to Measuring the Liveability of Cities: The

Global Liveable Cities Index”, World Review of

Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, Vol.

11 No. 2, pp. 176–196.

• Tan, K.G., Woo, W.T. and Tan, B.S. (2014), “A New

Instrument to Promote Knowledge-led Growth: The

Global Liveable Cities Index”, International Journal of

Business Competition and Growth, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp.

174–187.

• Tan, K.G., Nie, T., and Baek, S. (in press), “Empirical

Assessment on the Liveability of Cities in the

Greater China Region”, Competitiveness Review.

ACI’s Research Publications on Liveable Cities

Presentation Outline

• Background

• Motivation and Objective

• Conceptualising Liveability:

ACI Global Liveable and Smart Cities Index (GLSCI) Framework

• Comparative Literature Review

• Methodology

• Data Sources, Data Constraints and Data Proxies

• Research Findings

• Future Research Agenda

3

Background

Trend of Urbanisation: Imperative of Cities

• The staggering trend of urbanisation positions cities at the forefront of the

development agenda of nations. Cities are currently home to roughly 55% of the world’s

population and this figure is expected to increase to 68% by 2050. (The United Nations,

2018)

• Cities are therefore becoming the units of analysis for businesses and governments in

their attempt to better attune their services towards their consumers and citizens.

Competitiveness of nations is therefore increasingly defined by the

competitiveness of the constituent cities.

Trend of Human-centred Urbanisation: Imperative of Liveability of Cities

• Liveability is a crucial element in enhancing competitiveness of cities not least because

liveable cities attract good workers and businesses, and business activity is the key for

city development (The Economist, 2011). Underlying the notion of liveability is that of

human capital, which is the ultimate concern for cities (Richard Florida).

4

Background

Trend of Smart Cities: Innovative Solutions to Urban Problems

• In view of the emerging challenges of rapid urbanisation such as the burden on basic

resources including electricity and water supply, strained services like education and

healthcare and other environmental and social issues, policymakers must consider ways

to leverage on technology to improve the urban landscape to cope with them.

• Smart cities may be broadly captured by the dimensions including the use of technology,

deep integration with local and international networks, people-centricity in terms of its

ability to empower their lives and sustainable practices that preserves resources and the

environment.

• According to the Smart City Tracker report published by Navigant Research, it is

estimated that there are over 250 smart city projects across 178 cities worldwide as of

2017 (Navigant Research 2017).

• The ultimate goal of developing smart cities is the increased urban liveability as rapid

urbanisation generates increases in urban populations. Therefore, this creates a growing

urgency and imperative for policymakers to ensure that they nurture intelligent and

smart cities that are resilient and able to cope with the accompanying challenges.5

Motivation and Objective

• Over the past few decades, discussions on the topic of liveable cities have been ongoing.

Despite the rich literature developed, experts still differ on what constitutes ideal liveable

cities.

• However, cities should not stop aspiring or aiming to be an ideal liveable city, and in the

context of the facilitative role of the government, quality leadership and the execution

capability must be paramount.

• Following the Liveable Cities Index* published in 2012 and again in 2015, this study aims to

update the index with recent data and empirically assess the current liveability conditions in

world’s major cities.

• We believe a potentially useful and highly visible project such as ACI’s GLSCI is a preliminary

yet comprehensive attempt to investigate the constituents of liveability, and hence identify

policy areas that could be improved upon.

• It must be conceded that any ranking of cities is full of controversy due to the many

deficiencies in summarising all aspects of a city with a single value. However, the simplicity

and quantified expression of liveability with an assigned value to communicate the state of the

city may justify its use.

6

Note: Past ACI studies on this topic were known as the Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI). However, due to the

addition of new indicators, the 2018 study is called the Global Liveable and Smart Cities Index (GLSCI).

Conceptualising Liveability:


• Human nature is complex, which makes the concept of liveability a necessarily complex

one. Various studies define liveability with divergent scopes and different emphases.

• The ACI-GLSCI framework conceptualises liveability from the perspective of ordinary

residents living in that city and models this ordinary man as having multi-dimensional

sensibilities towards issues like economic well-being, social mobility, personal security,

political governance, environmental sustainability and aesthetics.

• Moreover, as the demands continue for more urbanization, there is an impetus for

governments and policymakers to create plans for “smart” cities based on technological

advancements directed at improving the well-being and the interconnectivity of its

residents.

7



• ACI-GLSCI framework is inspired by 32nd U.S.

President, Franklin Roosevelt. In the State of Union

Address to the Congress, January 6th, 1941, Franklin

mentioned there are four essential human freedoms:

– The freedom from want

– The freedom from fear

– The freedom to worship

– The freedom to speak

Franklin D. Roosevelt

32nd U.S. President

8



• “The freedom from want” :– Captures the right to have a decent livelihood. More broadly, this dimension emphasises

people’s desire for creature comforts (material abundance). The degree that this desire 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.

– The terminology adopted in ACI-GLSCI framework to represent this dimension is

“Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness”.

• “The freedom from fear” :– Alludes to the natural right of people to live in safety through the maintenance of law and

order, natural disaster relief, and the prevention of war by the state. The absence of such

psychological pressure in a city increases its liveability in the same way that an improvement

in the economic prospects of a city increases its liveability.

– The terminology adopted in ACI-GLSCI framework to represent this dimension is

“Domestic Security and Stability”.

9



• “The freedom to worship” :– For a city, this dimension emphasises (a) the social comfort of living (e.g. degree of income

inequality, social harmony, and social mobility); (b) the physical ease of living (e.g. adequacy

of mass transit, healthcare, and education); (c) the cultural richness of living (e.g. amount of

social diversity, acceptance of different religious beliefs, and access to museums and cultural

performances).

– The terminology adopted in ACI-GLSCI framework to represent this dimension is “Socio-

Cultural Conditions”.

• “The freedom to speak” :– This dimension 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. regular elections that are free and fair).

– The terminology adopted in ACI-GLSCI framework to represent this dimension is “Political

Governance”.

10



• ACI further supplemented the framework by including another important dimension of

city liveability, which is “Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability”. This

dimension 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.

• Our ACI-GLSCI framework conceptualises liveability under the following five

dimensions:

1. Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness

2. Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability

3. Domestic Security and Stability

4. Socio-Cultural Conditions

5. Political Governance

11



• Policymakers in many cities have tried to incorporate the concept of Smart

Cities to approach the challenges of rapid urbanisation.

• In this year’s study, we have also added indicators to several of our sub-

environments to track how “smart” a city is.

• While definitions of a “smart” city may differ, it essentially means using

technology (especially information and communication technologies) to

promote efficiency and augment the lifestyles of the urban population.

• Smart city initiatives can take on many dimensions, including:

– Economic (business vibrancy, innovation)

– Connectivity (roads, Internet, social support)

– Social Welfare (education, health, housing)

– Governance (e-governance)

– Sustainability (renewable energy, proper waste treatment)

12



• Liveability is defined by five environments under ACI-GLSCI framework. Each of the

five environments also contains sub-environments as listed below:

13

Inspired Themes of City

Liveability

ACI-GLSCI

EnvironmentsACI-GLSCI Sub-Environments

Satisfaction with “the

freedom from want”

Economic Vibrancy and

Competitiveness

Economic Performance

Economic Openness

Infrastructure

Satisfaction with the status

of natural environment and

its management

Environmental Friendliness

and Sustainability

Pollution

Depletion of Natural Resources

Environmental Initiatives

Satisfaction with “the

freedom from fear”

Domestic Security and

Stability

Crime Rate

Threats to National Stability

Civil Unrest

Satisfaction with socio-

cultural conditions, ie. “the

freedom to worship”

Socio-Cultural Conditions

Medical & Healthcare

Education

Housing, Sanitation and

Transportation

Income Equality &

Demographic Burden

Diversity & Community

Cohesion

Satisfaction with political

governance, ie. “the freedom

to speak”

Political Governance

Policy Making &

Implementation

Government System

Transparency &

Accountability

Corruption

Comparative Literature Review

• In our extensive literature survey, we found at least 24 major ranking indices or

studies for nations/cities in fields related to economic competitiveness, urbanisation,

quality of life, gross national happiness, crisis management, environment friendliness

and sustained development as summarised in the appendix.

• We found the following four major studies most relevant to liveable cities, namely

a. Quality of Living Survey by Mercer

b. Global Liveability Index by Economist Intelligent Unit (EIU)

c. Most Liveable Cities Index by Monocle Magazine

d. Liveability study on Greater China cities by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences(CASS)

14


• Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey is “conducted to help multinational organisations

compensate employees fairly when placing them on international assignments”.

Hence, Mercer’s definition for quality of living is from the perspective of a narrow

group of people: well-remunerated expatriates.

• EIU’s Global Liveability Index shares similar perspective and objective with Mercer’s

study. EIU’s study aims to “benchmark perceptions of development levels” and

“assign a hardship allowance as part of expatriate relocation packages”.

• Monocle Magazine’s Most Liveable Cities Index is targeted for its readers who are

wealthy, mobile and have an affinity to culture, fashion and design.

• The liveability study on Greater China cities by CASS is actually a supplementary

study to their competitiveness study. Thus, liveability is narrowly defined, the

indicators only covering limited aspects, namely the human capital development,

social environment, natural environment, living conditions and infrastructure. Other

important aspects like economic development, safety conditions, stability of the

society, efficiency of the government are not covered under this narrow definition

for liveability.

15


Mercer’s Quality of

Living Survey

EIU’s Global

Liveability Index

Monocle’s Most

Liveable Cities Index

CASS’s study on

liveable cities

Categories /

Indicators

39 indicators in 10

categories

30 indicators in 5

categories

11 indicators 13 indicators

1. Political & social environment

2. Medical & health

considerations

3. Socio-cultural environment

4. Schools & education

5. Economic environment

6. Public services &

transportation

7. Recreation

8. Consumer goods

9. Housing

10. Natural environment

1. Stability

2. Healthcare

3. Culture & environment

4. Education

5. Infrastructure

1. Safety/crime

2. Medical care

3. Climate/sunshine

4. International connectivity

5. Public transportation

6. Quality of architecture

7. Environmental issues and access to

nature

8. Urban design

9. Business conditions

10. Pro-active policy development

11. Tolerance

1. Life expectancy

2. Percentage of population with

tertiary education

3. Number of doctors per

10,000 population

4. Number of Primary schools

per 10,000 population

5. Crime rate

6. Air quality

7. Temperature

8. Green coverage ratio

9. Housing price to income ratio

10. Number of shopping malls

per 10,000 population

11. Area of roads per capita

12. Density of drain pipelines

13. Water coverage ratio

• The categories / indicators used in the four studies are summarised in the table below:

16


ACI’s GLSCI study is comparatively pioneering and timely because:

1. ACI-GLSCI framework adopts the perspective of an average resident in the city,

who, unlike a member of the elite, has to be concerned about stretching his/her

budget, and is interested in issues like the average quality of education, the adequacy of

the mass transit system, and the cost of healthcare.

