Livable Cities Rankings: Quality of Life Has Its Price

By Renard Teipelke

I am sure combined rankings exist. Rankings where cities are evaluated and scored for both their quality of living and their cost of living. But generally, the leading rankings of “livable cities” do not concern themselves much with cost factors. One indirect reason might be that it is probably the jetsetting expat who is most interested in such rankings and s/he is most often remunerated well enough to not care too much about the average price of a sandwich or a cab ride or a doctor’s visit. The first two might fall under business travel expenditures anyhow and the last item is covered by expats’ global health insurance.

But accounts of a city’s livability (which in itself is a highly contested matter, see here and here) is actually most relevant to a city’s residents, as they are the ones who are living there “full time”. Therefore, a livability ranking needs to be combined with a cost of living perspective, if a certain ranking’s methodology does not already include related factors. In short: A truly livable city does not only provide the natural, social, and economic features that make it worthwhile and enjoyable to live in; it does also offer the financial conditions for its (current/future) residents to afford these features.

Therefore, I took a crack at the well-known Mercer cities rankings. You can find their cities list for quality of living here and their cities list for cost of living here. I combined the two rankings working with the rank/position of each city in the rankings (not their scores) – you can find the results for the top 15 quality of living cities in comparison to their cost of living rank in the table below (top ranks in the quality of living refer to a [positive] high livability, while top ranks in the cost of living refer to [negative] high living costs).

I then took the ranks and included a cost quotient (based on the cost of living rank of a city) in the quality of living ranking. In the table below you can find the results of this computation for the top 15 quality of living cities, with the lines in-between highlighting the Vienna case and all cities which significantly moved up or down the list.

As becomes quickly apparent, Vienna (Austria) manages to be No. 1 in both the quality of living ranking and the cost-weighed quality of living ranking. The cities of Vancouver and Toronto (Canada), Berlin (Germany), and Wellington (New Zealand) move up several ranks when cost of living is factored into the quality of living ranking. Not surprisingly, the high-ranked quality of living cities Zurich and Geneva fall down to join Bern (all Switzerland) at the end of the cost-weighed ranking. A somewhat lower rank is assigned to Copenhagen (Denmark) when cost of living factors are included. Other cities from Germany, New Zealand, and the Netherlands change their rank only slightly.

Now, what do we conclude from this? I guess a more comprehensive look at the whole ranking (going through all positions from 1 to 230) helps, because otherwise we just see how the cities with the best quality of living are reordered in another exclusive list. For sure, Vienna keeping the first rank is already interesting. And the rise of some cities might hint at reconsidering city comparisons that are so easily done at after-work parties and on airplanes (…expats…). But let us look at the whole picture and see what happens. (A couple of (partly well-known) cities are unfortunately missing in either of the two Mercer rankings and are, thus, omitted in the combined list – see far below for the complete list).

The 50 best cost-weighed livable cities (combined ranking, see table below) do not show too many surprising results and changes amongst the first ranks. However, there are a number of cities that move up by 12, 34, or even more than 50 ranks. There is, for example, Nuremberg (Germany) that is No. 12 in the cost-weighed quality of living ranking. Or Lisbon (Portugal) that jumps from rank 41 to 21. The list goes on with several other well-known candidates of livable cities that seem to score by being less expensive for living than their “competitors”; for instance, Leipzig (Germany) jumping from 59 to 25, Budapest (Hungary) jumping from 75 to 30, Warsaw (Poland) jumping from 79 to 32, or Cape Town (South Africa) jumping from 91 to 33. It is particularly a group of Eastern European cities that benefits from a cost-weighed quality of living ranking (see table below). When I took a look at the Top 50 I was reminded of an older blog post where I discussed the potential strengths and advantages of such “global second-row status” cities (here).

However, having a city like Tunis (Tunisia) now ranked amongst the 50 “most-livable-still-affordable” cities might hint at a weakness of this computation, which is also confirmed when you identify the biggest winners in the combined ranking. These cities jump 60 to nearly a 100 positions in the cost-weighed ranking, but hardly any of them are amongst the better half of livable cities. Thus, the cost advantage of cities like Harare (Zimbabwe), Minsk (Belarus), or Karachi (Pakistan) does not make them so much better places to live in. What’s the low cost of services and amenities good for, when you cannot access them due to their unavailability?!

Looking at the biggest losers in the cost-weighed quality of living ranking reveals no surprises: The big metropolises, such as Singapore (Singapore), Tokyo (Japan), London (UK), New York City (USA), and Seoul (South Korea), fall down more than a 100 ranks due to their extraordinary high cost of living. This pretty much resembles the everyday struggles of millions of residents in these (and similar) cities, where some livability features can be jointly enjoyed, while many others are only affordable to a small(er) group of residents and visitors.

Accepting the likely conceptual and methodological flaws within such cities rankings (as well as in my tampered cross-computation), I find a cost-weighed quality of living ranking more realistic and relevant than those glitzy quality of living rankings that somehow assume a resident’s ability to access the livability features with ease. The results at the top and bottom of the list (see below) are, however, less revealing than the group of second-best cities, positions 26-50. These cities are performing an interesting role in the (perceived) international city competition and require further attention.

