2018 global liveable and smart cities index on 78 world’s
TRANSCRIPT
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:
ACI Global Liveable and Smart Cities Index (GLSCI) Framework
• 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
Conceptualising Liveability:
ACI Global Liveable and Smart Cities Index (GLSCI) Framework
• 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
Conceptualising Liveability:
ACI Global Liveable and Smart Cities Index (GLSCI) Framework
• “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
Conceptualising Liveability:
ACI Global Liveable and Smart Cities Index (GLSCI) Framework
• “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
Conceptualising Liveability:
ACI Global Liveable and Smart Cities Index (GLSCI) Framework
• 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
Conceptualising Liveability:
ACI Global Liveable and Smart Cities Index (GLSCI) Framework
• 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
Conceptualising Liveability:
ACI Global Liveable and Smart Cities Index (GLSCI) Framework
• 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
Comparative Literature Review
• 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
Comparative Literature Review
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
Comparative Literature Review
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
Methodology: List of 79 Cities in GLSCI (Alphabetical Order)
Note: Damascus is not included in the 2015 GLCI rankings and the 2018 GLSCI rankings due to insufficient data.
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
Methodology: List of 79 Cities in GLSCI (Alphabetical Order)
23
Note: Damascus is not included in the 2015 GLCI rankings and the 2018 GLSCI rankings due to insufficient data.
• 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
27Note: New Smart City indicators are in blue, and new indicators are in green.
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
28Note: New Smart City indicators are in blue, and new indicators are in green.
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
29Note: New Smart City indicators are in blue, and new indicators are in green.
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
30Note: New Smart City indicators are in blue, and new indicators are in green.
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
31Note: New Smart City indicators are in blue, and new indicators are in green.
• 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
Methodology: Shapley Value Ranking Algorithm
• 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
Methodology: Shapley Value Ranking Algorithm
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 Preliminary Overall Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
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
Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.
Research Findings
2018 Preliminary Overall Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
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
Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.
Research Findings
2018 Preliminary Overall Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
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
Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.
Research Findings
2018 Preliminary Overall Rankings and Scores
42
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
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
Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.
Research Findings
2018 Preliminary Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
London United Kingdom 1.8904 1 12 12
New York United States 1.7929 2 9 16
Hong Kong Hong Kong, China 1.7749 3 1 4
Singapore Singapore 1.6991 4 2 5
Luxembourg Luxembourg 1.4891 5 3 1
Los Angeles United States 1.2824 6 13 18
Zurich Switzerland 1.2007 7 4 9
Chicago United States 1.1472 8 18 34
Birmingham United Kingdom 1.1323 9 N.A. N.A.
Amsterdam Netherlands 1.1311 10 23 10
Geneva Switzerland 1.1189 11 5 3
Boston United States 1.1123 12 10 21
Copenhagen Denmark 1.1032 13 7 2
Berlin Germany 1.0797 14 22 15
Stockholm Sweden 1.0730 15 6 11
Philadelphia United States 1.0314 16 17 20
43Source: 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 Preliminary Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Washington, D.C. United States 1.0098 17 14 27
Manchester United Kingdom 0.9830 18 N.A. N.A.
Liverpool United Kingdom 0.9773 19 N.A. N.A.
Cambridge United Kingdom 0.9752 20 N.A. N.A.
Edinburgh United Kingdom 0.9697 21 N.A. N.A.
Bristol United Kingdom 0.9681 22 N.A. N.A.
Leeds United Kingdom 0.9236 23 N.A. N.A.