2. The framework considers the multi-dimensional sensibilities of the city’s

residents. Thus, the framework is more comprehensive and balanced in terms of wider

categories of indicators adopted.

3. ACI’s study is more constructive in terms of methodology used, involving “what-if”

simulations on identifying the weakest indicators for improvement and reform.

17

Selection of Cities

• There are a total of 79 cities in the 2018 GLSCI.

• Since the past Liveable Cities Index in 2015 and 2012, three criteria were

used to determine whether cities were included in our index:

1. Megacities (cities with more than 10 million residents)

2. Major cities in most developed countries

3. Major cities in most of the important emerging countries

• In particular, major cities were determined based on their economic, cultural

and political significance. For instance, country and state capitals tend to be

economically and politically significant due to high gross domestic product and

its centrality of governance.

18

Selection of Cities

• Following the past two editions of liveable cities indices that had 64 cities, some

notable changes in our collection of cities were made that led to an additional 15

cities:

– Three African cities (Johannesburg, Nairobi and Lagos) – For the first

time, African cities are represented in our index. Johannesburg and Nairobi are

capital cities while Lagos is the largest city in Africa with a projected population of

over 20 million.

– Seven UK cities (Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Leeds,

Liverpool and Manchester) – Following the interest by the British Cabinet of

Domestic Affairs in the GLCI, we have made a stronger representation of UK

cities in our index. These cities are prominent in terms of their economic strength

and cultural significance.

– Five Indian cities (Dehradun, Krishna, East Godavari, Chittoor and

Vishakhapatnam) – The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed with

Andhra Pradesh (AP) and potential MoU with Uttarakhand motivated their

inclusion in our index to analyse liveability in their respective states. Dehradun is

the capital city of Uttarakhand while the remaining four cities from AP were major

metropolises identified for greater development by the state government. 19

Methodology: 15 New GLSCI Cities

20

City Economy

1 Chittoor India

2 Dehradun India

3 East Godavari India

4 Krishna India

5 Vishakhapatnam India

6 Nairobi Kenya

7 Lagos Nigeria

8 Johannesburg South Africa

9 Birmingham United Kingdom

10 Bristol United Kingdom

11 Cambridge United Kingdom

12 Edinburgh United Kingdom

13 Leeds United Kingdom

14 Liverpool United Kingdom

15 Manchester United Kingdom

21

Methodology: List of 79 Cities in GLSCI (Alphabetical Order)

City Economy

1 Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates

2 Ahmedabad India

3 Amman Jordan

4 Amsterdam Netherlands

5 Auckland New Zealand

6 Bangalore India

7 Bangkok Thailand

8 Barcelona Spain

9 Beijing China

10 Berlin Germany

11 Birmingham United Kingdom

12 Boston United States

13 Bristol United Kingdom

14 Buenos Aires Argentina

15 Cairo Egypt

16 Cambridge United Kingdom

City Economy

17 Chennai India

18 Chicago United States

19 Chittoor India

20 Chongqing China

21 Copenhagen Denmark

22 Damascus Syria

23 Dehradun India

24 Delhi India

25 East Godavari India

26 Edinburgh United Kingdom

27 Geneva Switzerland

28 Guangzhou China

29 Hanoi Vietnam

30 Helsinki Finland

31 Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam

32 Hong Kong Hong Kong, China

Note: Damascus is not included in the 2015 GLCI rankings and the 2018 GLSCI rankings due to insufficient data.

22

City Economy33 Incheon South Korea

34 Istanbul Turkey

35 Jakarta Indonesia

36 Jerusalem Israel

37 Johannesburg South Africa

38 Karachi Pakistan

39 Krishna India

40 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

41 Lagos Nigeria

42 Leeds United Kingdom

43 Liverpool United Kingdom

44 London United Kingdom

45 Los Angeles United States

46 Luxembourg Luxembourg

47 Madrid Spain

48 Manchester United Kingdom

City Economy49 Manila Philippines

50 Melbourne Australia

51 Mexico City Mexico

52 Moscow Russia

53 Mumbai India

54 Nairobi Kenya

55 Nanjing China

56 New York United States

57 Osaka-Kobe Japan

58 Paris France

59 Philadelphia United States

60 Phnom Penh Cambodia

61 Prague Czech Republic

62 Pune India

63 Riyadh Saudi Arabia

64 Rome Italy



City Economy

65 Sao Paulo Brazil

66 Seoul South Korea

67 Shanghai China

68 Shenzhen China

69 Singapore Singapore

70 Stockholm Sweden

71 Sydney Australia

72 Taipei Taiwan, China

73 Tianjin China

74 Tokyo Japan

75 Vancouver Canada

76 Vishakhapatnam India

77 Washington, D.C. United States

78 Yokohama Japan

79 Zurich Switzerland


23


• As an initial step to quantitatively rank cities globally, a list of ideal indicators is

identified according to what theory would dictate as best reflective of the conditions

of a liveable city.

• The ideal indicators list often ends up being voluminous, but in view of data

unavailability and resource constraints, the extensive ideal indicators list is stripped

down to a set of practical indicators, capturing the data in their simplest form while

retaining the essence of the original theoretical inquiry.

• However, the selection of the practical indicators is subjected to intense debate and

scrutiny, and needs regular review given the constant changes in the environments and

the emergence of new trends. As such, we have removed outdated indicators while

also adding new indicators with an emphasis on smart cities.

24

Methodology: Selection of Indicators - Ideal vs. Practical

• For the 2018 edition the GLSCI, there are a total of 99 practical indicators,

which include 33 indicators for Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness, 15

indicators for Environmental Friendliness & Sustainability, 9 indicators for

Domestic Security and Stability, 28 indicators for Socio-Cultural Conditions,

and 14 indicators for Political Governance.

• For the 2018 edition we have:

– Added 13 new Smart City indicators

– Added 4 other new indicators

25

Methodology: Selection of Indicators - Ideal vs. Practical

1. Practical Indicators for Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness (33 Indicators)

1.1 Economic Performance 1.2 Economic Openness 1.3 Infrastructure

1.1.01 GRDP Per Capita 1.2.01Ease for Foreign Investor to Acquire

Control in Domestic Companies1.3.01 Fixed Telephone Subscriptions

1.1.02 Nominal GRDP Growth Rate 1.2.02 Trade to GRDP Ratio 1.3.02 Mobile Phone Subscriptions

1.1.03 Labour Productivity 1.2.03 State Ownership of Enterprises 1.3.03 Computer Ownership

1.1.04Household Consumption

Expenditure Per Capita1.2.04 Prevalence of Trade Barriers 1.3.04 Level of Internet Access

1.1.05 Unemployment Rate 1.2.05Number of Regional Trade

Agreements (Goods)1.3.05 Average Internet Speed

1.1.06 Resilience of Economy 1.2.06Number of Economic Integration

Agreements (Services)1.3.06

Proportion of Households with

Computers

1.1.07 Gross Fixed Capital Formation 1.2.07 Ease of Doing Business 1.3.07Proportion of Households with I

nternet Access

1.1.08Inflation, Growth Rate of

Consumer Price Index (CPI)1.2.08 Prevalence of Foreign Ownership 1.3.08 Technological Readiness

1.1.09 Quantity of Start-ups 1.2.09 Tourism Receipts 1.3.09 Secure Internet Connections

1.1.10 Quality of Start-ups 1.2.10 Economic Freedom 1.3.10 Fixed Broadband Subscriptions

1.1.11E-Commerce Revenue Per

GRDP1.2.11 Hotel Occupancy Rate

1.2.12 International Tourist Arrivals

26Note: New Smart City indicators are in blue, and new indicators are in green.

2. Practical Indicators for Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability (15 Indicators)

2.1 Pollution2.2 Depletion of

Natural Resources2.3 Environmental Initiatives

2.1.01Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Per GRDP2.2.01 Rate of Deforestation 2.3.01

Participation in Selected International

Environmental Agreements

2.1.02Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Per GRDP2.2.01

Energy Consumption

Per GRDP2.3.02 Stringency of Environmental Regulations

2.1.03Sulphur Oxide Emissions

Per GRDP2.2.02 Threatened Species 2.3.03 Terrestrial and Marine Protected Area

2.1.04Nitrogen Oxides Emissions

Per GRDP2.3.04 Enforcement of Environmental Regulation

2.1.05 PM2.5 Annual Mean 2.3.05Electricity Generated from Renewable

Sources

2.1.06Quality of Natural

Environment2.3.06

Renewable Energy Consumption Over

Energy Consumption


3. Practical Indicators for Domestic Security and Stability (9 Indicators)

3.1 Crime Rate3.2 Threats to

National Stability3.3 Civil Unrest

3.1.01 Number of Homicide Cases 3.2.0110-Year Moving Average Fatalities

of Terrorist Attacks3.3.01 Severity of Political Violence

3.1.02 Prevalence of Drug Use 3.2.0210-Year Moving Average

Natural Disaster Death Toll3.3.02

Conflicts of Ethnic, Religious and

Regional Nature

3.1.03Business Cost of Crime and

Violence3.3.03 Intensity of Social Conflicts

3.1.04 Reliability of Police Services


4. Practical Indicators for Socio-Cultural Conditions (28 Indicators)

Part 1

4.1 Medical & Healthcare 4.2 Education4.3 Housing, Sanitation &

Transportation

4.1.01 Infant Mortality Rate 4.2.01 Quality of Education System 4.3.01Proportion of Urban Population Living

in Slums

4.1.02 Life Expectancy 4.2.02 Tertiary Enrolment Rate 4.3.02Proportion of Urban Population with

at least Basic Sanitation Services

4.1.03Government Expenditure on

Health4.2.03

Government Expenditure on

Education 4.3.03 Quality of Ground Transport Network

4.1.04 Density of Hospital Beds 4.2.04 Higher Education Achievement 4.3.04 Quality of Roads

4.1.05 Density of Physicians 4.3.05 Quality of Railroad Infrastructure

4.1.06

International Health

Regulations Core Capacity

Scores

4.3.06 Quality of Electricity Supply

4.3.07Mortality Caused by Road Traffic

Injury


4. Practical Indicators for Socio-Cultural Conditions (28 Indicators)

Part 2

4.4 Income Equality &

Demographic Burden4.5 Diversity & Community Cohesion

4.4.01 GINI Coefficient 4.5.01 International Migrants

4.4.02 Number of Hours Worked per Week 4.5.02 Religious Diversity

4.4.03Poverty Headcount Ratio at $1.90 a day (2011

PPP)4.5.03 Social Hostility

4.4.04 Young Age Dependency Ratio 4.5.04 Happiness Level

4.4.05 Old Age Dependency Ratio 4.5.05 Freedom to Make Life Choices

4.5.06 Social Support


5. Practical Indicators for Political Governance (14 Indicators)

5.1 Policy Making &

Implementation

5.2 Government

System

5.3 Transparency &

Accountability5.4 Corruption

5.1.01 Government Effectiveness 5.2.01Functioning of

Government System5.3.01

Transparency of

Government Policy

Making

5.4.01Control of

Corruption

5.1.02Government Consumption

Expenditure5.2.02 Judicial Independence 5.3.02

Voice and

Accountability5.4.02

Corruption

Perceptions Index

5.1.03Tax Revenue Over

Government Revenue5.2.03 Quality of E-Government 5.3.03

Depth of Credit

Information

Index

5.1.04 Regulatory Quality 5.2.04Political Stability and

Absence of Violence

5.2.05 Rule of Law


• The basis of the ranking is the standardised value. We first compute the average and

the standard deviation of each indicator. Then, the standardised value is calculated as

follow:

• There are four levels in ranking algorithm:

– Indicators

– Sub-environments

– Environments

– Overall liveability

• Equal weights are adopted to derive the score for the next higher level from the score

of the current level.

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 =𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

0 (zero) = same as the average of all cities

- (negative) = below the average of all cities

+ (positive) = above the average of all cities

32

Methodology: Ranking Algorithm

Methodology: What-if Simulation Analysis

• Ranking exercises alone are like beauty contests, in the sense that there is an absence

of constructive suggestions.

• With What-if Simulation Analysis, ACI attempts to answer the “so-what” question.

• What-if Simulation Analysis is based on two assumptions:

– Each city will work on areas where their rankings are worst in order to make targeted

improvements. This is identified by their lowest (worst-performing) 20 percent of the

indicators out of the entire list of indicators.

– After identifying the 20 percent most lagging indicators, scores are simulated to the

“average” score for all cities.

• What-if Simulation Analysis is a static simulation.

33

Methodology: Shapley Value Ranking Algorithm

Shapley value is widely applied in cooperative game theory, which measures the

marginal contribution of an agent. In our context, the agent could be indicators, sub-

environments and environments.

The formula for Shapley value is:

With different marginal contribution to the overall competitiveness ranking, different

weights should be assigned to indicators, sub-environments and environments.

We would like to propose an objective weighting method based on Shapley value – the

“Bottom-Up” Approach.

34

Ф 𝒗 =

𝑺⊆𝑵\{𝒊

𝑺 ! 𝑵 − 𝑺 − 𝟏 !

𝑵!𝒗 𝑺 ∪ 𝒊 − 𝒗 𝑺


• Formally, let 𝑣𝐼 be the characteristic function of the indicators, where 𝑣𝐼: 2𝐼 → ℝ. Then

for each indicator 𝑖 ∈ 𝐼, 𝑣𝐼(𝑖) ∶ ℝ𝐸 → ℝ , which reflects that the value of indicator 𝑖 is

derived from 𝑋𝑒𝑖 for all 𝑒 ∈ 𝐸. As we involve large number of indicators in our case

studies, for the ease of numerical computation, we simply define that

𝑣𝐼(𝑖) = 𝑒=1𝐸 |𝑆𝑉𝑒𝑖| .

• We further assume the Additivity of the characteristic function 𝑣𝐼, i.e.

𝑣𝐼(𝑖 ∪ 𝑗) = 𝑣𝐼 (𝑖) + 𝑣𝐼(𝑗) for any indicator 𝑖 , 𝑗 ∈ 𝐼.• With all these defined, we are able to proceed with the computation of the Shapley

value Ф𝑖𝐼 of indicator 𝑖 ∈ 𝐼.

Ф𝑖𝐼 = 𝕀⊆𝐼\{𝑖

𝕀 ! 𝐼− 𝕀 −1 !

𝐼!(𝑣𝐼 𝕀 ∪ 𝑖 − 𝑣𝐼(𝕀)) for all 𝑖 ∈ 𝐼

=

𝕀⊆𝐼\{𝑖

𝕀 ! 𝐼 − 𝕀 − 1 !

𝐼!(𝑣𝐼 𝕀 ∪ 𝑖 − 𝑣𝐼(𝕀)) =

𝕀⊆𝐼\{𝑖

𝕀 ! 𝐼 − 𝕀 − 1 !

𝐼!𝑣𝐼 𝑖 = 𝑣𝐼 𝑖

• Then the indicator weight 𝑤𝑖𝐼 based on Shapley value is simply

𝑤𝑖𝐼 =

Ф𝑖𝐼

𝑗=1𝐼 Ф𝑗

𝐼 =𝑣𝐼(𝑖)

𝑗=1𝐼 𝑣𝐼(𝑗)

.35


36

1 We start from the lowest level of analysis (indicators) and identify the inequality of

the units being measured (economies and sub-national economies). This is called the

“Shapley Value”, which is computed from the standardised score of each indicator.

Subsequently, the Shapley Value is used to calculate Shapley Weight, where more

weights are assigned to those indicators with higher Shapley value.

2

The weights of Sub-environments are computed in “bottom-up” manner according to

both standardised scores and Shapley Weights of indicators under that particular

sub-environment.

3

Finally, the weights of environments and the overall index are computed in a similar

way.

4

Data Sources, Data Constraints and Data Proxies

• Data for the indicators are primarily 2016 data gathered from established data sources,

such as the World Bank, the United Nations Statistics Division, World Trade

Organisation, World Economic Forum, and statistical yearbooks of various economies.

In the event that 2016 data for a particular indicator is not available, the available data

in the most recent year is used instead.

• Constructing ranking indices at the city level is a more challenging task than doing that

at the country or sub-national level because city level data are often unavailable, or not

adequately accurate. As such, compromises may have to be made where sub-national

(provincial) data are used as proxies for local city conditions.

• Even for the selected indicators that are deemed to be highly relevant, data

unavailability in the case of some cities means that proxy values have to be adopted

until such time that the relevant data becomes available.

• Caution should be exercised in making comparisons between the 2018 GLSCI results

and those of previous years. The improvement in data availability over the years

unavoidably affected the rankings between the past two rounds of the study.

37

Research Findings

2018 Preliminary Overall Rankings and Scores

City Economy Score 2018 Ranking

2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012

Zurich Switzerland 1.6621 1 2 2

Geneva Switzerland 1.6438 2 1 1

Luxembourg Luxembourg 1.4416 3 3 6

Amsterdam Netherlands 1.3719 4 10 15

Berlin Germany 1.3526 5 11 8

Helsinki Finland 1.3445 6 4 4

Copenhagen Denmark 1.3391 7 9 4

Stockholm Sweden 1.2893 8 5 7

Singapore Singapore 1.2864 9 7 3

London United Kingdom 1.2479 10 15 22

Auckland New Zealand 1.2238 11 8 10

Hong Kong Hong Kong, China 1.1803 12 6 8

Birmingham United Kingdom 1.0650 13 N.A. N.A.

Manchester United Kingdom 1.0416 14 N.A. N.A.

Liverpool United Kingdom 1.0382 15 N.A. N.A.

Edinburgh United Kingdom 1.0354 16 N.A. N.A.

38Source: ACI

Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.

Research Findings



2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012

Leeds United Kingdom 1.0222 17 N.A. N.A.

Bristol United Kingdom 1.0218 18 N.A. N.A.

Cambridge United Kingdom 0.9908 19 N.A. N.A.

Vancouver Canada 0.9473 20 12 14

Sydney Australia 0.9348 21 14 12

Melbourne Australia 0.9225 22 13 10

New York United States 0.8692 23 24 17

Los Angeles United States 0.7549 24 25 19

Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates 0.7482 25 21 32

Chicago United States 0.7245 26 27 24

Boston United States 0.6965 27 23 22

Philadelphia United States 0.6921 28 26 20

Washington, D.C. United States 0.6843 29 22 25

Tokyo Japan 0.6097 30 18 18

Osaka-Kobe Japan 0.5715 31 20 16

Yokohama Japan 0.5566 32 16 20

39Source: ACI


Research Findings



2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012

Prague Czech Republic 0.4648 33 30 28

Paris France 0.4486 34 17 13

Madrid Spain 0.4459 35 28 30

Barcelona Spain 0.4357 36 29 26

Seoul South Korea 0.2931 37 31 29

Taipei Taiwan, China 0.2505 38 19 27

Incheon South Korea 0.2475 39 32 31

Rome Italy 0.1275 40 33 34

Kuala Lumpur Malaysia -0.2052 41 34 32

Jerusalem Israel -0.3897 42 35 36

Riyadh Saudi Arabia -0.4553 43 36 38

Shenzhen China -0.6173 44 38 41

Shanghai China -0.6436 45 47 39

Guangzhou China -0.6471 46 40 47

Tianjin China -0.6474 47 45 45

Beijing China -0.6539 48 43 46

40Source: ACI


Research Findings



2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012

Nanjing China -0.6604 49 44 40

Chongqing China -0.6952 50 49 52

Istanbul Turkey -0.7218 51 39 59

Krishna India -0.7933 52 N.A. N.A.

East Godavari India -0.8049 53 N.A. N.A.

Vishakhapatnam India -0.8208 54 N.A. N.A.

Bangkok Thailand -0.8244 55 46 41

Chittoor India -0.8329 56 N.A. N.A.

Amman Jordan -0.8336 57 50 35

Delhi India -0.8368 58 59 57

Buenos Aires Argentina -0.8443 59 41 58

Jakarta Indonesia -0.8880 60 52 64

Bangalore India -0.8961 61 60 55

Chennai India -0.8992 62 55 47

Pune India -0.9380 63 58 47

Ahmedabad India -0.9560 64 56 43

41Source: ACI


Research Findings


42


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012

Sao Paulo Brazil -0.9588 65 37 37

Mumbai India -0.9650 66 61 55

Mexico City Mexico -0.9950 67 51 50

Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam -1.0076 68 42 52

Hanoi Vietnam -1.0226 69 48 52

Nairobi Kenya -1.1803 70 N.A. N.A.