	Mercer Quality of Living Ranking 2015	Mercer Quality of Living Cost-Weighed Ranking 2015	Difference
Vienna	1	1	0
Vancouver	5	2	3
Munich	4	3	1
Auckland	3	4	-1
Dusseldorf	6	5	1
Frankfurt	7	6	1
Ottawa	16	7	9
Toronto	15	8	7
Hamburg	16	9	7
Berlin	14	10	4
Wellington	12	11	1
Nurnberg	25	12	13
Stuttgart	21	13	8
Amsterdam	11	14	-3
Montreal	24	15	9
Stockholm	19	16	3
Luxembourg	19	17	2
Brussels	22	18	4
Calgary	33	19	14
Lyon	39	20	19
Lisbon	41	21	20
Barcelona	38	22	16
Sydney	10	23	-13
Melbourne	16	24	-8
Leipzig	59	25	34
Copenhagen	9	26	-17
Adelaide	27	27	0
Seattle	44	28	16
Pittsburgh	54	29	25
Budapest	75	30	45
Madrid	51	31	20
Warsaw	79	32	47
Cape Town	91	33	58
Perth	22	34	-12
Canberra	30	35	-5
Vilnius	79	36	43
Helsinki	31	37	-6
Ljubljana	75	38	37
Port Louis	82	39	43
Prague	68	40	28
Johannesburg	94	41	53
Belfast	63	42	21
Glasgow	55	43	12
St. Louis	67	44	23
Minneapolis	60	45	15
Boston	34	46	-12
Limassol	87	47	40
Tunis	113	48	65
Brisbane	37	49	-12
Tallinn	88	50	38
Detroit	70	51	19
Zagreb	97	52	45
Paris	27	53	-26
Bratislava	81	54	27
Monterrey	109	55	54
Sofia	115	56	59
Bucharest	110	57	53
Pointe-a-Pitre	69	58	11
Athens	85	59	26
Atlanta	66	60	6
Windhoek	133	61	72
Birmingham	52	62	-10
Rabat	116	63	53
Zurich	2	64	-62
Asuncion	114	65	49
Honolulu	36	66	-30
Dublin	34	67	-33
Aberdeen	57	68	-11
Houston	64	69	-5
Brasilia	107	70	37
Belgrade	141	71	70
San Francisco	27	72	-45
Kuala Lumpur	84	73	11
Nagoya	61	74	-13
Gaborone	144	75	69
Milan	41	76	-35
Skopje	159	77	82
Bangalore	146	78	68
La Paz	156	79	77
Riga	89	80	9
Dallas	62	81	-19
San Juan	72	82	-10
Oslo	31	83	-52
Santo Domingo	135	84	51
Sarajevo	161	85	76
Lusaka	149	86	63
Kolkata	160	87	73
Quito	129	88	41
Managua	173	89	84
Rome	52	90	-38
Bogota	131	91	40
Muscat	104	92	12
Banjul	184	93	91
Panama City	95	94	1
Casablanca	128	95	33
Kampala	169	96	73
Mexico City	126	97	29
Tirana	180	98	82
Montevideo	78	99	-21
Minsk	189	100	89
Blantyre	177	101	76
Yerevan	183	102	81
Kiev	176	103	73
Chennai	151	104	47
San Jose	106	105	1
Tegucigalpa	184	106	78
San Salvador	172	107	65
Kingston	156	108	48
Tbilisi	194	109	85
Karachi	202	110	92
Washington, D.C.	50	111	-61
Bishkek	208	112	96
Guatemala City	150	113	37
Islamabad	191	114	77
Lima	124	115	9
Colombo	132	116	16
Chicago	43	117	-74
Algiers	187	118	69
Kuwait City	125	119	6
Doha	108	120	-12
Jeddah	166	121	45
Dar es Salaam	198	122	76
St. Petersburg	174	123	51
Miami	65	124	-59
New Delhi	154	125	29
Harare	206	126	80
Istanbul	122	127	-5
Addis Ababa	205	128	77
Tashkent	206	129	77
Nouakchott	221	130	91
Bandar Seri Begawan	102	131	-29
Santiago	93	132	-39
Los Angeles	48	133	-85
Cotonou	182	134	48
Phnom Penh	195	135	60
Niamey	217	136	81
Ouagadougou	215	137	78
Jakarta	140	138	2
Lome	204	139	65
Cairo	170	140	30
Manama	130	141	-11
Bern	13	142	-129
Geneva	8	143	-135
Ashkhabad	210	144	66
Ho Chi Minh City	153	145	8
Rio de Janeiro	119	146	-27
Nairobi	186	147	39
Hanoi	154	148	6
Osaka	58	149	-91
Manila	136	150	-14
Bamako	219	151	68
Almaty	175	152	23
Maputo	178	153	25
Port of Spain	147	154	-7
Kigali	189	155	34
Dakar	162	156	6
Taipei	83	157	-74
Mumbai	152	158	-6
Amman	122	159	-37
Riyadh	163	160	3
Abu Dhabi	77	161	-84
Douala	196	162	34
Bangkok	117	163	-46
Accra	165	164	1
New York City	44	165	-121
Noumea	111	166	-55
Sao Paulo	120	167	-47
Yaounde	192	168	24
Dubai	74	169	-95
London	40	170	-130
Moscow	167	171	-4
Dhaka	211	172	39
Djibouti	188	173	15
Abidjan	209	174	35
Tel Aviv	105	175	-70
Tokyo	44	176	-132
Beirut	181	177	4
Chengdu	133	178	-45
Buenos Aires	91	179	-88
Nanjing	137	180	-43
Brazzaville	224	181	43
Libreville	164	182	-18
Victoria	96	183	-87
Baku	197	184	13
Abuja	213	185	28
Qingdao	147	186	-39
Singapore	26	187	-161
Yangon	201	188	13
Shenyang	156	189	-33
Guangzhou	121	190	-69
Seoul	72	191	-119
Shenzhen	139	192	-53
Conakry	222	193	29
Lagos	211	194	17
Tehran	203	195	8
Shanghai	101	196	-95
Beijing	118	197	-79
Kinshasa	223	198	25
N’Djamena	226	199	27
Hong Kong	70	200	-130
Luanda	200	201	-1