Sydney Australia 0.6908 24 11 7
Auckland New Zealand 0.6795 25 24 13
Melbourne Australia 0.6396 26 15 6
Paris France 0.5764 27 19 14
Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates 0.4799 28 8 28
Helsinki Finland 0.4691 29 16 7
Prague Czech Republic 0.4145 30 32 19
Tokyo Japan 0.3829 31 27 31
Vancouver Canada 0.3097 32 21 22
44Source: 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 Preliminary Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Osaka-Kobe Japan 0.2548 33 31 24
Seoul South Korea 0.2516 34 26 30
Yokohama Japan 0.2076 35 28 32
Barcelona Spain 0.1414 36 44 17
Incheon South Korea 0.1360 37 29 29
Taipei Taiwan, China 0.1010 38 20 24
Madrid Spain 0.0608 39 39 37
Jerusalem Israel -0.0056 40 30 26
Kuala Lumpur Malaysia -0.0932 41 25 23
Rome Italy -0.1923 42 33 33
Shenzhen China -0.2239 43 37 39
Shanghai China -0.2891 44 45 45
Tianjin China -0.3142 45 40 40
Beijing China -0.3320 46 42 47
Guangzhou China -0.3345 47 36 41
Chongqing China -0.3578 48 41 43
45Source: 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 Preliminary Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Bangkok Thailand -0.3728 49 34 42
Nanjing China -0.3809 50 38 36
Delhi India -0.7055 51 59 59
Riyadh Saudi Arabia -0.7391 52 35 35
Mumbai India -0.7410 53 62 60
Istanbul Turkey -0.7987 54 49 49
Bangalore India -0.8157 55 61 57
Chennai India -0.8186 56 57 58
Krishna India -0.8362 57 N.A. N.A.
Hanoi Vietnam -0.8392 58 48 51
Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam -0.8471 59 43 51
Chittoor India -0.8490 60 N.A. N.A.
Mexico City Mexico -0.8547 61 47 53
East Godavari India -0.8675 62 N.A. N.A.
Ahmedabad India -0.8759 63 56 55
Vishakhapatnam India -0.8779 64 N.A. N.A.
46Source: 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 Preliminary Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Pune India -0.8858 65 58 56
Phnom Penh Cambodia -0.9056 66 46 44
Dehradun India -0.9088 67 N.A. N.A.
Manila Philippines -1.0545 68 50 61
Buenos Aires Argentina -1.0938 69 53 64
Moscow Russia -1.1258 70 55 62
Jakarta Indonesia -1.1916 71 52 54
Amman Jordan -1.2736 72 54 48
Nairobi Kenya -1.4055 73 N.A. N.A.
Cairo Egypt -1.6631 74 60 38
Sao Paulo Brazil -1.6649 75 51 63
Johannesburg South Africa -1.7775 76 N.A. N.A.
Lagos Nigeria -2.1564 77 N.A. N.A.
Karachi Pakistan -2.1915 78 63 45
Damascus Syria N.A. N.A. N.A. 49
47Source: ACI
Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.
Research Findings2018 Preliminary Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Geneva Switzerland 2.1207 1 2 2
Zurich Switzerland 2.1203 2 1 2
Luxembourg Luxembourg 1.9571 3 6 4
Copenhagen Denmark 1.9409 4 3 15
Berlin Germany 1.7985 5 4 5
Stockholm Sweden 1.6944 6 5 1
Helsinki Finland 1.5816 7 7 8
Amsterdam Netherlands 1.2731 8 8 24
Paris France 1.2719 9 11 7
Nairobi Kenya 0.9590 10 N.A. N.A.
Sao Paulo Brazil 0.9143 11 9 12
London United Kingdom 0.8916 12 10 9
Liverpool United Kingdom 0.8677 13 N.A. N.A.
Manchester United Kingdom 0.8677 13 N.A. N.A.
Auckland New Zealand 0.8655 15 14 6
Edinburgh United Kingdom 0.8624 16 N.A. N.A.
48Source: ACI
Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.
Research Findings2018 Preliminary Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Bristol United Kingdom 0.8578 17 N.A. N.A.
Birmingham United Kingdom 0.8538 18 N.A. N.A.
Cambridge United Kingdom 0.8537 19 N.A. N.A.
Leeds United Kingdom 0.8499 20 N.A. N.A.