Manila Philippines -1.2071 71 53 63

Phnom Penh Cambodia -1.3463 72 54 61

Dehradun India -1.3631 73 N.A. N.A.

Moscow Russia -1.4602 74 57 62

Cairo Egypt -1.5714 75 62 43

Johannesburg South Africa -1.7230 76 N.A. N.A.

Lagos Nigeria -1.8510 77 N.A. N.A.

Karachi Pakistan -1.8674 78 63 60

Damascus Syria N.A. N.A. N.A. 51

Source: ACI


Research Findings

2018 Preliminary Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness Rankings and Scores


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012

















43Source: ACI


Research Findings



2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012











Paris France 0.5764 27 19 14




Tokyo Japan 0.3829 31 27 31


44Source: ACI


Research Findings



2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012







Madrid Spain 0.0608 39 39 37



Rome Italy -0.1923 42 33 33







45Source: ACI


Research Findings



2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012



Delhi India -0.7055 51 59 59


Mumbai India -0.7410 53 62 60












46Source: ACI


Research Findings



2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012

Pune India -0.8858 65 58 56







Amman Jordan -1.2736 72 54 48


Cairo Egypt -1.6631 74 60 38






47Source: ACI


Research Findings2018 Preliminary Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability Rankings and Scores


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012









Paris France 1.2719 9 11 7

Nairobi Kenya 0.9590 10 N.A. N.A.

Sao Paulo Brazil 0.9143 11 9 12






48Source: ACI




2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012







Rome Italy 0.7390 23 16 25


Madrid Spain 0.6369 25 13 11


Tokyo Japan 0.6302 27 20 13






49Source: ACI




2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012











Amman Jordan -0.2437 43 43 28


Seoul South Korea -0.4284 45 39 29

Karachi Pakistan -0.4521 46 N.A. N.A.


Incheon South Korea -0.5161 48 40 36

50Source: ACI




2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012


Taipei Taiwan, China -0.5746 50 34 30






Krishna India -0.8461 56 55 42









51Source: ACI




2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012


Delhi India -1.0619 66 63 52

Mumbai India -1.1948 67 61 43

Pune India -1.1948 67 60 57





Cairo Egypt -1.2805 73 62 57







52Source: ACI


2018 Preliminary Domestic Security and Stability Rankings and Scores

Research Findings

53


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012

















Source: ACI


Research Findings


54


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012






Madrid Spain 0.7238 22 19 33







Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 0.4031 29 29 39


Tokyo Japan 0.3413 30 23 15


Source: ACI


Research Findings


55


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012

Rome Italy 0.3392 33 20 36


Riyadh Saudi Arabia 0.3157 35 26 50

Delhi India 0.2231 36 55 52

Bangalore India 0.2157 37 49 52

Chennai India 0.2130 38 51 52

Amman Jordan 0.2036 39 39 25

Krishna India 0.1712 40 N.A. N.A.

East Godavari India 0.1705 41 N.A. N.A.

Chittoor India 0.1481 42 N.A. N.A.





Vishakhapatnam India 0.0863 47 N.A. N.A.

Pune India 0.0854 48 54 52

Source: ACI


Research Findings


56


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012



Ahmedabad India 0.0104 51 49 52

Mumbai India -0.1798 52 57 52













Source: ACI


Research Findings


57


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012



Paris France -0.9702 67 21 6


Cairo Egypt -1.5072 69 62 23











Source: ACI


Research Findings

2018 Preliminary Socio-Cultural Conditions Rankings and Scores

58


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012














Paris France 0.8083 14 17 9



Source: ACI


Research Findings


59


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012

Tokyo Japan 0.7703 16 18 12
















Source: ACI


Research Findings


60


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012






Madrid Spain 0.6557 37 23 27


Jerusalem Israel 0.4488 40 35 27

Rome Italy 0.1556 41 33 36








Source: ACI


Research Findings


61


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012












Amman Jordan -0.7273 60 51 35


Cairo Egypt -1.2039 62 55 53



Source: ACI


Research Findings


62


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012







Delhi India -1.4457 68 56 57

Mumbai India -1.4457 68 58 59

Pune India -1.4457 68 59 45







Source: ACI


Research Findings

2018 Preliminary Political Governance Rankings and Scores

63


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012

















Source: ACI


Research Findings


64


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012















Tokyo Japan 0.5920 30 13 22


Source: ACI


Research Findings


65


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012


Paris France 0.3123 34 26 26



Jerusalem Israel 0.1572 37 28 39



Barcelona Spain -0.0906 40 32 27

Madrid Spain -0.0906 40 33 27



Rome Italy -0.4733 44 45 40




Delhi India -0.7385 45 35 31

Source: ACI


Research Findings


66


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012

Mumbai India -0.7385 45 35 31

Pune India -0.7385 45 35 31















Source: ACI


Research Findings


67


2018

Ranking

2015

Ranking

2012









Cairo Egypt -1.3470 73 62 59



Amman Jordan -1.6731 76 54 47




Source: ACI


Research Findings in 2018

• The overall liveability ranking places Zurich as the most liveable city, followed by

Geneva and Luxembourg. Amsterdam, Berlin, Helsinki, Copenhagen, Stockholm,

Singapore, and London rank 4th to 10th positions respectively.

• European cities dominate the ranking, as evidenced by the fact that 9 out of the top

10 cities are from Europe. In fact, Singapore is the only city outside of Europe that

managed to get into the top 10.

• The bottom-ranking cities are mainly from South Asia and Southeast Asia, which

reflects a critical gap between the liveability conditions of the region and that of the

West, thereby highlighting the urgent need for the region’s policymakers to address

the issue of liveability .

68


2018 Preliminary Overall Rankings and Scores for 3 Asia CitiesEnvironment Ranking 2018 Ranking 2015 Ranking 2012

Overall 9 7 3

Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness 4 2 5

Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability 39 24 14

Domestic Security and Stability 1 5 1

Socio-Cultural Conditions 10 12 5

Political Governance 4 1 3

69

Singapore

Environment Ranking 2018 Ranking 2015 Ranking 2012

Overall 12 6 8






Environment Ranking 2018 Ranking 2015 Ranking 2012

Overall 30 18 18






Hong Kong

Tokyo

Source: ACI



Rank Overall

Economic

Vibrancy and

Competitiveness

Environmental

Friendliness &

Sustainability

Domestic

Security and

Stability

Socio-Cultural

Conditions

Political

Governance

1 Zurich London Geneva Singapore Amsterdam Geneva

2 Geneva New York Zurich Helsinki Geneva Zurich

3 Luxembourg Hong Kong Luxembourg Luxembourg Zurich Auckland

4 Amsterdam Singapore Copenhagen Geneva Helsinki Singapore

5 Berlin Luxembourg Berlin Zurich Copenhagen Hong Kong

74 Moscow Cairo Johannesburg Dehradun Johannesburg Lagos

75 Cairo Sao Paulo Moscow Jerusalem Phnom Penh Moscow

76 Johannesburg Johannesburg Ho Chi Minh City Manila Karachi Amman

77 Lagos Lagos Dehradun Johannesburg Nairobi Karachi

78 Karachi Karachi Hanoi Moscow Lagos Phnom Penh

70

Research Findings2018 Preliminary Asian City Scores (Overall)

Rank City Economy Score

9 Singapore Singapore 1.2864

12 Hong Kong Hong Kong, China 1.1803

30 Tokyo Japan 0.6097

31 Osaka-Kobe Japan 0.5715

32 Yokohama Japan 0.5566

37 Seoul South Korea 0.2931

38 Taipei Taiwan, China 0.2505

39 Incheon South Korea 0.2475

41 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia -0.2052

44 Shenzhen China -0.6173

45 Shanghai China -0.6436

46 Guangzhou China -0.6471

47 Tianjin China -0.6474

48 Beijing China -0.6539

49 Nanjing China -0.6604

50 Chongqing China -0.6952

52 Krishna India -0.7933

71Source: ACI


53 East Godavari India -0.8049

54 Vishakhapatnam India -0.8208

55 Bangkok Thailand -0.8244

56 Chittoor India -0.8329

58 Delhi India -0.8368

60 Jakarta Indonesia -0.8880

61 Bangalore India -0.8961

62 Chennai India -0.8992

63 Pune India -0.9380

64 Ahmedabad India -0.9560

66 Mumbai India -0.9650

68 Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam -1.0076

69 Hanoi Vietnam -1.0226

71 Manila Philippines -1.2071

72 Phnom Penh Cambodia -1.3463

73 Dehradun India -1.3631

78 Karachi Pakistan -1.8674

Research Findings

• 2018 Preliminary What-if Simulation Analysis (Overall)

