"Survey on perception of quality of life in 75 European cities" in 2009

Survey on perception of quality of life in 75 European cities

EN

Flash Eurobarometer March 2010

Foreword Cities are the vibrating pulse of our society. Since 1998, we have been working with Member States on collecting statistical data that will give us means of comparing Europe’s cities. The survey results you will find in the following pages usefully complement these quantitative data. As in 2004 and in 2007, the inhabitants interviewed were given the opportunity to express their views on the quality of life in their home city.

The survey was carried out in 75 cities and shows that, on the whole, citizens are satisfied with the quality of a number of services, in particular in the areas of transport, health and cultural facilities. The quality of public spaces and green areas also meets with general satisfaction.

But there are some less positive aspects. In many cities citizens believe it is difficult to find a job or affordable housing. A majority of inhabitants consider poverty as a problem in their home city. These findings can be attributed to the present crisis as people start to really feel the repercussions. Many towns are facing increasing “social polarisation”. They are marked by social divisions that are bringing about geographical imbalances. These problems have a clear impact on the well-being of citizens.

This survey also enables us to measure variations in the extent to which citizens are aware of issues linked to climate change. Some towns are apparently more advanced than others. I also note the serious concerns expressed by European citizens on questions of air and noise pollution.

This complex mix of challenges confirms the need to act on several fronts as part of an integrated urban approach that alone can guarantee sustainable towns. In arriving at viable solutions there is a need to combine investment in infrastructure (transport, housing, centres of learning, cultural facilities), measures to aid socio-economic development (such as aid to small and medium-sized enterprises, urban regeneration) and measures that promote social inclusion. For me, this is the occasion to stress that European cohesion policy offers a favourable framework for tackling all these challenges simultaneously and for best meeting the needs of Europe’s citizens.

Johannes Hahn

European Commissioner

responsible for regional policy

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY Policy development Urban development, territorial cohesion

Survey on perceptions of quality of life in 75 European cities

March 2010 Fieldwork: November 2009

page 1

The content of this brochure does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutions of the

European Union. This survey has been contracted to Gallup-Hungary in the context of a Framework

Contract with the Directorate-General Communication (European Commission).

The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

This study complements the work which is carried out in the context of the European Urban Audit.

For more information on the Urban Audit http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/urban/audit/index_en.htm

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu (after choosing the language, click “data” and then “urban audit”)

Mailbox: [email protected] And [email protected]

(statistical questions)

page 3

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Main findings ......................................................................................................................................... 7

1. Perceptions about social reality...................................................................................................... 10

1.1 Health care, employment opportunities and housing costs......................................... 10 Health care services................................................................................................................. 10 Employment opportunities .................................................................................................... 12 Housing costs ........................................................................................................................... 16 1.2 Poverty and financial difficulties ..................................................................................... 18 Poverty at city level.................................................................................................................. 18 1.3 The presence of foreigners................................................................................................ 20 The presence of foreigners is good for the city .................................................................... 20 Integration of foreigners ......................................................................................................... 21 1.4 Feelings of safety and trust............................................................................................... 22 People can be trusted .............................................................................................................. 22 Feeling safe in the city............................................................................................................. 24 Feeling safe in one’s neighbourhood..................................................................................... 26 1.5 Cities’ most important problems ..................................................................................... 28

2. Pollution and climate change.......................................................................................................... 30

2.1 Clean and healthy cities .................................................................................................... 30 Air quality and air pollution ................................................................................................... 30 Noise is a major problem ........................................................................................................ 32 Clean cities ................................................................................................................................ 34 2.2 Cities committed to fight climate change ...................................................................... 39

3. Administrative services and city spending .................................................................................... 42

Resources spent in a responsible way ................................................................................... 42

4. Satisfaction with cities’ infrastructure .......................................................................................... 44

Satisfaction with cultural facilities ........................................................................................ 44 Satisfaction with public spaces – markets and pedestrian areas ...................................... 46 Satisfaction with “the beauty of streets and buildings in one’s neighbourhood” ........... 48 Satisfaction with public parks and gardens (green spaces) ............................................... 50 Satisfaction with opportunities for outdoor recreation...................................................... 52 Sports facilities ......................................................................................................................... 54 General satisfaction with a city’s facilities............................................................................ 56

5. Satisfaction with public transport.................................................................................................. 58

5.1 Frequency of using public transport ............................................................................... 58 5.2 Means of commuting and commuting time................................................................... 60 Means of transport for commuting ....................................................................................... 60

Length of time to commute .................................................................................................... 64 5.3 Satisfaction with public transport ................................................................................... 66 Satisfaction with public transport ......................................................................................... 66 Reasons for not using public transport ................................................................................ 68

6. A comparison with the results of the 2006 perception survey..................................................... 69

Introduction This “Perception survey on quality of life in European cities” was conducted in November 2009 to measure local perceptions in 75 cities in the EU, Croatia and Turkey. The European Commission (DG Regional Policy) has been using such surveys for several years to get a snapshot of people’s opinions on a range of urban issues. Earlier surveys were conducted in 2004 and 20061. These perception surveys allow for comparisons between perceptions and “real” data from various statistical sources on issues such as urban security, unemployment and air quality (e.g. the Urban Audit2). This perception survey included all capital cities of the countries concerned, together with between one and six more cities in the larger countries. This resulted in the following 75 cities being selected:

Country City Country City Antwerpen Lietuva Vilnius Brussel/Bruxelles Luxembourg (G.D.) Luxembourg

België/Belgique

Liège Budapest Burgas

Magyarország Miskolc Bulgaria

Sofia Malta Valletta Ostrava Amsterdam Česká Republika Praha Groningen Aalborg

Nederland

Rotterdam Danmark København Graz Berlin

Österreich Wien

Dortmund Białystok Essen Gdańsk Hamburg Kraków Leipzig

Polska

Warszawa München Braga

Deutschland

Rostock* Portugal

Lisboa Eesti Tallinn Bucureşti Éire/Ireland Dublin Cluj-Napoca

Athina

România

Piatra Neamţ Elláda Irakleio Slovenija Ljubljana Barcelona Bratislava Madrid

Slovensko Kosice

Málaga Helsinki

España

Oviedo Suomi/Finland

Oulu Bordeaux Malmö Lille

Sverige Stockholm

Marseille Belfast Paris Cardiff Rennes Glasgow

France

Strasbourg London Bologna Manchester Napoli

United Kingdom

Newcastle Palermo Hrvatska Zagreb Roma Ankara Torino Antalya

Italia

Verona Diyarbakır Kypros / Kıbrıs Lefkosia

Türkiye

İstanbul Latvija Riga

* Frankfurt an der Oder was included in earlier reports and has now been replaced by Rostock.

This Flash Eurobarometer survey (No 277) was conducted by Gallup Hungary. In each city, 500 randomly selected citizens (aged 15 and older) were interviewed. This constituted a representative profile of the wider population; the respondents were taken from all areas of the designated cities. In

1 For more details see: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_156_en.pdf (Flash EB 196) and http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/urban/audit/index_en.htm (also in French and German) 2 www.urbanaudit.org page 5

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_156_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/urban/audit/index_en.htm

http://www.urbanaudit.org/

total, more than 37,500 interviews were conducted between 30 October and 10 November 2009. More details on the survey methodology are included in the main findings report’s annex. Compared with previous surveys, Flash Eurobarometer No 277 introduced new questions to assess people’s satisfaction with, for example, public spaces in their city (such as markets, squares and pedestrian areas) and possibilities for outdoor recreation (such as walking and cycling). A new series of questions was also introduced about transport modes and the usage of public transport, together with a question on perceptions about the most important issues of cities. Finally, new question statements were added, such as “poverty is a problem in this city”, “this city is a healthy place to live” and “generally speaking, most people in this city can be trusted”. In most charts, the 75 cities have been ranked according to their respondents’ perceptions about quality of life – from most positive to least positive. Note that due to rounding, the percentages shown in the charts and tables do not always add up exactly to the totals mentioned in the text.

Main findings Health care, jobs and housing

Of the 75 cities surveyed, residents of north-western European cities were most satisfied with health care services: at least 80% of respondents in those cities said they were content. The levels of satisfaction were considerably lower in many southern and eastern European cities.

The picture in regard to job opportunities was rather bleak: there were only six cities where more than half of respondents agreed that it was easy to find a good job.

Apart from 10 cities, respondents held a pessimistic view about the availability of reasonably priced housing; many cities where respondents held such a view were capitals and/or large cities.

Poverty / economic situation

Except for nine cities, respondents who thought that poverty was a problem in their city outnumbered those who believed it was not an issue.

Despite those prevailing views about poverty, it was rare for more than half of respondents in any of the cities to admit that they have financial difficulties themselves.

Immigration / presence of foreigners

Opinions about the presence of foreigners in the surveyed cities were generally positive: in 68 cities, a slim majority of interviewees, at least, agreed that their presence was beneficial.