Sydney Australia 0.7622 21 18 18
Melbourne Australia 0.7476 22 17 17
Rome Italy 0.7390 23 16 25
Vancouver Canada 0.6862 24 12 22
Madrid Spain 0.6369 25 13 11
Barcelona Spain 0.6310 26 15 10
Tokyo Japan 0.6302 27 20 13
Hong Kong Hong Kong, China 0.5941 28 23 36
Osaka-Kobe Japan 0.5883 29 19 16
Yokohama Japan 0.5690 30 21 26
Prague Czech Republic 0.3530 31 22 19
Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates 0.3099 32 31 46
49Source: ACI
Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.
Research Findings2018 Preliminary Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Washington, D.C. United States 0.2535 33 25 32
Boston United States 0.2422 34 26 32
New York United States 0.2379 35 27 20
Los Angeles United States 0.2310 36 30 21
Philadelphia United States 0.2268 37 28 32
Chicago United States 0.2243 38 29 23
Singapore Singapore 0.1050 39 24 14
Jerusalem Israel -0.0989 40 32 31
Istanbul Turkey -0.1259 41 38 56
Lagos Nigeria -0.2296 42 N.A. N.A.
Amman Jordan -0.2437 43 43 28
Manila Philippines -0.3401 44 36 44
Seoul South Korea -0.4284 45 39 29
Karachi Pakistan -0.4521 46 N.A. N.A.
Buenos Aires Argentina -0.4522 47 33 38
Incheon South Korea -0.5161 48 40 36
50Source: ACI
Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.
Research Findings2018 Preliminary Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Mexico City Mexico -0.5740 49 42 39
Taipei Taiwan, China -0.5746 50 34 30
Jakarta Indonesia -0.6592 51 41 64
Bangkok Thailand -0.7216 52 44 32
Shenzhen China -0.8154 53 47 50
Vishakhapatnam India -0.8293 54 N.A. N.A.
Guangzhou China -0.8353 55 46 60
Krishna India -0.8461 56 55 42
Nanjing China -0.8504 57 52 50
Tianjin China -0.8592 58 50 62
Beijing China -0.8616 59 51 61
Shanghai China -0.8638 60 47 49
East Godavari India -0.8892 61 N.A. N.A.
Chittoor India -0.9112 62 N.A. N.A.
Kuala Lumpur Malaysia -1.0134 63 35 27
Chongqing China -1.0252 64 49 63
51Source: ACI
Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.
Research Findings2018 Preliminary Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability Rankings and Scores
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Riyadh Saudi Arabia -1.0356 65 37 45
Delhi India -1.0619 66 63 52
Mumbai India -1.1948 67 61 43
Pune India -1.1948 67 60 57
Bangalore India -1.2085 69 58 47
Ahmedabad India -1.2099 70 57 47
Phnom Penh Cambodia -1.2110 71 59 53
Chennai India -1.2169 72 56 55
Cairo Egypt -1.2805 73 62 57
Johannesburg South Africa -1.3102 74 N.A. N.A.
Moscow Russia -1.4310 75 45 53
Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam -1.5710 76 53 40
Dehradun India -1.5822 77 N.A. N.A.
Hanoi Vietnam -1.6454 78 53 40
Damascus Syria N.A. N.A. N.A. 59
52Source: ACI
Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.
2018 Preliminary Domestic Security and Stability Rankings and Scores
Research Findings
53
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Singapore Singapore 1.4305 1 5 1
Helsinki Finland 1.4094 2 1 5
Luxembourg Luxembourg 1.3656 3 8 9
Geneva Switzerland 1.2439 4 2 10
Zurich Switzerland 1.2439 4 2 10
Amsterdam Netherlands 1.2335 6 6 22
Auckland New Zealand 1.1862 7 4 4
Stockholm Sweden 1.0766 8 9 18
Vancouver Canada 1.0666 9 10 12
Copenhagen Denmark 1.0494 10 16 3
Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates 1.0391 11 11 24
Edinburgh United Kingdom 0.9220 12 N.A. N.A.
Leeds United Kingdom 0.9220 12 N.A. N.A.
