Skip to main content

Did your city crack The List?

The debate goes on every year. Which city in the world is the most liveable? How on earth one can realistically evaluate such things remains somewhat of a mystery, but The Economist "does" the exercise annually.

This year's List is out:

"Canadian and Australian cities account for seven of the top ten spots in the Economist Intelligence Unit's latest liveability ranking. Vancouver (Canada) continues to top the Economist Intelligence Unit's global liveability survey with a score of 98%, which bodes well for visitors during the Winter Olympics this year.

All of the top ten cities achieve scores of over 95% and almost half of the cities surveyed (64 of 140) score more than 80% which puts them in the very top tier of liveability. For most cities liveability has been unaffected by the global downturn, which may have hit wages and prices but has had less of an impact on factors that the survey measures like infrastructure or crime levels."


Top 10 cities Bottom 10 cities
Rank Country City Rating

1 Canada Vancouver 98.0
2 Austria Vienna 97.9
3 Australia Melbourne 97.5
4 Canada Toronto 97.2
5 Canada Calgary 96.6
6 Finland Helsinki 96.2
7 Australia Sydney 96.1
8= Australia Perth 95.9
8= Australia Adelaide 95.9
10 New Zealand Auckland 95.7

Rank Country City Rating

130= Senegal Dakar a 48.3
132 Sri Lanka Colombo 47.3
133 Nepal Kathmandu 47.1
134 Cameroon Douala 43.3
135 Pakistan Karachi 40.9
136 Nigeria Lagos 39.0
137 PNG Port Moresby 38.9
138= Algeria Algiers 38.7
138= Bangladesh Dhaka 38.7
140 Zimbabwe Harare 37.5
a Dakar shares its rank with Tehran (Iran).

The Economist's Gulliver lists the criteria for making up the List:

"The ranking scores each city from 0-100 on 30 factors spread across five areas: stability, health care, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure. These numbers are then weighted and combined to produce an overall figure."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more