However, in almost all cities, the proportion who agreed that foreigners in their city were well integrated was lower than the proportion who agreed that their presence was good for the city.

Safety and trust

As to whether people could be trusted, the picture across cities was mixed. In about one-third, less than half agreed that most of their fellow citizens were trustworthy. Several eastern European capitals were at the lower end of the scale.

In most Nordic cities, about two-thirds of respondents always felt safe in their city. There was a strong correlation between the proportion of respondents who agreed that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted and the proportion who always felt safe in their city.

Respondents across all surveyed cities were more likely to say they always felt safe in their neighbourhood than they were to say that they always felt safe in their city.

Main issues facing city dwellers

When asked to list the three main issues facing their city, respondents typically opted for “job creation/reducing unemployment”, “availability/quality of health services” and “educational facilities”.

Job creation and reducing unemployment appeared among the three most significant problems that respondents’ cities faced in 64 of the 75 surveyed cities.

The need to improve the quality/availability of health services appeared among the top three problems in 54 cities.

Pollution / climate change

There appears to have been an improvement in the situation regarding air and noise pollution in European cities.

In all Italian cities in this study, a large majority of respondents agreed that air pollution was a major problem. A large number of cities in that same situation were capitals and/or large cities (with at least 500,000 inhabitants).

In most cities, more than half of respondents agreed that noise was a major problem in their city – this proportion ranged from 51% in Rotterdam and Strasbourg to 95% in Athens.

page 7

As with the results for air and noise pollution, a majority of cities seemed to have made progress in terms of cleanliness in the past few years.

There was a strong correlation between the perceived levels of air pollution and perceptions about whether a city was healthy to live in or not - the same cities appeared at the higher and lower ends of the rankings.

Cities where respondents were more likely to agree that there was a commitment to fight climate change were also the ones where respondents were somewhat more likely to agree that their city was a healthy place to live.

Administrative services

In roughly one in three of the surveyed cities, a slim majority of respondents – at least – thought that their city spent its resources in a responsible way.

All surveyed German cities (except Munich) were at the bottom of the ranking relating to administrative services – the proportion of respondents who disagreed that resources were spent responsibly in their city ranged from 52% in Leipzig to 73% in Dortmund.

There was a strong correlation between the proportion of respondents who agreed that resources were spent in a responsible way and those who felt that administrative services helped citizens efficiently.

City infrastructure

In a majority of cities (54 of 75), at least three-quarters of respondents were satisfied with their own city’s cultural facilities, such as concert halls, museums and libraries.

In 69 cities, a majority of respondents said they were satisfied with public spaces, such as markets and pedestrian areas. Many cities at the higher end of the ranking (where most respondents were satisfied with their city’s markets and pedestrian areas) were situated in northern and western European countries.

In 25 cities, at least three-quarters of interviewees were satisfied with the beauty of streets and buildings in their neighbourhood, and in another 40 cities, between half and three-quarters of respondents expressed satisfaction.

Nonetheless, in almost all cities, respondents were more likely to be satisfied with their city’s markets and pedestrian areas than they were to be satisfied with the outlook of the streets and buildings in their neighbourhood.

A majority of citizens were satisfied with parks and gardens in their cities except in 7 of the 75 listed cities. Similarly, a majority of citizens were satisfied with outdoor recreational facilities in all cities except for 9 of the 75.

Many citizens found it difficult to estimate their satisfaction with their city’s sports facilities – the proportion of “don’t know” responses reached 44% in Liege and Riga.

Overall, a positive picture emerged in terms of satisfaction with the types of facilities provided. In a majority of surveyed cities, at least three-quarters of respondents were satisfied with at least four of the six items listed in the survey, while this proportion dropped below 50% in just 11 cities.

Public transport

In about half of the surveyed cities roughly two-thirds of respondents said they were very or rather satisfied with their city’s public transport.

The largest proportions of “frequent public transport users” were found in Paris, London, Prague, Stockholm and Budapest – there, at least three-quarters of respondents took a bus, metro or another means of public transport in their city at least once a week.

Europe’s capitals were among the cities with the highest proportions of respondents who used public transport to commute – for example, 90% in London, 56% in Bratislava and 52% in Sofia.

Commuting times were the longest in Europe’s capitals and large cities (i.e. those with more than 500,000 inhabitants).

In eight cities, a relative majority of respondents – at least – said they usually walked or cycled to work or college.

page 9

1. Perceptions about social reality 1.1 Health care, employment opportunities and housing costs Health care services There is a large variation, across cities in the EU, in the level of satisfaction with health care services offered by doctors and hospitals. The total level of satisfaction (i.e. the sum of “very” and “fairly” satisfied citizens) ranged from less than 40% in Athens, Bucharest and Burgas to more than 90% in cities such as Groningen, Antwerp, Vienna and Bordeaux. A detailed look at the ranking showed that residents of western European cities were most satisfied with health care services: at least 80% of respondents in those cities said they were rather or very satisfied with health care services provided by doctors and hospitals in their city. Furthermore, not more than 1 in 20 respondents in these cities said they were not at all satisfied. For example, 92% of interviewees in Bordeaux said they were content with the services provided by the city’s doctors and hospitals (35% “very satisfied” and 57% “rather satisfied”), while just 2% were not at all satisfied with such services. London and Paris ranked relatively low compared with other western European cities: 78% of Londoners and 79% of Parisians were rather or very satisfied with health care services provided by doctors and hospitals in their respective cities (compared to, for example, 91% in Rotterdam or 88% in Essen). However, Dublin was the real outlier among western European cities: a slim majority (57%) of Dubliners expressed their satisfaction with the city’s health care services – compared to 40% who were dissatisfied (25% “rather unsatisfied” and 15% “not at all satisfied”). Somewhat lower, but still high levels of satisfaction were measured in the six Nordic cities included in this study: 86% in both Aalborg and Stockholm, 80% in Copenhagen, 76% in Oulu, 73% in Malmo and 71% in Helsinki. As with the results for western European cities, very few respondents in the Nordic cities were not at all satisfied with health care services provided by doctors and hospitals in their city (between 2% and 4%). Satisfaction levels were considerably lower in many southern and eastern European cities. In the 10 cities at the bottom of the ranking, satisfaction with health care services dropped below 50% and ranged from 34% in Burgas to 44% in Vilnius, Piatra Neamt and Riga. Furthermore, in these 10 cities, respondents who were not at all satisfied with health services provided by doctors and hospitals in their city largely outnumbered those who were very satisfied. For example, 32% of respondents in Athens answered they were not at all satisfied compared to 9% of “very satisfied” respondents. Satisfaction with health care services(offered by doctors and hospitals)

Satisfaction with health care services (offered by doctors and hospitals)

545862

5238

5535

4543

3934

544448

4223

453937

3144

3142

3632333945

3634

2228

2432

2226

37202021

311413

1919

1425

1916

2611

251412

23151621

6131091314129111311

4749710

413632

4055

3757

4648

5256

364440

4663

424750

5542

5544

5054524538

4848

5852

5546

5752

39565452

4258605252

5544

5051

4052

384849

37444135

4840

4242393638

35333132

3834

36303024

242235

2533657971010

4758786111010612

12111013

101113

7151916

131818191718

152123

15192224

21182025

1730

212526242626

22242425323133

2626

29

11

2121

22

122

211

222

23

14

24

21

13

52

34

24

735

1143

412

75410714

77

1612

138

131112

1518

1215

151522

1514

19222121

232225

3228

28

32353242

542432412

84

8363

62435344

844

8464563356252323

62

65

1294

103

11873

910

15101111

3634

810

Groningen (NL)Graz (AT)Newcastle (UK)Antwerpen (BE)Liège (BE)Wien (AT)Bordeaux (FR)Luxembourg (LU)Rotterdam (NL)Lille (FR)Marseille (FR)München (DE)Dortmund (DE)Essen (DE)Amsterdam (NL)Oviedo (ES)Hamburg (DE)Aalborg (DK)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Rennes (FR)Belfast (UK)Strasbourg (FR)Manchester (UK)Stockholm (SE)Rostock (DE)Leipzig (DE)Cardiff (UK)Glasgow (UK)Berlin (DE)Ostrava (CZ)Verona (IT)København (DK)Bologna (IT)London (UK)Paris (FR)Praha (CZ)Antalya (TR)Oulu (FI)Kosice (SK)Malmö (SE)Ankara (TR)Barcelona (ES)Torino (IT)Helsinki (FI)Braga (PT)Ljubljana (SI)İstanbul (TR)Madrid (ES)Málaga (ES)Diyarbakir (TR)Lisboa (PT)Zagreb (HR)Bratislava (SK)Białystok (PL)Valletta (MT)Miskolc (HU)Dublin (IE)Lefkosia (CY)Roma (IT)Tallinn (EE)Gdańsk (PL)Kraków (PL)Irakleio (EL)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Budapest (HU)Riga (LV)Piatra Neamț (RO)Vilnius (LT)Sofia (BG)Napoli (IT)Warszawa (PL)Palermo (IT)Athinia (EL)Bucureşti (RO)Burgas (BG)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Groningen (NL)Graz (AT)

