The world's top cities offering the best quality of life

(New York City is the base city with a score of 100 points) 2010 Rank 2009 Rank City Country 1 1 Vienna Austria 2 2 Zurich Switzerland 3 3 Geneva Switzerland =4 =4 Vancouver Canada =4 =4 Auckland New Zealand 6 6 Düsseldorf Germany =7 8 Frankfurt Germany =7 =7 Munich Germany 9 9 Bern Switzerland 10 10 Sydney Australia 11 11 Copenhagen Denmark 12 12 Wellington New Zealand 13 13 Amsterdam Netherlands 14 =16 Ottawa Canada 15 14 Brussels Belgium 16 15 Toronto Canada 17 =16 Berlin Germany 18 18 Melbourne Australia 19 19 Luxembourg Luxembourg 20 20 Stockholm Sweden =21 21 Perth Australia =21 22 Montreal Canada 23 28 Hamburg Germany =24 23 Nürnberg Germany =24 24 Oslo Norway =26 - Canberra Australia =26 25 Dublin Ireland =28 =26 Calgary Canada =28 =26 Singapore Singapore 30 - Stuttgart Germany 31 29 Honolulu USA =32 =30 Adelaide Australia =32 =29 San Francisco USA 34 32 Paris France 35 35 Helsinki Finland 36 34 Brisbane Australia 37 =35 Boston USA 38 37 Lyon France 39 =38 London UK 40 =35 Tokyo Japan =41 41 Milan Italy =41 40 Kobe Japan =41 =38 Yokohama Japan 44 =42 Barcelona Spain =45 =44 Lisbon Portugal =45 =44 Chicago USA =45 =44 Washington DC USA 48 48 Madrid Spain 49 49 New York City USA 50 50 Seattle USA Research by Mercer Consulting Comment on this article Read comments The Americas Canadian cities still dominate the top of the index for this region with Vancouver (4) retaining the top spot, followed by Ottawa (14), Toronto (16) and Montreal (21). Calgary ranks 28 on the overall quality of living ranking. Honolulu (31) is the city in the US with the highest quality of living, followed by San Francisco (32) and Boston (37). Chicago and Washington share position 45 and New York - the base city - is in position 49. Newly added cities Philadelphia and Dallas are ranked 55 and 61, respectively. In Central and South America, Point-à-Pitre, capital of Guadeloupe and new to the index this year, ranks the highest for quality of living at 62. San Juan in Puerto Rico follows at 72 and Buenos Aires at 78. Havana (192) and Port-au-Prince (213) are the lowest-ranking cities in the region. Canadian and US cities are strongly represented at the top of the eco-city ranking, both for this region and globally. Calgary grabs the top spot globally with a score of 145.7, closely followed by Honolulu (score 145.1) in second. Ottawa is in third position with a score of 139.9 and Minneapolis follows in sixth place (score 137.8). Mr Parakatil commented: “Calgary’s top ranking is down to its excellent level of service on waste removal, sewage systems, and water drinkability and availability, coupled with relatively low air pollution.” The highest-ranking Central and South American city is again Pointe-à-Pitre (49), followed by San Juan (69) and Montevideo (70). Europe Europe has 16 cities amongst the world’s top 25 cities for quality of living. Vienna retains the highest ranking both for the region and globally and is again followed by Zurich (2), Geneva (3) and Düsseldorf (6). The lowest-ranking Western European cities are Leipzig (64) and Athens (75). In the UK, London is the highest-ranking city at 39, followed by newcomer to the list Aberdeen (53), Birmingham (55), Glasgow (57) and Belfast (63). Levels of quality of living continue to improve in Eastern Europe, with most index scores increasing slightly. Prague is the highest-ranking city at 70 and its index score increased from 93.9 to 94.8 in 2010. Budapest follows in position 73 and Ljubljana in 77. In the eco-city index, Nordic cities fare particularly well with Helsinki (3) the highest-ranked in the region, followed by Copenhagen (8) and Oslo in joint ninth place with Stockholm. “Nordic cities do particularly well because the modern parts of most of them have been designed with potential environmental impacts in mind,” said Mr Parakatil. Aberdeen (19) is the highest-ranking UK eco-city, followed by Belfast (30), Glasgow (47), London (63) and Birmingham (64). Middle East and Africa Dubai (75) in the United Arab Emirates and Port Louis in Mauritius (82) are the region’s cities with the best quality of living. Abu Dhabi (83), Cape Town (86) and Tunis (94) follow and are, along with Victoria in the Seychelles (95), Johannesburg (96) and Muscat in Oman (100), the region’s only other cities in the top 100. Following the revision of the index a selection of cities from this region has been added, including Doha in Qatar (110), Rabat in Morocco (112), Banjul in Gambia (164) and Abuja in Nigeria (205). Baghdad (221) remains at the bottom of the table, though its index score has increased slightly (from 14.4 to 14.7 in 2010). A lack of security and stability continue to have a negative impact on Baghdad’s quality of living and its score remains far behind that of Bangui (27.4) in the Central African Republic which is second to last. In the eco-city index, most of the region’s cities rank below 100. The highest-ranking cities are Cape Town (30), Victoria (38), Muscat (48), Johannesburg (54) and Abu Dhabi and Dubai (in joint 65). Antananarivo in Madagascar (217) is at the bottom of the list with an eco-city score of 39.7, while Baghdad is at 214, scoring 40.5. Asia-Pacific Auckland (4) retains its position as the highest-ranking city for quality of living in the region. Sydney follows at 10, Wellington at 12, Melbourne at 18 and Perth at 21. At 26, Canberra is new to the index. Singapore remains the highest-ranking Asian city at 28, followed by Japanese cities Tokyo (40), Kobe and Yokohama (both at 41), Osaka (51) and Nagoya (57). The region’s lowest-ranking cities are Dhaka in Bangladesh (206) and two cities new to the list – Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan (209) and Dushanbe in Tajikistan (210). With a score of 138.9, Wellington (5) is the highest-ranking eco-city in the region followed by Adelaide (7), Kobe (9), Perth (12) and Auckland (13). Dhaka in Bangladesh (220) ranks lowest with a score of 30.9. 