Liverpool United Kingdom 0.9220 12 N.A. N.A.
Manchester United Kingdom 0.9220 12 N.A. N.A.
London United Kingdom 0.9191 16 14 35
Source: 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 Preliminary Domestic Security and Stability Rankings and Scores
54
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Birmingham United Kingdom 0.9002 17 N.A. N.A.
Bristol United Kingdom 0.8679 18 N.A. N.A.
Berlin Germany 0.8162 19 12 7
Prague Czech Republic 0.7604 20 22 18
Cambridge United Kingdom 0.7268 21 N.A. N.A.
Madrid Spain 0.7238 22 19 33
Hong Kong Hong Kong, China 0.7056 23 7 2
Melbourne Australia 0.6653 24 13 13
Incheon South Korea 0.6578 25 27 20
Seoul South Korea 0.6578 25 27 20
Sydney Australia 0.6546 27 15 13
Barcelona Spain 0.6038 28 18 33
Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 0.4031 29 29 39
Osaka-Kobe Japan 0.3413 30 23 15
Tokyo Japan 0.3413 30 23 15
Yokohama Japan 0.3413 30 23 15
Source: 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 Preliminary Domestic Security and Stability Rankings and Scores
55
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Rome Italy 0.3392 33 20 36
Taipei Taiwan, China 0.3277 34 17 8
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.
Chicago United States 0.1197 43 32 26
Los Angeles United States 0.1136 44 34 26
New York United States 0.1054 45 35 26
Philadelphia United States 0.0887 46 32 26
Vishakhapatnam India 0.0863 47 N.A. N.A.
Pune India 0.0854 48 54 52
Source: 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 Preliminary Domestic Security and Stability Rankings and Scores
56
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Washington, D.C. United States 0.0489 49 36 26
Boston United States 0.0122 50 37 26
Ahmedabad India 0.0104 51 49 52
Mumbai India -0.1798 52 57 52
Hanoi Vietnam -0.2823 53 30 37
Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam -0.2823 53 30 37
Jakarta Indonesia -0.2846 55 41 49
Phnom Penh Cambodia -0.5027 56 38 51
Nanjing China -0.6578 57 42 41
Shenzhen China -0.6578 57 42 41
Tianjin China -0.6578 57 42 41
Guangzhou China -0.6600 60 42 41
Chongqing China -0.6612 61 46 41
Shanghai China -0.6612 62 47 41
Beijing China -0.6666 63 48 41
Istanbul Turkey -0.7283 64 52 58
Source: 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 Preliminary Domestic Security and Stability Rankings and Scores
57
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Buenos Aires Argentina -0.8946 65 40 48
Bangkok Thailand -0.9289 66 56 61
Paris France -0.9702 67 21 6
Nairobi Kenya -1.5054 68 N.A. N.A.
Cairo Egypt -1.5072 69 62 23
Lagos Nigeria -1.5851 70 N.A. N.A.
Mexico City Mexico -1.6580 71 60 63
Sao Paulo Brazil -1.8762 72 53 40
Karachi Pakistan -1.9480 73 63 59
Dehradun India -2.0873 74 N.A. N.A.
Jerusalem Israel -2.2379 75 58 62
Manila Philippines -2.2561 76 59 64
Johannesburg South Africa -2.2591 77 N.A. N.A.
Moscow Russia -2.5201 78 61 59
Damascus Syria N.A. N.A. N.A. 32
Source: 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 Preliminary Socio-Cultural Conditions Rankings and Scores
58
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Amsterdam Netherlands 1.3547 1 4 8
Geneva Switzerland 1.2699 2 1 1
Zurich Switzerland 1.2699 2 3 1
Helsinki Finland 1.2570 4 2 6
Copenhagen Denmark 1.1641 5 19 4
Auckland New Zealand 1.1633 6 5 30
Melbourne Australia 1.1590 7 10 16
Sydney Australia 1.1590 7 11 16
Stockholm Sweden 1.0658 9 13 3
Singapore Singapore 1.0503 10 12 5
Berlin Germany 1.0069 11 8 11
Luxembourg Luxembourg 0.9987 12 7 15
Vancouver Canada 0.9190 13 6 7
Paris France 0.8083 14 17 9
Taipei Taiwan, China 0.7892 15 9 33
Osaka-Kobe Japan 0.7703 16 22 12
Source: 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 Preliminary Socio-Cultural Conditions Rankings and Scores
59
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Tokyo Japan 0.7703 16 18 12
Yokohama Japan 0.7703 16 14 12
Hong Kong Hong Kong, China 0.7662 19 15 10
Manchester United Kingdom 0.7433 20 N.A. N.A.