Newcastle (UK)Antwerpen (BE)

Liège (BE)Wien (AT)

Bordeaux (FR)Luxembourg (LU)Rotterdam (NL)

Lille (FR)Marseille (FR)München (DE)Dortmund (DE)

Essen (DE)Amsterdam (NL)

Oviedo (ES)Hamburg (DE)Aalborg (DK)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Rennes (FR)Belfast (UK)

Strasbourg (FR)Manchester (UK)Stockholm (SE)Rostock (DE)Leipzig (DE)Cardiff (UK)

Glasgow (UK)Berlin (DE)

Ostrava (CZ)Verona (IT)

København (DK)Bologna (IT)London (UK)

Paris (FR)Praha (CZ)

Antalya (TR)Oulu (FI)

Kosice (SK)Malmö (SE)Ankara (TR)

Barcelona (ES)Torino (IT)

Helsinki (FI)Braga (PT)

Ljubljana (SI)İstanbul (TR)Madrid (ES)Málaga (ES)

Diyarbakir (TR)Lisboa (PT)Zagreb (HR)

Bratislava (SK)Białystok (PL)Valletta (MT)Miskolc (HU)Dublin (IE)

Lefkosia (CY)Roma (IT)

Tallinn (EE)Gdańsk (PL)Kraków (PL)Irakleio (EL)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Budapest (HU)

Riga (LV)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Vilnius (LT)Sofia (BG)Napoli (IT)

Warszawa (PL)Palermo (IT)Athinia (EL)

Bucureşti (RO)Burgas (BG)

Very satisfied Rather satisfied Rather unsatisfied Not at all satisfied DK/NA

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues:

Base: all respondents, % by city

page 11

Employment opportunities Although satisfaction with health services was generally high, a less rosy picture emerged when respondents were asked about job opportunities in their cities. More than half of respondents agreed that that it was easy to find a good job in only six cities: Stockholm (61% in total agreed), Copenhagen (57%), Prague (56%), Munich (54%), Amsterdam (53%) and Warsaw (52%). However, even in these locations, less than a quarter of respondents expressed strong agreement (between 11% and 23%). In most cities (62 of 75), respondents who disagreed that it was easy to find a good job outnumbered those who agreed with the statement. For example, while a slim majority (53%) of respondents in Essen disagreed that good jobs were easy to find in their city, only half as many (25%) agreed that this was the case. It should be noted, however, that in several cities a large proportion of – mostly retired – respondents did not express an opinion on this topic (e.g. 20% in Manchester, 27% in Rotterdam and 44% in Antwerp). For a more detailed discussion of the results of the cities where respondents were the most pessimistic about job opportunities in their city, see page 14.

It is easy to find a good job–cities ranked from most positive to least positive

It is easy to find a good job – cities ranked from most positive to least positive

23141613111414121185

1310

47641088768563

139

3109

2544535534345421421122546

2212131121202131100

384340

41423836

3838

404332

3237333335282929303129

3128

3121

24292122

29252525232421212421211918171918161616151515121210

14131312131012121112101198475

33

141821242323

2118

3032

2922

2429

262429

2419

28282833

123232

272628

2620

3629

3932

2934

26293241

32312929

4649

3423

5032

4544

1630

272227

2233

4732

2847

2235

303333

4420

121524

20

89108

617

166

1310

720221625

2519

152411

30239

913

1134

2416

314010

2025

253023

3242

2712

2318

3440

2917

3638

184120

3462

4854

4747

5526

2650

4830

5244

464445

4269

7171

7075

17171315

188

1227

911

17131314

91314

2320

255

1321

4421

246

1724

1210

2422

71513

1716

315

2221

281411

51511

211510

185653

15119

2713

51010138

131211

53

10732

Stockholm (SE)København (DK)Praha (CZ)München (DE)Amsterdam (NL)Warszawa (PL)Lefkosia (CY)Rotterdam (NL)Helsinki (FI)Luxembourg (LU)Hamburg (DE)Sofia (BG)London (UK)Bratislava (SK)Ljubljana (SI)Gdansk (PL)Paris (FR)Malmö (SE)Manchester (UK)Wien (AT)Irakleio (EL)Kraków (PL)Groningen (NL)Antwerpen (BE)Aalborg (DK)Graz (AT)Antalya (TR)Newcastle (UK)Strasbourg (FR)Burgas (BG)Bucureşti (RO)Rennes (FR)Cardiff (UK)Oulu (FI)Lille (FR)Belfast (UK)Bologna (IT)Glasgow (UK)Athinia (EL)Verona (IT)Essen (DE)Bordeaux (FR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Marseille (FR)Madrid (ES)Leipzig (DE)Ostrava (CZ)Valletta (MT)Berlin (DE)Białystok (PL)Dortmund (DE)Barcelona (ES)Zagreb (HR)Dublin (IE)İstanbul (TR)Budapest (HU)Piatra Neamț (RO)Lisboa (PT)Liège (BE)Rostock (DE)Ankara (TR)Tallinn (EE)Oviedo (ES)Vilnius (LT)Roma (IT)Braga (PT)Torino (IT)Kosice (SK)Málaga (ES)Diyarbakir (TR)Riga (LV)Miskolc (HU)Napoli (IT)Palermo (IT)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Stockholm (SE)København (DK)

Praha (CZ)München (DE)

Amsterdam (NL)Warszawa (PL)Lefkosia (CY)

Rotterdam (NL)Helsinki (FI)

Luxembourg (LU)Hamburg (DE)

Sofia (BG)London (UK)

Bratislava (SK)Ljubljana (SI)Gdansk (PL)Paris (FR)

Malmö (SE)Manchester (UK)

Wien (AT)Irakleio (EL)Kraków (PL)

Groningen (NL)Antwerpen (BE)

Aalborg (DK)Graz (AT)

Antalya (TR)Newcastle (UK)Strasbourg (FR)

Burgas (BG)Bucureşti (RO)

Rennes (FR)Cardiff (UK)

Oulu (FI)Lille (FR)

Belfast (UK)Bologna (IT)

Glasgow (UK)Athinia (EL)Verona (IT)Essen (DE)

Bordeaux (FR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Marseille (FR)Madrid (ES)Leipzig (DE)Ostrava (CZ)Valletta (MT)Berlin (DE)

Białystok (PL)Dortmund (DE)Barcelona (ES)

Zagreb (HR)Dublin (IE)

İstanbul (TR)Budapest (HU)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Lisboa (PT)Liège (BE)

Rostock (DE)Ankara (TR)Tallinn (EE)Oviedo (ES)Vilnius (LT)Roma (IT)Braga (PT)Torino (IT)Kosice (SK)Málaga (ES)

Diyarbakir (TR)Riga (LV)

Miskolc (HU)Napoli (IT)

Palermo (IT)

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements?


page 13

In the cities where respondents were the most pessimistic about job opportunities, a large majority of respondents strongly disagreed that it was easy to find a good job in their city: 75% in Palermo, 71% in Riga and Miskolc, 70% in Naples and 69% in Diyarbakir. Other cities where more than half of respondents expressed their strong disagreement were Vilnius (52%), Istanbul (54%), Lisbon (55%) and Zagreb (62%). Moreover, in the other surveyed cities in Italy, Hungary, Turkey and Portugal, a relative majority of interviewees - at least – disagreed strongly that good jobs were easy to find (e.g. 44% in Rome, 46% in Braga and 50% in Ankara – in Bologna, however, just 33% “strongly disagreed”). A comparison with results of the previous perception survey showed that Naples and Palermo scored the lowest in both surveys: in 2006 and in 2009, just 3% of respondents in these two Italian cities agreed that it was easy to find a good job. Similarly, only a small change was observed in the proportion of respondents agreeing with this statement in Diyarbakir and Miskolc; Riga, however, has experienced a 28 percentage point decrease in the proportion of respondents who thought that good jobs were easy to find (8% in 2009, compared to 36% in 2006). Other cities where respondents were considerably less optimistic about job opportunities in 2009 than in 2006 included Dublin (-50 percentage points), Tallinn (-24), Verona (-21), Cardiff (-21), Vilnius (-20) and Glasgow (-20). In only a few cities were respondents more optimistic in 2009 than in 2006. The greatest increase in the proportion of respondents who agreed that good jobs were easy to find was seen in Stockholm – from 20th position in 2006 (43%) to top place in 2009 (61%); an increase of 18 percentage points. Comparable increases in respondents’ likelihood to agree with the statements were observed in Malmo (+17 percentage points) and Hamburg (+15). It is easy to find a good job

It is easy to find a good job – ranked from most negative to least negative (% strongly diagree)

