Losing the title of “most livable city” and facing the runner-up in Vienna seven years later, these rankings are based on the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Global Livability Index, which “evaluates where the best or most Poor living conditions.” But the tool is actually designed to help companies decide how much “hard” allowance they need to pay for the relocated employees. Therefore, the Economist believes that top cities, including Melbourne, Vienna and other Australian cities, do not need hard subsidies. But it suggests a 20% subsidy for cities at the bottom of the rankings (such as Port Moresby, Tripoli and Karachi). The global livability index focuses on things that are vital to expatriates, not citizens. This is different from the importance of ordinary people living in Vienna, Melbourne or any other city – such as housing affordability, walking, access to public transport and education, and the number of bicycle lanes.
What is the index measuring？
The economist’s global livability index uses five indicators to measure five categories of habitability: stability (safety), health care, culture and environment, education and infrastructure. Of these, 26 indicators are based on “internal expert country analysts and the judgment of field reporters in each city”. These unknown critics rated the performance of the city as acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, unwelcome or unbearable. There is no free information about the qualifications of these judges, why choose these categories to indicate suitability, or how to weight the indicators in a class. Although the summary report is free, a more detailed report will provide you with $620, while the actual data is set to $9,210, which we did not purchase. Our reviews are based on information provided free of charge.
In addition to well-designed leaderboards and media attention, economists’ global livability index is a major subjective rating that compares cities in an opaque way. Take the stability category as an example. This includes crime, terrorist attacks and civil strife, accounting for 25% of the total habitability score. The ratio of Victoria, Osaka and Toronto, Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide is less than 100 points. But there is no information on how the “Economist” experts can draw this conclusion. Some indicators can be objectively measured, such as the prevalence of violence and minor crimes, but economists’ experts still give ratings. It is unclear what types of crimes are included in the decision or how they are weighted. Two indicators assess the availability and quality of private education, but there is no corresponding public education indicator. Most students in Australia (65.6%) are enrolled in public schools. Therefore, for ordinary Australian families, the availability and quality of the public education system is more important than private. And, most importantly, the index seems to miss something that affects the life experience of urban residents. While including the availability and quality of housing “quality” and private education, housing affordability, traffic congestion, walking ability and lack of public transportation, bicycle lanes and basic services do not appear to be in the index.
What is not measured？
Melbourne received a full score in the “Infrastructure” category. This includes the quality of public transport and roads, international links, and the quality of water and telecommunications. Although this may be true for downtown residents, our research has found that some suburbs – especially the urban fringe – are not so lucky. The outer suburbs are particularly lacking in public transport. The index does not consider how to assign livability in a city and whether someone has missed it. It also does not take into account the environmental sustainability of the city. A study compared the city’s livability score with its ecological footprint and found that Vienna is almost half of Melbourne. However, none of these cities have been found to be sustainable and better to measure livability.
If we really want to create a livable city that enhances the quality of citizens’ lives, we need transparent and objective metrics. Our team has previously identified key elements of a livable city. These include safety, environmental sustainability, and affordable and versatile housing through public transportation, walking and cycling infrastructure to the facilities needed for employment and everyday life. These measures are based on our research on the health and well-being of our communities. The crown that chases the global livability index will not make any city a better place to live. Instead, governments at all levels should focus on developing and implementing policies that improve the suitability of urban residents.
Resource from: https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-most-liveable-city-title-isnt-a-measure-of-the-things-most-of-us-actually-care-about-101525