Birmingham United Kingdom 0.7340 21 N.A. N.A.
Bristol United Kingdom 0.7340 21 N.A. N.A.
Cambridge United Kingdom 0.7340 21 N.A. N.A.
Edinburgh United Kingdom 0.7340 21 N.A. N.A.
Leeds United Kingdom 0.7340 21 N.A. N.A.
Liverpool United Kingdom 0.7340 21 N.A. N.A.
London United Kingdom 0.7340 21 28 32
Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates 0.7201 28 25 24
Boston United States 0.6913 29 26 18
Chicago United States 0.6913 29 30 18
Los Angeles United States 0.6913 29 32 18
New York United States 0.6913 29 31 18
Source: 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 Preliminary Socio-Cultural Conditions Rankings and Scores
60
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Philadelphia United States 0.6913 29 29 18
Washington, D.C. United States 0.6913 29 24 18
Incheon South Korea 0.6672 35 20 25
Seoul South Korea 0.6672 35 16 25
Barcelona Spain 0.6557 37 21 29
Madrid Spain 0.6557 37 23 27
Prague Czech Republic 0.4984 39 27 31
Jerusalem Israel 0.4488 40 35 27
Rome Italy 0.1556 41 33 36
Moscow Russia -0.0612 42 38 38
Riyadh Saudi Arabia -0.0996 43 44 37
Kuala Lumpur Malaysia -0.1442 44 34 34
Beijing China -0.2403 45 39 41
Chongqing China -0.2403 45 50 52
Guangzhou China -0.2403 45 47 49
Nanjing China -0.2403 45 45 49
Source: 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 Preliminary Socio-Cultural Conditions Rankings and Scores
61
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Shanghai China -0.2403 45 48 42
Shenzhen China -0.2403 45 41 49
Tianjin China -0.2403 45 42 48
Bangkok Thailand -0.3578 52 46 39
Buenos Aires Argentina -0.3780 53 36 43
Manila Philippines -0.4251 54 53 60
Hanoi Vietnam -0.5686 55 40 55
Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam -0.5686 55 37 55
Mexico City Mexico -0.5957 57 49 44
Istanbul Turkey -0.6501 58 43 54
Sao Paulo Brazil -0.6750 59 52 61
Amman Jordan -0.7273 60 51 35
Jakarta Indonesia -0.8574 61 54 64
Cairo Egypt -1.2039 62 55 53
Dehradun India -1.2388 63 N.A. N.A.
East Godavari India -1.2617 64 N.A. N.A.
Source: 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 Preliminary Socio-Cultural Conditions Rankings and Scores
62
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Krishna India -1.2853 65 N.A. N.A.
Vishakhapatnam India -1.2980 66 N.A. N.A.
Chittoor India -1.3608 67 N.A. N.A.
Ahmedabad India -1.4457 68 61 45
Bangalore India -1.4457 68 62 58
Chennai India -1.4457 68 60 45
Delhi India -1.4457 68 56 57
Mumbai India -1.4457 68 58 59
Pune India -1.4457 68 59 45
Johannesburg South Africa -1.4768 74 N.A. N.A.
Phnom Penh Cambodia -1.5092 75 57 63
Karachi Pakistan -1.9653 76 63 62
Nairobi Kenya -2.0249 77 N.A. N.A.