7571717069

625554525048484747464544444242414040383634343432313030302927262625252525242423232322202020191818171716161615131312111110101099988766

201215

2420

162227

2232

3028

222730333533

442932

2029

2334

2927

44262629

4728

463233

4732

392624

19263234

2824

2245

2929

5031

2349

2821

29243230

412832

2136

3218

1233

2414

2923

18

375

34

121310

1110

1212

141310

912

118

2115

2217

1616

1821

152121

2312

3019

2412

1325

2533

3329

242124

3132

3215

2535

161938

1829

3637

28283821

2931

402940

4331

2941

3843

4238

011

03

51

62

34

12

2221

015

194

24

513

25105

172

32

14

47

6893

36

10132

541

4141

314

410

611

483

162

814

58

1323

511

12

210733693

1355

10151113118

1253

101011

2111

1465

1612131055

1527

1315

79

132017

2117131313

1822

1415

288

1524

1214

2321

9222524

1324

1117

4421

15171718

27

Palermo (IT)Riga (LV)Miskolc (HU)Napoli (IT)Diyarbakir (TR)Zagreb (HR)Lisboa (PT)İstanbul (TR)Vilnius (LT)Ankara (TR)Dublin (IE)Tallinn (EE)Budapest (HU)Piatra Neamț (RO)Braga (PT)Kosice (SK)Roma (IT)Torino (IT)Málaga (ES)Athinia (EL)Białystok (PL)Bucureşti (RO)Marseille (FR)Valletta (MT)Ostrava (CZ)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Antalya (TR)Barcelona (ES)Glasgow (UK)Burgas (BG)Belfast (UK)Oviedo (ES)Irakleio (EL)Madrid (ES)Verona (IT)Liège (BE)Rostock (DE)Lille (FR)Oulu (FI)Ljubljana (SI)Gdansk (PL)Manchester (UK)Newcastle (UK)Bordeaux (FR)Bologna (IT)Kraków (PL)London (UK)Sofia (BG)Dortmund (DE)Cardiff (UK)Paris (FR)Berlin (DE)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Warszawa (PL)Leipzig (DE)Strasbourg (FR)Lefkosia (CY)Bratislava (SK)Malmö (SE)Aalborg (DK)Helsinki (FI)Essen (DE)Wien (AT)Graz (AT)Praha (CZ)Rennes (FR)Luxembourg (LU)København (DK)Antwerpen (BE)Groningen (NL)München (DE)Stockholm (SE)Hamburg (DE)Amsterdam (NL)Rotterdam (NL)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Palermo (IT)Riga (LV)

Miskolc (HU)Napoli (IT)

Diyarbakir (TR)Zagreb (HR)Lisboa (PT)

İstanbul (TR)Vilnius (LT)Ankara (TR)Dublin (IE)Tallinn (EE)

Budapest (HU)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Braga (PT)Kosice (SK)Roma (IT)Torino (IT)

Málaga (ES)Athinia (EL)

Białystok (PL)Bucureşti (RO)Marseille (FR)Valletta (MT)Ostrava (CZ)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Antalya (TR)

Barcelona (ES)Glasgow (UK)Burgas (BG)Belfast (UK)Oviedo (ES)Irakleio (EL)Madrid (ES)Verona (IT)Liège (BE)

Rostock (DE)Lille (FR)Oulu (FI)

Ljubljana (SI)Gdansk (PL)

Manchester (UK)Newcastle (UK)Bordeaux (FR)Bologna (IT)Kraków (PL)London (UK)

Sofia (BG)Dortmund (DE)

Cardiff (UK)Paris (FR)

Berlin (DE)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)

Warszawa (PL)Leipzig (DE)

Strasbourg (FR)Lefkosia (CY)

Bratislava (SK)Malmö (SE)Aalborg (DK)Helsinki (FI)Essen (DE)Wien (AT)Graz (AT)Praha (CZ)

Rennes (FR)Luxembourg (LU)København (DK)Antwerpen (BE)Groningen (NL)München (DE)Stockholm (SE)Hamburg (DE)

Amsterdam (NL)Rotterdam (NL)

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree DK/NA



page 15

Housing costs About two-thirds of respondents living in Leipzig, Aalborg, Braga and Oulu strongly or somewhat agreed that it was easy to find good housing at a reasonable price in their respective cities (between 64% and 71%). In six other cities – Dortmund, Oviedo, Newcastle, Malaga, Diyarbakir and Berlin – a slim majority of interviewees agreed (between 51% and 59%). In all other cities, respondents had a less optimistic view about housing in their city; the proportion of respondents who strongly or somewhat disagreed that it was easy to find good housing at a reasonable price ranged from less than a quarter in some of the above-mentioned cities (Leipzig, Aalborg and Braga – between 20% and 24%) to almost 9 in 10 respondents in Luxembourg, Munich and Rome (88%-89%) and virtually all respondents in Paris (96%). About three-quarters of Parisians (77%) and two-thirds of Romans (65%) strongly disagreed that reasonably priced housing was easy to find in their respective cities; this proportion, however, was lower in Munich and Luxembourg (48% and 53%, respectively). Other cities where more than half of respondents strongly disagreed with this statement were Zagreb (67%), Ljubljana (64%), Lisbon (64%), London (60%), Bucharest (56%), Bologna (55%), Helsinki (54%). A large number of cities positioned in the lowest third of this ranking were capitals and/or large cities (with at least 500,000 inhabitants). Several of these were listed in the previous paragraphs (Rome, Lisbon, etc.), but the lowest third also included cities such as Stockholm, Marseilles and Brussels. The most important exception among these large capital cities was Berlin, which was ranked in the top 10 of cities where at least half of respondents agreed that it was easy to find reasonably priced housing in their city; none of the others in the top 10 were capitals and most of the cities had less than 500,000 inhabitants (such as Leipzig, Braga or Oulu). Contrary to the negative change, from 2006 to 2009, in city dwellers’ perceptions about job opportunities in their city, not many of the surveyed cities have seen a decrease in the proportion of respondents who agreed that it was easy to find reasonably priced good housing. In fact, in one-third of the cities, this proportion has even increased by 10 percentage points or more.

It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price

It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price

292322

1617

1221

821

1412111314161416

1212171718

12111210813

816

8128611

48711

3558

5364225423213637

4424334311212100

4244

4448

4244

3345

303738373533303231

3433282623

292928293025

2919

2622

252721

28222218

24212117

2022171920211717

181617171512

1410

131214121311109

99886562

1716

1627

20222224

213230

2633

182023232221

1720

1428

2227

2327

2421

2132

2134

3122

3032

2719

3729

26303635

313737

2943

2626

2234

2844

2033

2737

3136

1248

3521

322228

203541

4123

19

358

76615923

98

912

1823

1225

221927

1822

292717262134

3429

2337

1816

27212535

4830

3731

4234

28342424

2325

47415032

3630

5638

4641

4536

6726

4560

546455

64534448

6577

81111

31617

914

49

1216

817

1019

611

1512

1822

312

171314

49

15119

15211917149578

1736

1112

1617

26106

148

1418

77

1210

57

135

106434

863

7571

Leipzig (DE)Aalborg (DK)Braga (PT)Oulu (FI)Dortmund (DE)Oviedo (ES)Newcastle (UK)Málaga (ES)Diyarbakir (TR)Berlin (DE)Essen (DE)Groningen (NL)Rostock (DE)Miskolc (HU)Belfast (UK)Białystok (PL)Antalya (TR)Cardiff (UK)Manchester (UK)Piatra Neamț (RO)Vilnius (LT)Riga (LV)Ankara (TR)Valletta (MT)Tallinn (EE)Glasgow (UK)Ostrava (CZ)Irakleio (EL)Palermo (IT)Burgas (BG)Malmö (SE)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Rotterdam (NL)Madrid (ES)Sofia (BG)Liège (BE)Gdansk (PL)Athinia (EL)Dublin (IE)Bordeaux (FR)Praha (CZ)Budapest (HU)İstanbul (TR)Lille (FR)Barcelona (ES)Kraków (PL)Graz (AT)Kosice (SK)Antwerpen (BE)Rennes (FR)Napoli (IT)Torino (IT)Lefkosia (CY)Wien (AT)Verona (IT)Strasbourg (FR)Bucureşti (RO)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Warszawa (PL)København (DK)Marseille (FR)Bratislava (SK)Zagreb (HR)Hamburg (DE)Stockholm (SE)London (UK)Helsinki (FI)Ljubljana (SI)Bologna (IT)Lisboa (PT)Luxembourg (LU)Amsterdam (NL)München (DE)Roma (IT)Paris (FR)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Leipzig (DE)Aalborg (DK)Braga (PT)Oulu (FI)

Dortmund (DE)Oviedo (ES)

Newcastle (UK)Málaga (ES)

Diyarbakir (TR)Berlin (DE)Essen (DE)

Groningen (NL)Rostock (DE)Miskolc (HU)Belfast (UK)