CityRank Score

Before After Before After

Zurich 1 1 1.6621 1.8159

Geneva 2 1 1.6438 1.8179

Luxembourg 3 1 1.4416 1.7048

Amsterdam 4 3 1.3719 1.5495

Berlin 5 3 1.3526 1.4539

Helsinki 6 2 1.3445 1.6446

Copenhagen 7 3 1.3391 1.5787

Stockholm 8 3 1.2893 1.5630

Singapore 9 3 1.2864 1.5404

London 10 4 1.2479 1.4303

Auckland 11 3 1.2238 1.5094

Hong Kong 12 3 1.1803 1.4374

Birmingham 13 10 1.0650 1.2594

Manchester 14 10 1.0416 1.2495

Liverpool 15 10 1.0382 1.2474

Edinburgh 16 10 1.0354 1.2443

72

CityRank Score


Leeds 17 11 1.0222 1.2402

Bristol 18 11 1.0218 1.2301

Cambridge 19 12 0.9908 1.2153

Vancouver 20 12 0.9473 1.2051

Sydney 21 13 0.9348 1.1687

Melbourne 22 13 0.9225 1.1630

New York 23 11 0.8692 1.2317

Los Angeles 24 13 0.7549 1.1190

Abu Dhabi 25 12 0.7482 1.1863

Chicago 26 13 0.7245 1.0966

Boston 27 13 0.6965 1.0686

Philadelphia 28 13 0.6921 1.0685

Washington, D.C. 29 13 0.6843 1.0587

Tokyo 30 13 0.6097 1.0720

Osaka-Kobe 31 14 0.5715 1.0359

Yokohama 32 17 0.5566 1.0182

Source: ACI

Research Findings


CityRank Score


Prague 33 26 0.4648 0.7314

Paris 34 14 0.4486 1.0309

Madrid 35 26 0.4459 0.7403

Barcelona 36 26 0.4357 0.7284

Seoul 37 30 0.2931 0.6171

Taipei 38 27 0.2505 0.6935

Incheon 39 31 0.2475 0.5972

Rome 40 32 0.1275 0.5534

Kuala Lumpur 41 37 -0.2052 0.2992

Jerusalem 42 33 -0.3897 0.4842

Riyadh 43 40 -0.4553 0.1917

Shenzhen 44 41 -0.6173 -0.0875

Shanghai 45 41 -0.6436 -0.1060

Guangzhou 46 41 -0.6471 -0.1093

Tianjin 47 41 -0.6474 -0.1101

Beijing 48 41 -0.6539 -0.1163

73

CityRank Score


Nanjing 49 41 -0.6604 -0.1228

Chongqing 50 41 -0.6952 -0.1341

Istanbul 51 41 -0.7218 -0.1788

Krishna 52 42 -0.7933 -0.3603

East Godavari 53 42 -0.8049 -0.3719

Vishakhapatnam 54 42 -0.8208 -0.3878

Bangkok 55 42 -0.8244 -0.2443

Chittoor 56 42 -0.8329 -0.3878

Amman 57 41 -0.8336 -0.1514

Delhi 58 42 -0.8368 -0.3831

Buenos Aires 59 41 -0.8443 -0.1899

Jakarta 60 42 -0.8880 -0.3612

Bangalore 61 43 -0.8961 -0.4254

Chennai 62 43 -0.8992 -0.4267

Pune 63 44 -0.9380 -0.4705

Ahmedabad 64 44 -0.9560 -0.4852

Source: ACI

Research Findings


CityRank Score


Sao Paulo 65 41 -0.9588 -0.1316

Mumbai 66 44 -0.9650 -0.4978

Mexico City 67 41 -0.9950 -0.1862

Ho Chi Minh City 68 42 -1.0076 -0.3329

Hanoi 69 42 -1.0226 -0.3479

Nairobi 70 42 -1.1803 -0.3666

Manila 71 43 -1.2071 -0.4501

Phnom Penh 72 43 -1.3463 -0.4440

Dehradun 73 41 -1.3631 -0.1394

Moscow 74 43 -1.4602 -0.4565

Cairo 75 44 -1.5714 -0.5382

Johannesburg 76 44 -1.7230 -0.4936

Lagos 77 60 -1.8510 -0.9197

Karachi 78 67 -1.8674 -1.0157

74

Source: ACI

Research Findings• 2018 Preliminary What-if Simulation Analysis: Challenges for Asian cities

EnvironmentRank Score


Overall 12 3 1.1803 1.4374

EconomicVibrancy and Competitiveness 3 1 1.7749 1.9741

Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability 28 10 0.5941 1.0286

Domestic Security and Stability 23 18 0.7056 0.8911

Socio-Cultural Conditions 19 9 0.7662 1.1008

Political Governance 5 5 1.4182 1.4182

75

Source: ACI



Overall 9 3 1.2864 1.5404








Overall 30 13 0.6097 1.0720






Hong Kong

Tokyo

Singapore

Research Findings

• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis

76

Source: ACIShapley Weight MethodologyEqual Weight Methodology

Research Findings

• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Overall)

CityRank Score Rank

ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley

Zurich 1 1 1.6621 1.6417 0

Geneva 2 2 1.6438 1.6276 0

Luxembourg 3 3 1.4416 1.4374 0

Amsterdam 4 4 1.3719 1.3707 0

Berlin 5 7 1.3526 1.3164 -2

Helsinki 6 5 1.3445 1.3483 +1

Copenhagen 7 6 1.3391 1.3473 +1

Stockholm 8 8 1.2893 1.2951 0

Singapore 9 9 1.2864 1.2556 0

London 10 11 1.2479 1.1972 -1

Auckland 11 10 1.2238 1.2422 +1

Hong Kong 12 12 1.1803 1.1203 0

Birmingham 13 13 1.0650 1.0570 0

Manchester 14 14 1.0416 1.0437 0

Liverpool 15 15 1.0382 1.0410 0

Edinburgh 16 16 1.0354 1.0377 0

79

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Leeds 17 18 1.0222 1.0261 -1

Bristol 18 17 1.0218 1.0283 +1

Cambridge 19 19 0.9908 1.0075 0

Vancouver 20 21 0.9473 0.9468 -1

Sydney 21 20 0.9348 0.9483 +1

Melbourne 22 22 0.9225 0.9366 0

New York 23 23 0.8692 0.8192 0

Los Angeles 24 24 0.7549 0.7797 0

Abu Dhabi 25 29 0.7482 0.6778 -4

Chicago 26 25 0.7245 0.7639 +1

Boston 27 27 0.6965 0.7431 0

Philadelphia 28 26 0.6921 0.7444 +2

Washington, D.C. 29 28 0.6843 0.7415 +1

Tokyo 30 30 0.6097 0.6583 0

Osaka-Kobe 31 31 0.5715 0.6243 0

Yokohama 32 32 0.5566 0.6101 0

Research Findings


CityRank Score Rank


Prague 33 36 0.4648 0.4216 -3

Paris 34 33 0.4486 0.5816 +1

Madrid 35 34 0.4459 0.4557 +1

Barcelona 36 35 0.4357 0.4510 +1

Seoul 37 38 0.2931 0.2534 -1

Taipei 38 37 0.2505 0.2883 +1

Incheon 39 39 0.2475 0.2120 0

Rome 40 40 0.1275 0.1176 0

Kuala Lumpur 41 42 -0.2052 -0.2134 -1

Jerusalem 42 41 -0.3897 -0.1979 +1

Riyadh 43 43 -0.4553 -0.4944 0

Shenzhen 44 44 -0.6173 -0.6734 0

Shanghai 45 46 -0.6436 -0.7003 -1

Guangzhou 46 45 -0.6471 -0.6982 +1

Tianjin 47 47 -0.6474 -0.7010 0

Beijing 48 48 -0.6539 -0.7099 0

80

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Nanjing 49 50 -0.6604 -0.7130 -1

Chongqing 50 51 -0.6952 -0.7514 -1

Istanbul 51 49 -0.7218 -0.7109 +2

Krishna 52 53 -0.7933 -0.8277 -1

East Godavari 53 54 -0.8049 -0.8390 -1

Vishakhapatnam 54 55 -0.8208 -0.8484 -1

Bangkok 55 56 -0.8244 -0.8636 -1

Chittoor 56 57 -0.8329 -0.8658 -1

Amman 57 52 -0.8336 -0.8119 +5

Delhi 58 59 -0.8368 -0.8809 -1

Buenos Aires 59 58 -0.8443 -0.8668 +1

Jakarta 60 60 -0.8880 -0.8920 0

Bangalore 61 63 -0.8961 -0.9382 -2

Chennai 62 62 -0.8992 -0.9353 0

Pune 63 64 -0.9380 -0.9637 -1

Ahmedabad 64 66 -0.9560 -0.9756 -2

Research Findings


81

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Sao Paulo 65 61 -0.9588 -0.9169 +4

Mumbai 66 67 -0.9650 -0.9784 -1

Mexico City 67 65 -0.9950 -0.9690 +2

Ho Chi Minh City 68 68 -1.0076 -1.0654 0

Hanoi 69 69 -1.0226 -1.0816 0

Nairobi 70 70 -1.1803 -1.1375 0

Manila 71 71 -1.2071 -1.1562 0

Phnom Penh 72 74 -1.3463 -1.3940 -2

Dehradun 73 72 -1.3631 -1.1603 +1

Moscow 74 73 -1.4602 -1.3913 +1

Cairo 75 75 -1.5714 -1.5970 0

Johannesburg 76 76 -1.7230 -1.6151 0

Lagos 77 77 -1.8510 -1.8298 0

Karachi 78 78 -1.8674 -1.8509 0

Research Findings

• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness)

CityRank Score Rank


London 1 1 1.8904 1.7318 0

New York 2 5 1.7929 1.4134 -3

Hong Kong 3 2 1.7749 1.6793 +1

Singapore 4 3 1.6991 1.6408 +1

Luxembourg 5 4 1.4891 1.4638 +1

Los Angeles 6 7 1.2824 1.2363 -1

Zurich 7 6 1.2007 1.2723 +1

Chicago 8 10 1.1472 1.1680 -2

Birmingham 9 12 1.1323 1.1515 -3

Amsterdam 10 11 1.1311 1.1554 -1

Geneva 11 8 1.1189 1.2080 +3

Boston 12 13 1.1123 1.1281 -1

Copenhagen 13 9 1.1032 1.1732 +4

Berlin 14 17 1.0797 1.0673 -3

Stockholm 15 15 1.0730 1.0969 0

Philadelphia 16 14 1.0314 1.0984 +2

82

CityRank Score Rank


Washington, D.C. 17 16 1.0098 1.0844 +1

Manchester 18 18 0.9830 1.0528 0

Liverpool 19 19 0.9773 1.0497 0

Cambridge 20 20 0.9752 1.0453 0

Edinburgh 21 21 0.9697 1.0404 0

Bristol 22 22 0.9681 1.0396 0

Leeds 23 23 0.9236 1.0010 0

Sydney 24 24 0.6908 0.7228 0

Auckland 25 25 0.6795 0.7137 0

Melbourne 26 26 0.6396 0.6777 0

Paris 27 27 0.5764 0.6196 0

Abu Dhabi 28 29 0.4799 0.4583 -1

Helsinki 29 28 0.4691 0.5238 +1

Prague 30 30 0.4145 0.4207 0

Tokyo 31 31 0.3829 0.4013 0

Vancouver 32 32 0.3097 0.3651 0

Source: ACI

Research Findings


CityRank Score Rank


Osaka-Kobe 33 33 0.2548 0.2918 0

Seoul 34 34 0.2516 0.2658 0

Yokohama 35 35 0.2076 0.2479 0

Barcelona 36 36 0.1414 0.2102 0

Incheon 37 37 0.1360 0.1708 0

Taipei 38 39 0.1010 0.1343 -1

Madrid 39 38 0.0608 0.1438 +1

Jerusalem 40 40 -0.0056 0.0375 0

Kuala Lumpur 41 42 -0.0932 -0.1297 -1

Rome 42 41 -0.1923 -0.1126 +1

Shenzhen 43 43 -0.2239 -0.2680 0

Shanghai 44 44 -0.2891 -0.3367 0

Tianjin 45 45 -0.3142 -0.3467 0

Beijing 46 47 -0.3320 -0.3784 -1

Guangzhou 47 46 -0.3345 -0.3579 +1

Chongqing 48 48 -0.3578 -0.3974 0

83

CityRank Score Rank


Bangkok 49 50 -0.3728 -0.4557 -1

Nanjing 50 49 -0.3809 -0.4102 +1

Delhi 51 53 -0.7055 -0.8001 -2

Riyadh 52 51 -0.7391 -0.7216 +1

Mumbai 53 55 -0.7410 -0.8268 -2

Istanbul 54 52 -0.7987 -0.7630 +2

Bangalore 55 57 -0.8157 -0.8997 -2

Chennai 56 56 -0.8186 -0.8758 0

Krishna 57 58 -0.8362 -0.9053 -1

Hanoi 58 59 -0.8392 -0.9147 -1

Ho Chi Minh City 59 61 -0.8471 -0.9196 -2

Chittoor 60 60 -0.8490 -0.9167 0

Mexico City 61 54 -0.8547 -0.8170 +7

East Godavari 62 63 -0.8675 -0.9326 -1

Ahmedabad 63 62 -0.8759 -0.9276 +1

Vishakhapatnam 64 65 -0.8779 -0.9412 -1

Source: ACI

Research Findings

84

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Pune 65 64 -0.8858 -0.9404 +1