Lagos Nigeria -2.9208 78 N.A. N.A.
Damascus Syria N.A. N.A. N.A. 40
Source: 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 Preliminary Political Governance Rankings and Scores
63
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Geneva Switzerland 1.5710 1 3 1
Zurich Switzerland 1.5710 1 3 1
Auckland New Zealand 1.5584 3 2 5
Singapore Singapore 1.4470 4 1 3
Hong Kong Hong Kong, China 1.4182 5 5 4
Berlin Germany 1.3255 6 19 18
Helsinki Finland 1.2736 7 6 9
Vancouver Canada 1.2393 8 12 18
Birmingham United Kingdom 1.1251 9 N.A. N.A.
Bristol United Kingdom 1.1251 9 N.A. N.A.
Cambridge United Kingdom 1.1251 9 N.A. N.A.
Edinburgh United Kingdom 1.1251 9 N.A. N.A.
Leeds United Kingdom 1.1251 9 N.A. N.A.
Liverpool United Kingdom 1.1251 9 N.A. N.A.
London United Kingdom 1.1251 9 16 20
Manchester United Kingdom 1.1251 9 N.A. N.A.
Source: 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 Preliminary Political Governance Rankings and Scores
64
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Amsterdam Netherlands 1.1203 17 17 20
Boston United States 1.0454 18 20 11
Chicago United States 1.0454 18 20 11
Los Angeles United States 1.0454 18 20 11
New York United States 1.0454 18 20 11
Philadelphia United States 1.0454 18 20 11
Washington, D.C. United States 1.0454 18 20 11
Melbourne Australia 0.8988 24 9 6
Sydney Australia 0.8988 24 10 6
Stockholm Sweden 0.8347 26 8 8
Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates 0.7847 27 31 38
Copenhagen Denmark 0.7088 28 11 11
Luxembourg Luxembourg 0.6130 29 7 10
Osaka-Kobe Japan 0.5920 30 13 22
Tokyo Japan 0.5920 30 13 22
Yokohama Japan 0.5920 30 13 22
Source: 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 Preliminary Political Governance Rankings and Scores
65
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Taipei Taiwan, China 0.4728 33 18 25
Paris France 0.3123 34 26 26
Incheon South Korea 0.1577 35 29 27
Seoul South Korea 0.1577 35 29 27
Jerusalem Israel 0.1572 37 28 39
Prague Czech Republic 0.0449 38 34 42
Kuala Lumpur Malaysia -0.0666 39 27 37
Barcelona Spain -0.0906 40 32 27
Madrid Spain -0.0906 40 33 27
Dehradun India -0.2563 42 N.A. N.A.
Riyadh Saudi Arabia -0.4701 43 56 53
Rome Italy -0.4733 44 45 40
Ahmedabad India -0.7385 45 35 31
Bangalore India -0.7385 45 35 31
Chennai India -0.7385 45 35 31
Delhi India -0.7385 45 35 31
Source: 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 Preliminary Political Governance Rankings and Scores
66
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Mumbai India -0.7385 45 35 31
Pune India -0.7385 45 35 31
Krishna India -0.7385 45 N.A. N.A.
East Godavari India -0.7385 45 N.A. N.A.
Chittoor India -0.7385 45 N.A. N.A.
Vishakhapatnam India -0.7385 45 N.A. N.A.
Mexico City Mexico -0.7510 55 41 43
Beijing China -0.8131 56 47 49
Chongqing China -0.8131 56 47 45
Guangzhou China -0.8131 56 47 50
Nanjing China -0.8131 56 47 50
Shanghai China -0.8131 56 47 48
Shenzhen China -0.8131 56 47 50
Tianjin China -0.8131 56 47 46
Johannesburg South Africa -0.8537 63 N.A. N.A.