Białystok (PL)Antalya (TR)Cardiff (UK)

Manchester (UK)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Vilnius (LT)Riga (LV)

Ankara (TR)Valletta (MT)Tallinn (EE)

Glasgow (UK)Ostrava (CZ)Irakleio (EL)Palermo (IT)Burgas (BG)Malmö (SE)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Rotterdam (NL)

Madrid (ES)Sofia (BG)Liège (BE)

Gdansk (PL)Athinia (EL)Dublin (IE)

Bordeaux (FR)Praha (CZ)

Budapest (HU)İstanbul (TR)

Lille (FR)Barcelona (ES)Kraków (PL)

Graz (AT)Kosice (SK)

Antwerpen (BE)Rennes (FR)Napoli (IT)Torino (IT)

Lefkosia (CY)Wien (AT)Verona (IT)

Strasbourg (FR)Bucureşti (RO)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Warszawa (PL)

København (DK)Marseille (FR)Bratislava (SK)Zagreb (HR)

Hamburg (DE)Stockholm (SE)London (UK)Helsinki (FI)Ljubljana (SI)Bologna (IT)Lisboa (PT)

Luxembourg (LU)Amsterdam (NL)München (DE)

Roma (IT)Paris (FR)




page 17

1.2 Poverty and financial difficulties Poverty at city level Respondents in Prague, Luxembourg, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Warsaw and Nicosia were not only among the most likely to agree that it was easy to find a good job in their respective cities, they were also among the most likely to disagree that their city has a problem with poverty. Similarly, Miskolc, Riga, Lisbon, Diyarbakir and Liege were not only found at the bottom of the ranking in terms of perceptions about job opportunities, but they were also among the most likely to agree that poverty was a problem. Nevertheless, the correlation between perceptions about these two topics was relatively weak (a correlation coefficient of .544) – as illustrated in the scatter plot on page 20. Half or more respondents in Aalborg, Oulu, Prague, Oviedo, Valletta, Bratislava and Luxembourg somewhat or strongly disagreed that poverty was a problem in their city (between 50% and 69%). In Groningen and Copenhagen, just less than half of respondents disagreed with this statement (48%-49%). These nine cities were the only ones where respondents who did not think that poverty was a problem outnumbered those who believed it was an issue in their city (the level of agreement ranged from 21% in Aalborg to 46% Luxembourg). About 9 in 10 interviewees in Miskolc, Riga, Budapest, Lisbon and Diyarbakir somewhat or strongly agreed that poverty was a problem in their city (between 87% and 93%). Furthermore, in each of these cities at least half of respondents strongly agreed that poverty constituted a problem: ranging from 50% in Lisbon to 78% in Miskolc. Other cities were a majority of interviewees strongly agreed with the statement were Athens (61%), Istanbul (58%) and Zagreb (53%). There was not only a large variation between European cities in respondents’ perceptions about poverty being an issue in their city, but also between cities within some countries. For example, in Germany, the proportion of respondents who thought that poverty was a problem in their city ranged from 48% in Munich to 79% in Dortmund and 82% in Berlin. Similarly, while 85% of respondents in Athens agreed that poverty was a problem, this proportion was 60% in Iraklion. Poverty is a problem

Poverty is a problem

271414

1023

12121011161412812101111815

12911111096761013

610575127665912

479

46449711788468

44328

423534353341

424847

4930

3938393730

3132

3531333232

3426

293129282929

3028282421

2722

262426

19232423241916

242018

22192121151813

171414171511

15141515

9111412101010107774

3

1627

2731

283437

3335

3039

3236

33373635

44262834323436

324346

3936

2846

34444249

3847

4351

4334

2647454346

3952

453236

2229

2738

3532

324949

4134

254948

413742

2453

2339

2117

15

5696

10109

117208

181219101416

11302622242021281412

2025

3115

2718

1418

2318

2117

2032

4419

172820

3322

204335

534248

373945

4519

3036

4758

3431

414541

6132

6450

6770

78

11534

10547

114

8695

108633655742

87757686

132

8563

963

711

2831

11252

544524

1435213

64442311242

Aalborg (DK)Oulu (FI)Praha (CZ)Oviedo (ES)Valletta (MT)Bratislava (SK)Luxembourg (LU)København (DK)Groningen (NL)Lefkosia (CY)Stockholm (SE)Warszawa (PL)München (DE)Gdansk (PL)Rennes (FR)Cardiff (UK)Kraków (PL)Helsinki (FI)Antalya (TR)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Bologna (IT)Verona (IT)Newcastle (UK)Ljubljana (SI)Irakleio (EL)Ostrava (CZ)Amsterdam (NL)Wien (AT)Białystok (PL)Burgas (BG)Graz (AT)Manchester (UK)Kosice (SK)Malmö (SE)Málaga (ES)Belfast (UK)Strasbourg (FR)Bordeaux (FR)Madrid (ES)Rostock (DE)Piatra Neamț (RO)Sofia (BG)Leipzig (DE)Rotterdam (NL)Braga (PT)Hamburg (DE)Roma (IT)Barcelona (ES)Essen (DE)Ankara (TR)London (UK)Zagreb (HR)Vilnius (LT)Bucureşti (RO)Dublin (IE)Tallinn (EE)Napoli (IT)Glasgow (UK)Antwerpen (BE)Lille (FR)Torino (IT)Palermo (IT)İstanbul (TR)Paris (FR)Dortmund (DE)Berlin (DE)Marseille (FR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Athinia (EL)Liège (BE)Diyarbakir (TR)Lisboa (PT)Budapest (HU)Riga (LV)Miskolc (HU)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Aalborg (DK)Oulu (FI)

Praha (CZ)Oviedo (ES)

Valletta (MT)Bratislava (SK)

Luxembourg (LU)København (DK)Groningen (NL)

Lefkosia (CY)Stockholm (SE)Warszawa (PL)München (DE)

Gdansk (PL)Rennes (FR)Cardiff (UK)Kraków (PL)Helsinki (FI)Antalya (TR)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Bologna (IT)Verona (IT)

Newcastle (UK)Ljubljana (SI)Irakleio (EL)Ostrava (CZ)

Amsterdam (NL)Wien (AT)

Białystok (PL)Burgas (BG)

Graz (AT)Manchester (UK)

Kosice (SK)Malmö (SE)Málaga (ES)Belfast (UK)

Strasbourg (FR)Bordeaux (FR)Madrid (ES)Rostock (DE)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Sofia (BG)

Leipzig (DE)Rotterdam (NL)

Braga (PT)Hamburg (DE)

Roma (IT)Barcelona (ES)

Essen (DE)Ankara (TR)London (UK)Zagreb (HR)Vilnius (LT)

Bucureşti (RO)Dublin (IE)Tallinn (EE)Napoli (IT)

Glasgow (UK)Antwerpen (BE)

Lille (FR)Torino (IT)

Palermo (IT)İstanbul (TR)

Paris (FR)Dortmund (DE)

Berlin (DE)Marseille (FR)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Athinia (EL)Liège (BE)

Diyarbakir (TR)Lisboa (PT)

Budapest (HU)Riga (LV)

Miskolc (HU)




page 19

Correlation between perceptions about job opportunities and poverty

Correlation between perceptions about job opportunities and poverty

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% disagreeing that poverty is a problem in

the city

% agreeing it is easy to find a good job in the city

Correlation coefficient:rxy = .544

[N.B. A correlation coefficient summarises the strength of the (linear) relationship between two measures. While a correlation of -1 or 1 indicates a perfect correlation, a coefficient of 0 indicates that there is no correlation between two measures. A positive correlation means that as one measure gets larger, the other gets larger too (i.e. the higher the score on variable A, the higher the score is for variable B). A negative correlation means that as one measure gets larger the other gets smaller.] 1.3 The presence of foreigners The presence of foreigners is good for the city City dwellers’ opinions about the presence of foreigners in their city were generally positive: in 68 cities (out of 75), a slim majority of interviewees, at least, strongly or somewhat agreed that the presence of foreigners was good for their city. Respondents living in Luxembourg or Stockholm were the most likely to think that the presence of foreigners was beneficial to their cities: 92% and 88%, respectively, of respondents in these cities agreed with the statement (48% and 55%, respectively, “strongly agreed”). Other cities where respondents were very likely to see their presence as being useful were Cracow, Gdansk, Piatra Neamt, Burgas, Copenhagen and Paris – in these cities more than 8 in 10 respondents agreed (between 81% and 84%). Respondents in Nicosia, on the other hand, were the least likely to strongly or somewhat agree that the presence of foreigners was good (7% “strongly agreed” and 24% “somewhat agreed”), while about two-thirds of them disagreed with the statement (41% “strongly disagreed” and 24% “somewhat disagreed”). Respondents who disagreed with the statement outnumbered those who agreed in just two other cities: Athens (40% “agreed” vs. 56% “disagreed”) and Liege (41% “agreed” vs. 48% “disagreed”). Ostrava, Ankara and Antwerp were also found at the bottom of this ranking, although in those cities, more respondents thought that the presence of foreigners was a good thing for their city than the