Phnom Penh 66 67 -0.9056 -1.0080 -1

Dehradun 67 66 -0.9088 -0.9682 +1

Manila 68 69 -1.0545 -1.0815 -1

Buenos Aires 69 68 -1.0938 -1.0778 +1

Moscow 70 70 -1.1258 -1.1019 0

Jakarta 71 71 -1.1916 -1.1703 0

Amman 72 72 -1.2736 -1.2506 0

Nairobi 73 73 -1.4055 -1.4024 0

Cairo 74 75 -1.6631 -1.6090 -1

Sao Paulo 75 74 -1.6649 -1.5833 +1

Johannesburg 76 76 -1.7775 -1.6463 0

Lagos 77 77 -2.1564 -2.0741 0

Karachi 78 78 -2.1915 -2.1338 0


Research Findings

CityRank Score Rank


Geneva 1 1 2.1207 2.0386 0

Zurich 2 2 2.1203 2.0382 0

Luxembourg 3 3 1.9571 1.8735 0

Copenhagen 4 4 1.9409 1.8642 0

Berlin 5 5 1.7985 1.7706 0

Stockholm 6 6 1.6944 1.6416 0

Helsinki 7 7 1.5816 1.5472 0

Amsterdam 8 8 1.2731 1.2598 0

Paris 9 9 1.2719 1.2454 0

Nairobi 10 20 0.9590 0.8287 -10

Sao Paulo 11 12 0.9143 0.8615 -1

London 12 11 0.8916 0.8790 +1

Liverpool 13 13 0.8677 0.8541 0

Manchester 13 13 0.8677 0.8541 0

Auckland 15 10 0.8655 0.9258 +5

Edinburgh 16 15 0.8624 0.8485 +1

85Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Bristol 17 16 0.8578 0.8437 +1

Birmingham 18 18 0.8538 0.8396 0

Cambridge 19 17 0.8537 0.8397 +2

Leeds 20 19 0.8499 0.8355 +1

Sydney 21 21 0.7622 0.7957 0

Melbourne 22 22 0.7476 0.7806 0

Rome 23 23 0.7390 0.7202 0

Vancouver 24 25 0.6862 0.6652 -1

Madrid 25 27 0.6369 0.6600 -2

Barcelona 26 28 0.6310 0.6538 -2

Tokyo 27 24 0.6302 0.7058 +3

Hong Kong 28 30 0.5941 0.6123 -2

Osaka-Kobe 29 26 0.5883 0.6622 +3

Yokohama 30 29 0.5690 0.6421 +1

Prague 31 37 0.3530 0.3263 -6

Abu Dhabi 32 38 0.3099 0.3128 -6

• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Environmental Friendliness &

Sustainability)

Research Findings

CityRank Score Rank


Washington, D.C. 33 31 0.2535 0.4086 +2

Boston 34 32 0.2422 0.3969 +2

New York 35 33 0.2379 0.3924 +2

Los Angeles 36 34 0.2310 0.3852 +2

Philadelphia 37 35 0.2268 0.3809 +2

Chicago 38 36 0.2243 0.3783 +2

Singapore 39 39 0.1050 0.1586 0

Jerusalem 40 40 -0.0989 -0.0497 0

Istanbul 41 41 -0.1259 -0.1261 0

Lagos 42 44 -0.2296 -0.3028 -2

Amman 43 42 -0.2437 -0.2935 +1

Manila 44 43 -0.3401 -0.2944 +1

Seoul 45 46 -0.4284 -0.4164 -1

Karachi 46 50 -0.4521 -0.5803 -4

Buenos Aires 47 47 -0.4522 -0.4794 0

Incheon 48 48 -0.5161 -0.5077 0

86Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Mexico City 49 49 -0.5740 -0.5405 0

Taipei 50 45 -0.5746 -0.3931 +5

Jakarta 51 51 -0.6592 -0.6195 0

Bangkok 52 52 -0.7216 -0.7184 0

Shenzhen 53 53 -0.8154 -0.8543 0

Vishakhapatnam 54 54 -0.8293 -0.8695 0

Guangzhou 55 55 -0.8353 -0.8750 0

Krishna 56 56 -0.8461 -0.8870 0

Nanjing 57 57 -0.8504 -0.8907 0

Tianjin 58 59 -0.8592 -0.9001 -1

Beijing 59 60 -0.8616 -0.9024 -1

Shanghai 60 61 -0.8638 -0.9047 -1

East Godavari 61 62 -0.8892 -0.9319 -1

Chittoor 62 63 -0.9112 -0.9548 -1

Kuala Lumpur 63 58 -1.0134 -0.8975 +5

Chongqing 64 64 -1.0252 -1.0728 0


Sustainability)

Research Findings

87

CityRank Score Rank


Riyadh 65 65 -1.0356 -1.0902 0

Delhi 66 66 -1.0619 -1.1046 0

Mumbai 67 68 -1.1948 -1.2431 -1

Pune 67 68 -1.1948 -1.2431 -1

Bangalore 69 70 -1.2085 -1.2573 -1

Ahmedabad 70 71 -1.2099 -1.2588 -1

Phnom Penh 71 67 -1.2110 -1.1870 +4

Chennai 72 72 -1.2169 -1.2660 0

Cairo 73 73 -1.2805 -1.3219 0

Johannesburg 74 74 -1.3102 -1.3346 0

Moscow 75 76 -1.4310 -1.4704 -1

Ho Chi Minh City 76 77 -1.5710 -1.5761 -1

Dehradun 77 75 -1.5822 -1.4581 +2

Hanoi 78 78 -1.6454 -1.6537 0


Sustainability)

Source: ACI

Research Findings

• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Domestic Security and Stability)

CityRank Score Rank


Singapore 1 2 1.4305 1.4729 -1

Helsinki 2 1 1.4094 1.4779 +1

Luxembourg 3 3 1.3656 1.4087 0

Geneva 4 4 1.2439 1.2901 0

Zurich 4 4 1.2439 1.2901 0

Amsterdam 6 7 1.2335 1.2815 -1

Auckland 7 6 1.1862 1.2854 +1

Stockholm 8 9 1.0766 1.1047 -1

Vancouver 9 8 1.0666 1.1165 +1

Copenhagen 10 10 1.0494 1.1002 0

Abu Dhabi 11 11 1.0391 1.0346 0

Edinburgh 12 12 0.9220 0.9499 0

Leeds 12 12 0.9220 0.9499 0

Liverpool 12 12 0.9220 0.9499 0

Manchester 12 12 0.9220 0.9499 0

London 16 16 0.9191 0.9478 0

88

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Birmingham 17 17 0.9002 0.9338 0

Bristol 18 18 0.8679 0.9100 0

Berlin 19 19 0.8162 0.8505 0

Prague 20 21 0.7604 0.7210 -1

Cambridge 21 20 0.7268 0.8058 +1

Madrid 22 24 0.7238 0.6969 -2

Hong Kong 23 25 0.7056 0.6386 -2

Melbourne 24 22 0.6653 0.7066 +2

Incheon 25 26 0.6578 0.6160 -1

Seoul 25 26 0.6578 0.6160 -1

Sydney 27 23 0.6546 0.6987 +4

Barcelona 28 28 0.6038 0.6083 0

Kuala Lumpur 29 32 0.4031 0.3554 -3

Osaka-Kobe 30 29 0.3413 0.4683 +1

Tokyo 30 29 0.3413 0.4683 +1

Yokohama 30 29 0.3413 0.4683 +1

Research Findings


CityRank Score Rank


Rome 33 35 0.3392 0.2829 -2

Taipei 34 34 0.3277 0.3088 0

Riyadh 35 33 0.3157 0.3139 +2

Delhi 36 36 0.2231 0.1568 0

Bangalore 37 37 0.2157 0.1513 0

Chennai 38 38 0.2130 0.1492 0

Amman 39 39 0.2036 0.1255 0

Krishna 40 40 0.1712 0.1216 0

East Godavari 41 41 0.1705 0.1210 0

Chittoor 42 45 0.1481 0.1036 -3

Chicago 43 42 0.1197 0.1180 +1

Los Angeles 44 43 0.1136 0.1135 +1

New York 45 44 0.1054 0.1075 +1

Philadelphia 46 46 0.0887 0.0951 0

Vishakhapatnam 47 48 0.0863 0.0554 -1

Pune 48 49 0.0854 0.0550 -1

89

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Washington, D.C. 49 47 0.0489 0.0658 +2

Boston 50 50 0.0122 0.0386 0

Ahmedabad 51 51 0.0104 -0.0003 0

Mumbai 52 52 -0.1798 -0.1408 0

Hanoi 53 54 -0.2823 -0.4468 -1

Ho Chi Minh City 53 54 -0.2823 -0.4468 -1

Jakarta 55 53 -0.2846 -0.4336 +2

Phnom Penh 56 57 -0.5027 -0.6495 -1

Nanjing 57 59 -0.6578 -0.8050 -2

Shenzhen 57 59 -0.6578 -0.8050 -2

Tianjin 57 59 -0.6578 -0.8050 -2

Guangzhou 60 62 -0.6600 -0.8066 -2

Chongqing 61 63 -0.6612 -0.8075 -2

Shanghai 62 64 -0.6612 -0.8075 -2

Beijing 63 65 -0.6666 -0.8115 -2

Istanbul 64 58 -0.7283 -0.7902 +6

Research Findings

90

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Buenos Aires 65 66 -0.8946 -1.0204 -1