Istanbul Turkey -0.9132 64 42 44
Source: 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 Preliminary Political Governance Rankings and Scores
67
City Economy Score 2018 Ranking
2018
Ranking
2015
Ranking
2012
Buenos Aires Argentina -0.9432 65 60 60
Jakarta Indonesia -0.9639 66 44 56
Sao Paulo Brazil -0.9704 67 55 41
Hanoi Vietnam -1.2207 68 57 61
Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam -1.2207 68 57 61
Nairobi Kenya -1.2821 70 N.A. N.A.
Bangkok Thailand -1.2923 71 46 55
Manila Philippines -1.3025 72 43 54
Cairo Egypt -1.3470 73 62 59
Lagos Nigeria -1.3556 74 N.A. N.A.
Moscow Russia -1.3679 75 63 64
Amman Jordan -1.6731 76 54 47
Karachi Pakistan -1.7635 77 61 57
Phnom Penh Cambodia -1.8703 78 59 58
Damascus Syria N.A. N.A. N.A. 63
Source: ACI
Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.
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
Research Findings in 2018
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
Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness 3 1 4
Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability 28 23 36
Domestic Security and Stability 23 7 2
Socio-Cultural Conditions 19 15 10
Political Governance 5 5 4
Environment Ranking 2018 Ranking 2015 Ranking 2012
Overall 30 18 18
Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness 31 27 31
Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability 27 20 13
Domestic Security and Stability 30 23 15
Socio-Cultural Conditions 16 18 12
Political Governance 30 13 22
Hong Kong
Tokyo
Source: ACI
Note: The 2018 rankings are from ACI’s GLSCI rankings, while the 2015 and 2012 are from ACI’s GLCI rankings.
Research Findings in 2018
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
Rank City Economy Score
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
Before After Before After
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
• 2018 Preliminary What-if Simulation Analysis (Overall)
CityRank Score
Before After Before After
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
Before After Before After
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
• 2018 Preliminary What-if Simulation Analysis (Overall)
CityRank Score
Before After Before After
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
Before After Before After
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
EnvironmentRank Score
Before After Before After
Overall 9 3 1.2864 1.5404
EconomicVibrancy and Competitiveness 4 2 1.6991 1.8502
Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability 39 24 0.1050 0.7286
Domestic Security and Stability 1 1 1.4305 1.4305
Socio-Cultural Conditions 10 2 1.0503 1.3157
Political Governance 4 4 1.4470 1.5528
EnvironmentRank Score
Before After Before After
Overall 30 13 0.6097 1.0720
EconomicVibrancy and Competitiveness 31 24 0.3829 0.7253
Environmental Friendliness and Sustainability 27 10 0.6302 1.0746
Domestic Security and Stability 30 12 0.3413 0.9336
Socio-Cultural Conditions 16 9 0.7703 1.0674
Political Governance 30 24 0.5920 0.9802
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Overall)
CityRank Score Rank
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Overall)
81
Source: ACI
CityRank Score Rank
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness)
CityRank Score Rank
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness)
Research Findings
CityRank Score Rank
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Environmental Friendliness &
Sustainability)
Research Findings
87
CityRank Score Rank
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Environmental Friendliness &
Sustainability)
Source: ACI
Research Findings
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Domestic Security and Stability)
CityRank Score Rank
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Domestic Security and Stability)
CityRank Score Rank
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Domestic Security and Stability)
Research Findings
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Socio-Cultural Conditions)
CityRank Score Rank
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Socio-Cultural Conditions)
CityRank Score Rank
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Socio-Cultural Conditions)
Research Findings
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Political Governance)
CityRank Score Rank
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Political Governance)
CityRank Score Rank
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
ChangeEqual Shapley Equal Shapley
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
• 2018 Preliminary Shapley Analysis (Political Governance)
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
Rank City Economy Score
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
Rank City Economy Score
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
Rank City Economy Score
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
Rank City Economy Score
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
Name of CitiesOverall Liveability
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
Name of CitiesOverall Liveability
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
Name of CitiesOverall Liveability
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.
List of 100 Greater China Cities in the Study
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
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.
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
List of 100 Greater China Cities in the Study
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
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.