equivalent number in Nicosia: 47%-48% of respondents in those cities strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement. About 4 in 10 interviewees in Antwerp and Ankara disagreed that the presence of foreigners was good for their cities; however, this proportion was only 32% in Ostrava – in this city, a fifth of respondents could not, or did not want to answer this question. As with the results presented in previous sections, views about the presence of foreigners did not only vary between cities in Europe, but also between cities within a specific country. For example, while 80% of respondents in Amsterdam agreed that the presence of foreigners was beneficial for their city, this proportion dropped to 61% in Rotterdam. In some other countries, however, a more uniform picture emerged; for example, it was noted above that both Liege and Antwerp were found at the bottom of the ranking (41% and 47%, respectively, agreed), but Brussels did not score much higher – just 54% agreed that the presence of foreigners was good for their city. Integration of foreigners Although many city dwellers appeared to agree that the presence of foreigners in their city was advantageous (see previous section), they were less likely to agree that those foreigners were well integrated. In almost all surveyed cities, the proportion of respondents who agreed that foreigners in their city were well integrated was lower than the proportion who agreed that their presence was good for their city – this can easily be seen on the scatter plot below. The proportion of respondents who strongly or somewhat agreed that foreigners in their city were well integrated ranged from 20% in Athens to 67% in Antalya. Other cities at the higher end of this ranking were Groningen, Cluj-Napoca, Cardiff, Kosice, Braga and Luxembourg; in these cities, roughly two-thirds (65%-66%) of respondents agreed that foreigners were well integrated. More than three-quarters of respondents in Athens disagreed that foreigners in their city were well integrated: 25% somewhat disagreed and 52% strongly disagreed. A majority of respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed in 13 other cities (e.g. 64% in Vienna, 58% in Barcelona); however, Athens was the only city where a majority of respondents strongly disagreed. Many respondents found it difficult to express an opinion about the integration of foreigners in their city: the proportion of “don’t know” responses ranged from 3% in Athens and Luxembourg to 44% in Gdansk. Other cities where roughly 4 in 10 respondents could not, or would not, say whether foreigners were well integrated were Miskolc and Burgas (40%-41%). The correlation coefficient for the relationship between the proportion of respondents who agreed that a) the presence of foreigners was good and b) they were well integrated was .503 – a relatively weak correlation between the two variables at a city level. In other words, cities where many respondents believed that the presence of foreigners was positive, were not necessarily characterised by a high proportion of respondents who thought that those foreigners were well integrated, and vice versa. Stockholm illustrated this perfectly: its respondents were among the most likely to think that the presence of foreigners was good for their city; however, they were among the least likely to think that foreigners were well integrated (88% vs. 38% agreed). Note that the city’s current result on the latter question represents an improvement of 26 percentage points over its situation in 2006; in that year, just 12% of respondents in Stockholm agreed that foreigners were well integrated. Correlation between two statements about foreigners

page 21

Correlation between two statements about foreigners

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% agreeing that foreigners are well integrated

% agreeing that the presence of foreigners is good


1.4 Feelings of safety and trust People can be trusted When city dwellers were asked whether they thought that, generally speaking, most people living in their city could be trusted, there was, once more, a large variation. Aalborg was found at the top of the ranking with 34% of respondents who strongly agreed and 56% that somewhat agreed – only 6% in Aalborg disagreed that most people could be trusted. Istanbul was found at the bottom of the ranking with results that were almost a mirror image of Aalborg’s: 59% of people living in Istanbul strongly disagreed and 26% somewhat disagreed that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted – only 14% agreed with the statement. A very high level of trust was also measured in Rostock, Groningen and Oviedo; in these three cities, 88% of respondents agreed that, generally speaking, most people living in their city could be trusted. Nevertheless, even in those cities, only about a quarter of respondents strongly agreed with the statement (between 24% and 27%). The largest proportions of “strongly agree” responses were in Aalborg (see above), Newcastle, Belfast, Glasgow, Stockholm and Leipzig (between 30% and 35%). In about one-third of cities, less than half of interviewees somewhat or strongly agreed that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted. Several capital cities of eastern European countries joined Istanbul at the lower end of the scale; these included Sofia, Bucharest, Budapest, Riga, Prague, Bratislava, Zagreb and Warsaw. In these capitals, between 21% and 41% of respondents agreed that, generally speaking, most people living in their city could be trusted; however, at least half of respondents thought the opposite (between 50% and 71%). Other cities where at least half of interviewees disagreed with this statement were Naples, Athens, Iraklion, Miskolc, Ostrava, Nicosia, Ankara and Antalya (between 50% and 75%). It was noted above that Newcastle had the largest proportion of “strongly agree” responses – 35%. The largest proportion of “strongly disagree” responses, however, was almost twice that figure: 59% of respondents in Istanbul strongly disagreed that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted. In Sofia, Bucharest and Athens, about half of respondents expressed strong disagreement (48%-50%).

Generally speaking, most people in the city can be trusted

3426272422

312421

3127262426

2035

1830

2030

1817

13131515

121720

12781111

2527

611

1810

17151310

2014

623

1010558

171112

516

65

1514

7986

15455736354

5662616465

5662

6352

5555

5654

5943

5945

5444

5657

60585656

585146

5358575454

3836

565042

4942

4345

4736

4349

3142

40444440

313635

4130

3939

2829

353233

3222

32302924

2420

1916

10

4759988

71012101213

11919

1015

11131819

1721

1524

17201924

151518

15162224

1720

16202022212527

222124232832

23272529

213032

262729282830

2438

3632

2229

2225

2326

22

013

13

323

23248

384118

54

34

85

1087

851061616912

1413

111011

1514

1415

222119

1914

1528

132520

2518

11272925

2123

2035121926

4137

4850

4859

44

73243

644656752

673645

94636783

151111

6583

98

141311

68544679951

1326

97

15525

108

124

141087652

82

Aalborg (DK)Rostock (DE)Groningen (NL)Oviedo (ES)Luxembourg (LU)Leipzig (DE)Oulu (FI)München (DE)Stockholm (SE)Braga (PT)Hamburg (DE)Graz (AT)Essen (DE)København (DK)Newcastle (UK)Helsinki (FI)Belfast (UK)Dortmund (DE)Glasgow (UK)Cardiff (UK)Wien (AT)Berlin (DE)Amsterdam (NL)Málaga (ES)Malmö (SE)Madrid (ES)Verona (IT)Białystok (PL)Rennes (FR)Barcelona (ES)Antwerpen (BE)Bordeaux (FR)Rotterdam (NL)Piatra Neamț (RO)Dublin (IE)Strasbourg (FR)Bologna (IT)Manchester (UK)Lille (FR)Valletta (MT)Gdansk (PL)Kraków (PL)Ljubljana (SI)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Palermo (IT)Lisboa (PT)Diyarbakir (TR)Marseille (FR)London (UK)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Liège (BE)Roma (IT)Irakleio (EL)Tallinn (EE)Lefkosia (CY)Paris (FR)Burgas (BG)Torino (IT)Kosice (SK)Antalya (TR)Ankara (TR)Napoli (IT)Vilnius (LT)Warszawa (PL)Ostrava (CZ)Zagreb (HR)Bratislava (SK)Praha (CZ)Miskolc (HU)Riga (LV)Budapest (HU)Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)Sofia (BG)İstanbul (TR)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Aalborg (DK)Rostock (DE)

Groningen (NL)Oviedo (ES)

Luxembourg (LU)Leipzig (DE)

Oulu (FI)München (DE)Stockholm (SE)


Graz (AT)Essen (DE)

København (DK)Newcastle (UK)

Helsinki (FI)Belfast (UK)

Dortmund (DE)Glasgow (UK)Cardiff (UK)Wien (AT)Berlin (DE)

Amsterdam (NL)Málaga (ES)Malmö (SE)Madrid (ES)Verona (IT)

Białystok (PL)Rennes (FR)

Barcelona (ES)Antwerpen (BE)Bordeaux (FR)

Rotterdam (NL)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Dublin (IE)Strasbourg (FR)

Bologna (IT)Manchester (UK)

Lille (FR)Valletta (MT)Gdansk (PL)Kraków (PL)Ljubljana (SI)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Palermo (IT)Lisboa (PT)

Diyarbakir (TR)Marseille (FR)London (UK)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Liège (BE)Roma (IT)

Irakleio (EL)Tallinn (EE)

Lefkosia (CY)Paris (FR)

Burgas (BG)Torino (IT)Kosice (SK)

Antalya (TR)Ankara (TR)Napoli (IT)Vilnius (LT)

Warszawa (PL)Ostrava (CZ)Zagreb (HR)

Bratislava (SK)Praha (CZ)