Bangkok 66 67 -0.9289 -1.0847 -1

Paris 67 56 -0.9702 -0.4686 +11

Nairobi 68 68 -1.5054 -1.3768 0

Cairo 69 73 -1.5072 -1.7609 -4

Lagos 70 72 -1.5851 -1.7608 -2

Mexico City 71 71 -1.6580 -1.7329 0

Sao Paulo 72 74 -1.8762 -1.8684 -2

Karachi 73 75 -1.9480 -2.0188 -2

Dehradun 74 69 -2.0873 -1.4780 +5

Jerusalem 75 70 -2.2379 -1.7062 +5

Manila 76 77 -2.2561 -2.2608 -1

Johannesburg 77 76 -2.2591 -2.2164 +1

Moscow 78 78 -2.5201 -2.3462 0


Research Findings

• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Socio-Cultural Conditions)

CityRank Score Rank


Amsterdam 1 1 1.3547 1.3666 0

Geneva 2 3 1.2699 1.2555 -1

Zurich 2 3 1.2699 1.2555 -1

Helsinki 4 2 1.2570 1.2667 +2

Copenhagen 5 5 1.1641 1.1784 0

Auckland 6 6 1.1633 1.1619 0

Melbourne 7 7 1.1590 1.1446 0

Sydney 7 7 1.1590 1.1446 0

Stockholm 9 9 1.0658 1.0746 0

Singapore 10 10 1.0503 1.0259 0

Berlin 11 11 1.0069 0.9910 0

Luxembourg 12 12 0.9987 0.9615 0

Vancouver 13 13 0.9190 0.9377 0

Paris 14 14 0.8083 0.8168 0

Taipei 15 15 0.7892 0.7860 0

Osaka-Kobe 16 31 0.7703 0.7344 -15

91

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Tokyo 16 31 0.7703 0.7344 -15

Yokohama 16 31 0.7703 0.7344 -15

Hong Kong 19 30 0.7662 0.7398 -11

Manchester 20 16 0.7433 0.7708 +4

Birmingham 21 23 0.7340 0.7616 -2

Bristol 21 23 0.7340 0.7616 -2

Cambridge 21 23 0.7340 0.7616 -2

Edinburgh 21 23 0.7340 0.7616 -2

Leeds 21 23 0.7340 0.7616 -2

Liverpool 21 23 0.7340 0.7616 -2

London 21 23 0.7340 0.7616 -2

Abu Dhabi 28 38 0.7201 0.6095 -10

Boston 29 17 0.6913 0.7622 +12

Chicago 29 17 0.6913 0.7622 +12

Los Angeles 29 17 0.6913 0.7622 +12

New York 29 17 0.6913 0.7622 +12

Research Findings


CityRank Score Rank


Philadelphia 29 17 0.6913 0.7622 +12

Washington, D.C. 29 17 0.6913 0.7622 +12

Incheon 35 36 0.6672 0.6477 -1

Seoul 35 36 0.6672 0.6477 -1

Barcelona 35 34 0.6557 0.6766 +1

Madrid 35 34 0.6557 0.6766 +1

Prague 39 40 0.4984 0.4573 -1

Jerusalem 40 39 0.4488 0.4963 +1

Rome 41 41 0.1556 0.1658 0

Moscow 42 42 -0.0612 -0.0840 0

Riyadh 43 43 -0.0996 -0.1386 0

Kuala Lumpur 44 44 -0.1442 -0.1486 0

Beijing 45 45 -0.2403 -0.2758 0

Chongqing 45 45 -0.2403 -0.2758 0

Guangzhou 45 45 -0.2403 -0.2758 0

Nanjing 45 45 -0.2403 -0.2758 0

92

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Shanghai 45 45 -0.2403 -0.2758 0

Shenzhen 45 45 -0.2403 -0.2758 0

Tianjin 45 45 -0.2403 -0.2758 0

Bangkok 52 53 -0.3578 -0.4025 -1

Buenos Aires 53 52 -0.3780 -0.3811 +1

Manila 54 54 -0.4251 -0.4829 0

Hanoi 55 56 -0.5686 -0.6193 -1

Ho Chi Minh City 55 56 -0.5686 -0.6193 -1

Mexico City 57 55 -0.5957 -0.5699 +2

Istanbul 58 58 -0.6501 -0.6252 0

Sao Paulo 59 59 -0.6750 -0.6747 0

Amman 60 60 -0.7273 -0.7658 0

Jakarta 61 61 -0.8574 -0.8647 0

Cairo 62 62 -1.2039 -1.2021 0

Dehradun 63 63 -1.2388 -1.2226 0

East Godavari 64 64 -1.2617 -1.2621 0

Research Findings

93

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Krishna 65 65 -1.2853 -1.2846 0

Vishakhapatnam 66 66 -1.2980 -1.2989 0

Chittoor 67 67 -1.3608 -1.3603 0

Ahmedabad 68 70 -1.4457 -1.4430 -2

Bangalore 68 70 -1.4457 -1.4430 -2

Chennai 68 69 -1.4457 -1.4430 -1

Delhi 68 69 -1.4457 -1.4430 -1

Mumbai 68 70 -1.4457 -1.4430 -2

Pune 68 70 -1.4457 -1.4430 -2

Johannesburg 74 68 -1.4768 -1.4377 +6

Phnom Penh 75 75 -1.5092 -1.5747 0

Karachi 76 76 -1.9653 -1.9698 0

Nairobi 77 77 -2.0249 -1.9776 0

Lagos 78 78 -2.9208 -2.8072 0


Research Findings

• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Political Governance)

CityRank Score Rank


Geneva 1 1 1.5710 1.5813 0

Zurich 1 1 1.5710 1.5813 0

Auckland 3 3 1.5584 1.5573 0

Singapore 4 4 1.4470 1.4331 0

Hong Kong 5 5 1.4182 1.3810 0

Berlin 6 7 1.3255 1.2683 -1

Helsinki 7 6 1.2736 1.3263 +1

Vancouver 8 8 1.2393 1.2267 0

Birmingham 9 10 1.1251 1.1110 -1

Bristol 9 10 1.1251 1.1110 -1

Cambridge 9 10 1.1251 1.1110 -1

Edinburgh 9 10 1.1251 1.1110 -1

Leeds 9 10 1.1251 1.1110 -1

Liverpool 9 10 1.1251 1.1110 -1

London 9 10 1.1251 1.1110 -1

Manchester 9 10 1.1251 1.1110 -1

94

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Amsterdam 17 9 1.1203 1.1731 +8

Boston 18 18 1.0454 0.9912 0

Chicago 18 18 1.0454 0.9912 0

Los Angeles 18 18 1.0454 0.9912 0

New York 18 18 1.0454 0.9912 0

Philadelphia 18 18 1.0454 0.9912 0

Washington, D.C. 18 18 1.0454 0.9912 0

Melbourne 24 25 0.8988 0.9339 -1

Sydney 24 25 0.8988 0.9339 -1

Stockholm 26 24 0.8347 0.9672 +2

Abu Dhabi 27 29 0.7847 0.6987 -2

Copenhagen 28 28 0.7088 0.8085 0

Luxembourg 29 27 0.6130 0.8469 +2

Osaka-Kobe 30 30 0.5920 0.6685 0

Tokyo 30 30 0.5920 0.6685 0

Yokohama 30 30 0.5920 0.6685 0

Research Findings


CityRank Score Rank


Taipei 33 33 0.4728 0.4764 0

Paris 34 34 0.3123 0.3515 0

Incheon 35 36 0.1577 0.0821 -1

Seoul 35 36 0.1577 0.0821 -1

Jerusalem 37 35 0.1572 0.1857 +2

Prague 38 38 0.0449 0.0327 0

Kuala Lumpur 39 41 -0.0666 -0.1027 -2

Barcelona 40 39 -0.0906 -0.0661 +1

Madrid 40 39 -0.0906 -0.0661 +1

Dehradun 42 42 -0.2563 -0.2109 0

Riyadh 43 44 -0.4701 -0.5400 -1

Rome 44 43 -0.4733 -0.4899 +1

Ahmedabad 45 45 -0.7385 -0.7373 0

Bangalore 45 45 -0.7385 -0.7373 0

Chennai 45 45 -0.7385 -0.7373 0

Delhi 45 45 -0.7385 -0.7373 0

95

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Mumbai 45 45 -0.7385 -0.7373 0

Pune 45 45 -0.7385 -0.7373 0

Krishna 45 45 -0.7385 -0.7373 0

East Godavari 45 45 -0.7385 -0.7373 0

Chittoor 45 45 -0.7385 -0.7373 0

Vishakhapatnam 45 45 -0.7385 -0.7373 0

Mexico City 55 56 -0.7510 -0.8177 -1

Beijing 56 57 -0.8131 -0.8606 -1

Chongqing 56 57 -0.8131 -0.8606 -1

Guangzhou 56 57 -0.8131 -0.8606 -1

Nanjing 56 57 -0.8131 -0.8606 -1

Shanghai 56 57 -0.8131 -0.8606 -1

Shenzhen 56 57 -0.8131 -0.8606 -1

Tianjin 56 57 -0.8131 -0.8606 -1

Johannesburg 63 55 -0.8537 -0.7943 +8

Istanbul 64 64 -0.9132 -0.9320 0

Research Findings

96

Source: ACI

CityRank Score Rank


Buenos Aires 65 66 -0.9432 -0.9940 -1

Jakarta 66 65 -0.9639 -0.9335 +1

Sao Paulo 67 67 -0.9704 -0.9951 0

Hanoi 68 68 -1.2207 -1.2231 0

Ho Chi Minh City 68 68 -1.2207 -1.2231 0

Nairobi 70 72 -1.2821 -1.2789 -2

Bangkok 71 71 -1.2923 -1.2689 0

Manila 72 70 -1.3025 -1.2317 +2

Cairo 73 73 -1.3470 -1.3931 0

Lagos 74 75 -1.3556 -1.4047 -1

Moscow 75 74 -1.3679 -1.3994 +1

Amman 76 76 -1.6731 -1.4144 0

Karachi 77 77 -1.7635 -1.7457 0

Phnom Penh 78 78 -1.8703 -1.8460 0


Future Research Agenda

• ACI is in the process of extending the ACI-

GLSCI framework to more cities including

those from ACI’s liveability studies on Greater

China cities, as well as other cities from

Southeast Asia, the Middle East, the Americas,

Europe, Oceania and other parts of Asia.