'Greenest' cities In an innovation in the 2010 report, Mercer include a second table named Eco-ranking. It assesses the same 221 cities on different criteria. These are water availability, water potability, waste removal, sewage, air pollution and traffic congestion. North American cities dominate the top ten led by Calgary, Honolulu and Ottawa. Nurnberg and Zurich are the only non-Nordic European cities in the leading 20. This contrasts sharply with other published comparisons of sustainable or green cities. It is probably explained by the emphasis on congestion in transport rather than modal share and the absence of density as a factor. | Europe's greenest cities | Green capital challenge | The world's 'greenest' cities (Research criteria: Water availability, water potability, waste removal, sewage, air pollution and traffic congestion. New York City is the base city with a score of 100 points) 2010 Rank City Country 1 Calgary Canada 2 Honolulu USA =3 Ottawa Canada =3 Helsinki Finland 5 Wellington New Zealand 6 Minneapolis USA 7 Adelaide Australia 8 Copenhagen Denmark =9 Kobe Japan =9 Oslo Norway =9 Stockholm Sweden 12 Perth Australia =13 Montreal Canada =13 Vancouver Canada =13 Nürnberg Germany =13 Auckland New Zealand =13 Bern Switzerland =13 Pittsburgh USA =19 Zurich Switzerland =19 Aberdeen UK 21 Canberra Australia 22 Singapore Singapore =23 Brisbane Australia =23 Washington DC USA =25 Melbourne Australia =25 Geneva Switzerland =25 Boston USA =28 Düsseldorf Germany =28 Munich Germany =30 Cape Town South Africa =30 Belfast UK 32 Lyon France 33 Dublin Ireland =34 Hamburg Germany =34 Stuttgart Germany =34 Philadelphia USA 37 Yokohama Japan 38 Victoria Seychelles =39 Toronto Canada =39 Amsterdam Netherlands =41 Brussels Belgium =41 Leipzig Germany 43 St Louis USA =44 Vienna Austria =44 Luxembourg Luxembourg 46 Sydney Australia 47 Glasgow UK 48 Muscat Oman 49 Pointe-a-Pitre Guadeloupe =50 Nagoya Japan =50 Osaka Japan =50 Frankfurt Germany Research by Mercer Consulting Mercer Consulting largely collected its Data was largely collected between September and November 2009 and is regularly updated to take account of changing circumstances. In particular, the assessments are revised in the case of significant political, economic and environmental developments. Mercer’s database of cities contains more than 420 cities. For 2010, the number of cites appearing in the yearly published rankings was increased from 215 to 221. This new roster provides a more well-rounded global perspective. In particular, better coverage is now offered for African, Middle Eastern and Central Asian cities. Many of the additions are gaining popularity as expatriate destinations. Companies need to be able to determine their compensation packages rationally, consistently and systematically. Providing incentives to reward and recognise the efforts that employees and their families make when taking on international assignments remains a typical practice, particularly for difficult locations. Two common incentives include a quality of living allowance and a mobility premium.  • Quality of living or “hardship” allowances compensate expatriates for decreases in the quality of living between their home and host locations.  •By contrast, a mobility premium simply compensates for the inconvenience of being uprooted and having to work in another country. A quality of living allowance is typically location-related whilst a mobility premium is usually independent of the host location. Some multi-national companies combine these premiums but the vast majority of international companies provide them separately. The latter approach is deemed to be clearer and more transparent. Mercer evaluates local living conditions in all the 420 cities it surveys worldwide. Living conditions are analysed according to 39 factors, grouped in 10 categories: 1) Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc) 2) Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc) 3) Socio-cultural environment (censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc) 4) Health and sanitation (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc) 5) Schools and education (standard and availability of international schools, etc) 6) Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transport, traffic congestion, etc) 7) Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc) 8) Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc) 9) Housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc) 10 Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters) The scores attributed to each factor allow for city-to-city comparisons to be made. The result is a quality of living index that compares the relative differences between any two locations. For the indices to be used in a practical manner, Mercer has created a grid that allows companies to link the resulting index to a quality of living allowance amount by recommending a percentage value in relation to the index.