Miskolc (HU)Riga (LV)

Budapest (HU)Bucureşti (RO)

Athinia (EL)Sofia (BG)

İstanbul (TR)




page 23

Feeling safe in the city The proportion of respondents who answered that they always felt safe in their city was highest in Oviedo (84%). Other cities where respondents were more likely to say they always felt safe in their city were Groningen (79%), Aalborg (78%), Oulu (77%), Munich (76%), Piatra Neamt and Luxembourg (both 73%). Not more than 1 in 20 respondents in the aforementioned cities rarely or never felt safe in their city (between 1% and 5%). Similarly, in most other surveyed cities in the Nordic countries (e.g. Copenhagen and Helsinki), about two-thirds of respondents always felt safe in their city (between 64% and 67%), while less than 1 in 20 respondents rarely or never did so (3%-4%). There was, however, one exception: only half (49%) of respondents in Malmo said they always felt safe and one-tenth (9%) rarely or never felt this way. That city’s current result, however, represented an improvement of 15 percentage points compared to 2006; in that year, just 34% of respondents in Malmo said they always felt safe in their city. This dominant feeling of safety was in sharp contrast to the results for cities at the lower end of this ranking; in the latter, less than 4 in 10 respondents answered that they always felt safe in their city – e.g. 34% of interviewees in Lisbon, Miskolc and Vilnius selected “always” as a response. Interviewees in Athens, Istanbul, Sofia and Bucharest were the least likely to always feel safe in their respective cities (between 14% and 25%). In Istanbul and Sofia, about half of interviewees answered that they rarely or never felt safe in their city; this proportion was somewhat lower in Athens and Bucharest (44% and 37%, respectively). The scatter plot below shows a strong correlation between the proportion of respondents who agreed that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted and the proportion who always felt safe in their city. In other words, cities where a large majority felt that most people in their city could be trusted were also characterised by a large proportion of respondents who always felt safe in their city – cities in this group included Oviedo, Luxembourg and Stockholm. There were, nevertheless, a few outliers worth mentioning: although Brussels, Liege, London, Manchester and Lisbon had average scores for the proportion of respondents who generally trusted their fellow citizens (between 49% and 60%), respondents in these cities were among the least likely to always feel safe in their city (between 30% and 35%). Respondents feel safe in the city

Respondents feel safe in the city

Always Sometimes Rarely Never

84797877767373

6967676564636363616161606060595959585756565554535352525151515049494848474747474545444442424141414139

3636353434343333323232313030

252020

14

14192120

192123

2530303133

292928

23292731323432292933363936

323636

29394143

3737

304242

3028

41383740

36323734

4632

463130

484044

2551

4435333236

5536

323735

4636

303042

1112

423

422

13

667

87

8365

7785636

866

9644

96

765

96

7999

712

816

714

714

138

159

188

1118

1213

148

1616

1822

1115

2011

17

101013121121123

8344222332222

434

93323

611

24

1217

3665

12111044

105

1415

36

1021

411

121920

155

1319

131212

2229

3927

Oviedo (ES)Groningen (NL)Aalborg (DK)Oulu (FI)München (DE)Piatra Neamț (RO)Luxembourg (LU)Bordeaux (FR)København (DK)Helsinki (FI)Amsterdam (NL)Stockholm (SE)Rostock (DE)Ljubljana (SI)Wien (AT)Zagreb (HR)Verona (IT)Graz (AT)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Essen (DE)Hamburg (DE)Leipzig (DE)Dortmund (DE)Málaga (ES)Białystok (PL)Braga (PT)Newcastle (UK)Rennes (FR)Valletta (MT)Rotterdam (NL)Strasbourg (FR)Palermo (IT)Paris (FR)Belfast (UK)Cardiff (UK)Berlin (DE)Lille (FR)Antalya (TR)Gdansk (PL)Malmö (SE)Antwerpen (BE)Diyarbakir (TR)Kraków (PL)Barcelona (ES)Lefkosia (CY)Madrid (ES)Ankara (TR)Bologna (IT)Marseille (FR)Kosice (SK)Warszawa (PL)Tallinn (EE)Glasgow (UK)Torino (IT)Roma (IT)Dublin (IE)Bratislava (SK)Irakleio (EL)Napoli (IT)Manchester (UK)Lisboa (PT)Miskolc (HU)Vilnius (LT)Riga (LV)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)London (UK)Burgas (BG)Budapest (HU)Ostrava (CZ)Praha (CZ)Liège (BE)Bucureşti (RO)Sofia (BG)İstanbul (TR)Athinia (EL)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Oviedo (ES)Groningen (NL)

Aalborg (DK)Oulu (FI)

München (DE)Piatra Neamț (RO)Luxembourg (LU)

Bordeaux (FR)København (DK)

Helsinki (FI)Amsterdam (NL)Stockholm (SE)Rostock (DE)Ljubljana (SI)

Wien (AT)Zagreb (HR)Verona (IT)Graz (AT)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Essen (DE)

Hamburg (DE)Leipzig (DE)

Dortmund (DE)Málaga (ES)

Białystok (PL)Braga (PT)

Newcastle (UK)Rennes (FR)

Valletta (MT)Rotterdam (NL)Strasbourg (FR)

Palermo (IT)Paris (FR)

Belfast (UK)Cardiff (UK)Berlin (DE)Lille (FR)

Antalya (TR)Gdansk (PL)Malmö (SE)

Antwerpen (BE)Diyarbakir (TR)

Kraków (PL)Barcelona (ES)Lefkosia (CY)Madrid (ES)Ankara (TR)Bologna (IT)

Marseille (FR)Kosice (SK)

Warszawa (PL)Tallinn (EE)

Glasgow (UK)Torino (IT)Roma (IT)Dublin (IE)

Bratislava (SK)Irakleio (EL)Napoli (IT)

Manchester (UK)Lisboa (PT)

Miskolc (HU)Vilnius (LT)Riga (LV)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)London (UK)Burgas (BG)

Budapest (HU)Ostrava (CZ)Praha (CZ)Liège (BE)

Bucureşti (RO)Sofia (BG)

İstanbul (TR)Athinia (EL)

DK/NA

Q3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you?


page 25

Correlation between “trust in people” and “feeling safe in the city”

Correlation between “trust in people” and “feeling safe in the city”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% “always” feeling safe in their city

% agreeing that most people in the city can be trusted


Feeling safe in one’s neighbourhood Not surprisingly, a strong correlation was observed between a more general feeling of safety (at a city level – discussed in the previous section) and the more specific feeling of being safe in one’s neighbourhood (a correlation coefficient of .897). In addition, the scatter plot below shows that respondents across all cities in this study were more likely to say they always felt safe in their neighbourhood than they were to say that they always felt safe in their city (in general). In 65 cities, a majority of interviewees selected “always” as a response when asked how often they felt safe in their neighbourhood – ranging from 52% in Napoli to 91% in Munich, Aalborg and Rostock. In the other 10 cities, not more than half of interviewees said they always felt safe in the area where they lived, while between 15% and 34% of them rarely, or even never felt safe. Each of the German cities included in this study were placed at the higher end of this scale – where about 9 in 10 respondents always felt safe in their neighbourhood: 91% of interviewees in Rostock and Munich, 90% in Leipzig, 89% in Essen, 88% in Dortmund and Hamburg and 87% in Berlin always felt safe in the area where they lived. Other cities that belonged to this group were Aalborg (91%), Oviedo (89%), Groningen (88%), Oulu and Luxembourg (both 87%). Respondents living in Sofia, on the other hand, were the most likely to answer that they rarely or never felt safe in their neighbourhood (13% “rarely” and 21% “never”). In Athens, Burgas, Bucharest, Riga, Vilnius, Prague, Istanbul and Naples more than a fifth of interviewees rarely or never felt safe in the area where they lived (between 22% and 27%). While the proportion of respondents who always felt safe in their neighbourhood has decreased from 2006 to 2009 in most of the aforementioned cities, the current result for Naples represented a 21 percentage point improvement over 2006 (31% in 2006 vs. 52% in 2009). Other cities that have seen an increase in the proportion of interviewees who always felt safe in their area included the German cities (e.g. Berlin: +21 percentage points; Essen: +16; Munich: +8), Gdansk (+18) and Dublin (+15). Respondents feel safe in their neighbourhood

Respondents feel safe in theirneighbourhood

Always Sometimes Rarely Never

919191908989888888878787848483838282807979787776767675757474747473727171707070696867676767666665646363626160606059595856555453535250494846464644