• ACI also intends to investigate the nexus

between liveability and housing and land prices.

Does liveability necessarily affect real-estate in

cities?

• Finally, as the world is becoming increasingly

globalized, it is only natural that there will be

increased migration between cities at both the

national and international levels. We would

also like to explore how liveability may affect

people’s choice to migrate.

97

Image Credits: Photograph by David Bennet for IBM

IBM Model 350 Disk Storage Unit

(5MB Storage Capacity) Being Loaded into a Plane

Thank you!

98

99

Singapore’s 20% Weakest Indicators among 99 GLSCI Indicators

Rank 20% Weakest Indicators Score Environment

80 Sulphur Oxide Emissions Per GRDP 0.0000 Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability

81Number of Regional Trade Agreements

(Goods)-0.0008 Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness

82 Quality of Start-Ups -0.0762 Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness

83 Tax Revenue over Government Revenue -0.1630 Political Governance

84 Density of Physicians -0.1735 Socio-Cultural Conditions

85 Rate of Deforestation -0.2337 Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability

86 Government Expenditure on Education -0.3223 Socio-Cultural Conditions

87Participation in Selected International

Environmental Agreements-0.3707 Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability

88 Energy Consumption Per GRDP -0.5484 Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability

89 Quantity of Start-Ups -0.5795 Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness

• 2018 Preliminary What-if Simulation Analysis

Source: ACI

100

Singapore’s 20% Weakest Indicators among the 99 GLSCI Indicators

Rank 20% Weakest Indicators Score Environment

90 Voice and Accountability -0.6061 Political Governance

91 E-Commerce Revenue Per GRDP -0.6193 Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness

92 Government Expenditure on Health -0.6806 Socio-Cultural Conditions

93 Number of Hours Worked per Week -0.7241 Socio-Cultural Conditions

94 Nominal GRDP Growth Rate -0.7620 Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness

95 Density of Hospital Beds -0.8456 Socio-Cultural Conditions

96 GINI Coefficient -0.8469 Socio-Cultural Conditions

97Renewable Energy Consumption over

Energy Consumption-1.0925 Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability

98Electricity Generated from Renewable

Sources-1.1028 Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability

99 Terrestrial and Marine Protected Area -1.1625 Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability

• 2018 Preliminary What-if Simulation Analysis

Source: ACI

Research Findings

2016 Overall Liveability Ranking for 64 Global Cities


1 Geneva Switzerland 1.7642

2 Zurich Switzerland 1.7550

3 Luxembourg Luxembourg 1.5020

3 Helsinki Finland 1.4940

5 Stockholm Sweden 1.3851

6 Hong Kong Hong Kong, China 1.3594

7 Singapore Singapore 1.3183

8 Auckland New Zealand 1.2613

9 Copenhagen Denmark 1.2410

9 Amsterdam Netherlands 1.2021

11 Berlin Germany 1.1512

12 Vancouver Canada 1.1282

13 Melbourne Australia 1.0403

13 Sydney Australia 1.0362

13 London United Kingdom 0.9919

16 Yokohama Japan 0.7434

101


17 Paris France 0.7416

18 Tokyo Japan 0.7320

19 Taipei Taiwan, China 0.6897

20 Osaka-Kobe Japan 0.6878

20 Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates 0.5756

20 Washington, D.C. United States 0.4713

20 Boston United States 0.4525

20 New York United States 0.4371

20 Los Angeles United States 0.4279

26 Philadelphia United States 0.4233

27 Chicago United States 0.4204

28 Madrid Spain 0.3051

29 Barcelona Spain 0.3001

29 Prague Czech Republic 0.2622

31 Seoul South Korea 0.1942

32 Incheon South Korea 0.1630

Source: ACI

Research Findings

2016 Overall Liveability Ranking for 64 Global Cities


32 Rome Italy 0.1063

34 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 0.0960

35 Jerusalem Israel -0.2059

35 Riyadh Saudi Arabia -0.4743

35 Sao Paulo Brazil -0.5208

35 Shenzhen China -0.6739

35 Istanbul Turkey -0.6870

35 Guangzhou China -0.6952

41 Buenos Aires Argentina -0.7100

42 Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam -0.7165

43 Beijing China -0.7167

44 Nanjing China -0.7244

45 Tianjin China -0.7255

46 Bangkok Thailand -0.7404

47 Shanghai China -0.7649

47 Hanoi Vietnam -0.7750

102


47 Chongqing China -0.7866

47 Amman Jordan -0.7906

47 Mexico City Mexico -0.8902

47 Jakarta Indonesia -0.9063

47 Manila Philippines -1.0223

54 Phnom Penh Cambodia -1.0911

55 Chennai India -1.2514

56 Ahmedabad India -1.2529

57 Moscow Russia -1.2931

57 Pune India -1.2940

59 Delhi India -1.3101

60 Bangalore India -1.3180

61 Mumbai India -1.3609

62 Cairo Egypt -1.7049

63 Karachi Pakistan -2.4571

Source: ACI

103

Name of CitiesOverall Liveability

Score Rank

Geneva 3.4 1

Zurich 4.6 2

Singapore 5.6 3

Copenhagen 7.0 4

Helsinki 7.0 4

Luxembourg 7.8 6

Stockholm 8.2 7

Berlin 11.2 8

Hong Kong 11.2 8

Auckland 11.6 10

Melbourne 11.6 10

Sydney 12.0 12

Paris 12.4 13

Vancouver 16.2 14

Amsterdam 16.8 15

Osaka-Kobe 17.8 16

2012 Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) Results


Score Rank

New York 18.2 17

Tokyo 18.6 18

Los Angeles 18.8 19

Philadelphia 21.4 20

Yokohama 21.4 20

Boston 21.6 22

London 21.6 22

Chicago 22.4 24

Washington, D.C. 22.8 25

Barcelona 23.2 26

Taipei 24.0 27

Prague 25.8 28

Seoul 26.2 29

Madrid 27.0 30

Incheon 27.4 31

Abu Dhabi 32.0 32

Source: ACI

104


Score Rank

Kuala Lumpur 32.0 32

Rome 34.0 34

Amman 36.6 35

Jerusalem 37.0 36

Sao Paulo 43.4 37

Riyadh 44.0 38

Shanghai 45.0 39

Nanjing 45.2 40

Bangkok 45.8 41

Shenzhen 45.8 41

Ahmedabad 46.0 43

Cairo 46.0 43

Tianjin 47.4 45

Beijing 47.8 46

Chennai 48.2 47

Guangzhou 48.2 47

2012 Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) Results


Score Rank

Pune 48.2 47

Mexico City 48.4 50

Damascus 48.6 51

Chongqing 48.8 52

Hanoi 48.8 52

Ho Chi Minh City 48.8 52

Bangalore 49.0 55

Mumbai 49.0 55

Delhi 50.2 57

Buenos Aires 50.6 58

Istanbul 52.2 59

Karachi 53.0 60

Phnom Penh 53.8 61

Moscow 55.2 62

Manila 56.6 63

Jakarta 57.4 64

Source: ACI

List of 100 Greater China Cities in the Study

105

City Economy

1 Shanghai Shanghai

2 Beijing Beijing

3 Hong Kong Hong Kong

4 Guangzhou Guangdong

5 Shenzhen Guangdong

6 Tianjin Tianjin

7 Suzhou Jiangsu

8 Chongqing Chongqing

9 Hangzhou Zhejiang

10 Chengdu Sichuan

11 Wuxi Jiangsu

12 Wuhan Hubei

13 Qingdao Shandong

14 Foshan Guangdong

15 Dalian Liaoning

16 Nanjing Jiangsu

City Economy

17 Ningbo Zhejiang

18 Shenyang Liaoning

19 Changsha Hunan

20 Tangshan Hebei

21 Taipei Taiwan

22 Zhengzhou Henan

23 Yantai Shandong

24 Dongguan Guangdong

25 Jinan Shandong

26 Quanzhou Fujian

27 Harbin Heilongjiang

28 Shijiazhuang Hebei

29 Nantong Jiangsu

30 Changchun Jilin

31 Kaohsiung Taiwan

32 Xi'an Shaanxi

Note: The sequence of the cities are based on gross regional domestic product (GRDP) in 2011, the most updated data available

when the study was started in 2013.


106

City Economy

33 Daqing Heilongjiang

34 Fuzhou Fujian

35 Hefei Anhui

36 Changzhou Jiangsu

37 Xuzhou Jiangsu

38 Weifang Shandong

39 Wenzhou Zhejiang

40 Shaoxing Zhejiang

41 Zibo Shandong

42 Taichung Taiwan

43 Ordos Inner Mongolia

44 Baotou Inner Mongolia

45 Jining Shandong

46 Taizhou, Zhejiang Zhejiang

47 Handan Hebei

48 Yancheng Jiangsu

City Economy

49 Linyi Shandong

50 Luoyang Henan

51 Nanchang Jiangxi

52 Jiaxing Zhejiang

53 Dongying Shandong

54 Yangzhou Jiangsu

55 Cangzhou Hebei

56 Xiamen Fujian

57 Kunming Yunnan

58 Jinhua Zhejiang

59 Baoding Hebei

60 Taizhou, Jiangsu Jiangsu

61 Anshan Liaoning

62 Macau Macau

63 Zhenjiang Jiangsu

64 Tai'an Shandong



City Economy

83 Maoming Guangdong

84 Hengyang Hunan

85 Zhanjiang Guangdong

86 Urumqi Xinjiang

87 Huai’an Jiangsu

88 Wuhu Anhui

89 Langfang Hebei

90 Xuchang Henan

91 Liuzhou Guangxi

92 Zhuzhou Hunan

93 Zaozhuang Shandong

94 Heze Shandong

95 Guiyang Guizhou

96 Lanzhou Gansu

97 Yinchuan Ningxia

98 Xining Qinghai

99 Haikou Hainan

100 Lhasa Tibet


107

City Economy

65 Yulin Shaanxi

66 Nanning Guangxi

67 Jilin City Jilin

68 Nanyang Henan

69 Zhongshan Guangdong

70 Hohhot Inner Mongolia

71 Yichang Hubei

72 Xiangyang Hubei

73 Weihai Shandong

74 Huizhou Guangdong

75 Taiyuan Shanxi

76 Dezhou Shandong

77 Liaocheng Shandong

78 Yueyang Hunan

79 Jiangmen Guangdong

80 Binzhou Shandong

81 Changde Hunan

82 Zhangzhou Fujian



Documents

2018 Global Liveable and Smart Cities Index on 78 World’s