3838

33

78879891110111210

1213151417

1418

16131919191821192022

1820192122

1921

18262524242425

2120

3025

22232725273028

2523222325

2237

273438

2134

312530292732

3835

32

11120210111121111

22

44

23322

232

44

234

36

3335544

57

25

106

7966

67

81198

104

875

127

126

179

1099

1113

0000111

10023212020141113132242

632

72

9222244

7724283354579899

114

1154

1588

217

16151314

1321

Rostock (DE)Aalborg (DK)München (DE)Leipzig (DE)Oviedo (ES)Essen (DE)Dortmund (DE)Groningen (NL)Hamburg (DE)Oulu (FI)Berlin (DE)Luxembourg (LU)Graz (AT)Bordeaux (FR)København (DK)Piatra Neamț (RO)Stockholm (SE)Wien (AT)Helsinki (FI)Ljubljana (SI)Zagreb (HR)Amsterdam (NL)Rotterdam (NL)Białystok (PL)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Dublin (IE)Lille (FR)Braga (PT)Belfast (UK)Málaga (ES)Rennes (FR)Antalya (TR)Strasbourg (FR)Malmö (SE)Antwerpen (BE)Verona (IT)Diyarbakir (TR)Newcastle (UK)Glasgow (UK)Paris (FR)Gdansk (PL)Lefkosia (CY)Warszawa (PL)Ankara (TR)Palermo (IT)Cardiff (UK)Marseille (FR)Kosice (SK)Liège (BE)Kraków (PL)Bratislava (SK)Barcelona (ES)Madrid (ES)Valletta (MT)Tallinn (EE)Budapest (HU)Miskolc (HU)Bologna (IT)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Roma (IT)Manchester (UK)Torino (IT)Lisboa (PT)London (UK)Napoli (IT)Irakleio (EL)Ostrava (CZ)İstanbul (TR)Praha (CZ)Vilnius (LT)Riga (LV)Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)Burgas (BG)Sofia (BG)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Rostock (DE)Aalborg (DK)

München (DE)Leipzig (DE)Oviedo (ES)Essen (DE)

Dortmund (DE)Groningen (NL)Hamburg (DE)

Oulu (FI)Berlin (DE)

Luxembourg (LU)Graz (AT)

Bordeaux (FR)København (DK)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Stockholm (SE)

Wien (AT)Helsinki (FI)Ljubljana (SI)Zagreb (HR)

Amsterdam (NL)Rotterdam (NL)Białystok (PL)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Dublin (IE)Lille (FR)

Braga (PT)Belfast (UK)Málaga (ES)Rennes (FR)Antalya (TR)

Strasbourg (FR)Malmö (SE)

Antwerpen (BE)Verona (IT)

Diyarbakir (TR)Newcastle (UK)Glasgow (UK)

Paris (FR)Gdansk (PL)Lefkosia (CY)

Warszawa (PL)Ankara (TR)Palermo (IT)Cardiff (UK)

Marseille (FR)Kosice (SK)Liège (BE)

Kraków (PL)Bratislava (SK)Barcelona (ES)

Madrid (ES)Valletta (MT)Tallinn (EE)

Budapest (HU)Miskolc (HU)Bologna (IT)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Roma (IT)

Manchester (UK)Torino (IT)Lisboa (PT)

London (UK)Napoli (IT)

Irakleio (EL)Ostrava (CZ)İstanbul (TR)Praha (CZ)Vilnius (LT)Riga (LV)

Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)Burgas (BG)Sofia (BG)

DK/NA



page 27

Correlation between feeling safe in cities and neighbourhoods

Correlation between feeling safe in cities and neighbourhoods

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% “always” feeling safe in their own neighbourhood



1.5 Cities’ most important problems The chart on the following page shows – for each city – respondents’ views about the three major issues facing their city, chosen from a list of 10 potential problems (e.g. housing conditions, job creation/reducing unemployment, education, urban safety and air pollution). A first glance showed that “job creation/reducing unemployment”, “quality/availability of health services” and “education” were among the three most important problems in the largest number of cities. In 64 (out of 75) cities, job creation and reducing unemployment appeared among the three most significant problems that respondents’ cities faced. In these cities, the proportion of respondents who selected this problem ranged from 33% in Copenhagen to 78% in Miskolc. In Naples, Malaga, Rostock, Bialystok and Braga, between 70% and 73% of respondents selected this problem – note that respondents in these cities were among the least likely to agree that it was easy to find a good job in their city (see section 1.1). The need to improve the quality/availability of health services appeared among the top three problems in 54 cities; respondents in Lisbon, Braga, Dublin, Helsinki and Oulu were the most likely to select this issue (between 62% and 67%). Education and training was chosen as one of the main issues in 39 cities; respondents in Diyarbakir, Berlin, Hamburg and Belfast were the most likely to mention this challenge for their city (between 58% and 61%). It was noted earlier that respondents in Paris and Luxembourg were among the most likely to think that reasonably priced housing was difficult to find in their city. Not surprisingly, the availability of good housing also appeared among the three most important problems identified by inhabitants of those cities (51% and 39%, respectively, mentioned this problem). Other cities where “housing conditions” appeared among the most important problems were Bordeaux, Stockholm, Ljubljana and Zagreb (between 31% and 41%). Earlier in this chapter (section 1.4), feelings of safety and trust in European cities were discussed – these results showed a large variation between cities. A similar disparity was also seen in the proportion of respondents who selected urban safety as a priority issue for their city; this was one of the top three problems in 23 cities, with the proportion selecting “urban safety” ranging from 27% in Kosice to 52% in Rotterdam. Other regularly mentioned issues were air pollution, road infrastructure and public transport. The problem of air pollution appeared among the top three of the most mentioned problems in 21 cities; respondents in Burgas, Sofia and Ostrava were the most likely to select this issue (between 55% and 63%). Road infrastructure was chosen as one of the main problems in 11 cities, while public transport appeared among the top three of most important problems in four cities. A problematic road infrastructure was most frequently mentioned by respondents in Sofia (51%) and respondents in the surveyed Polish cities: Gdansk (49%), Cracow (45%), Warsaw (44%) and Bialystok (38%). Respondents in Nicosia were the most likely to identify public transport as one of the most important

problems in their city – selected by 45% of respondents. Each of these topics will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters.

473030

453735

504333

554032

433834

494740

393833

6859

34

6651

31

6051

29

5952

35

6950

31

504334

7251

36

5544

34

524738

454439

544641

5948

37

Antwerpen (BE)Urban safety

RoadsAir pollution

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Urban safetyJobs creation

EducationLiège (BE)

Urban safetyJobs creationAir pollutionOstrava (CZ)Air pollutionJobs creationUrban safetyPraha (CZ)

Air pollutionNoise

Urban safetyAalborg (DK)

Health servicesEducation

Jobs creationKobenhavn (DK)Health services

EducationJobs creationBerlin (DE)

Jobs creationEducation

Urban safetyDortmund (DE)Jobs creation

EducationRoads

Essen (DE)Jobs creation

EducationHealth servicesHamburg (DE)

EducationJobs creationUrban safetyLeipzig (DE)


RoadsMünchen (DE)

EducationJobs creationUrban safetyRostock (DE)Jobs creation

EducationHealth services

Tallinn (EE)Jobs creation

Health servicesSocial services

Athinia (EL)Health services

Air pollutionJobs creationIrakleio (EL)

RoadsHealth servicesJobs creationBarcelona (ES)Jobs creation

Health servicesUrban safetyMadrid (ES)

Jobs creationHealth servicesUrban safety

Perceptions about cities’ most important problems (three most mentioned issues)

Q5. Among the following issues, which are the three most important for your city?Base: all respondents, % by city

724539

654840

523736

513937

503834

514136

514235

474439

6363

48

423837

733935

623836

493933

623937

4842

29

454435

6959

38

5346

31

474439

Málaga (ES)Jobs creation


Oviedo (ES)Jobs creation


Bordeaux (FR)Jobs creation

HousingHealth services

Lille (FR)Jobs creationUrban safety

Health servicesMarseille (FR)Jobs creationUrban safety

EducationParis (FR)Housing


Rennes (FR)Jobs creation

EducationHealth servicesStrasbourg (FR)Jobs creationAir pollutionEducationDublin (IE)

Jobs creationHealth services

EducationBologna (IT)Jobs creationAir pollutionUrban safetyNapoli (IT)

Jobs creationAir pollution

Health servicesPalermo (IT)Jobs creationAir pollution

Health servicesRoma (IT)

Jobs creationAir pollution

Public transportTorino (IT)

Jobs creationAir pollutionUrban safetyVerona (IT)

Air pollutionJobs creationUrban safetyLefkosia (CY)

Public transportHealth services

Air pollutionRiga (LV)

Jobs creationHealth servicesSocial services

Vilnius (LT)Jobs creation

Health servicesUrban safety

Luxembourg (LU)Education

Jobs creationHousing

504639

7849

40

453731

463938

444140

524138

484645

414138

7160

38

524944

534543

564438

7067

43

6251

37

4545

33

303029

442723

664640

645953

Budapest (HU)Jobs creation

Health servicesAir pollutionMiskolc (HU)Jobs creationUrban safety

Health servicesValletta (MT)Air pollution

Health servicesRoads

Amsterdam (NL)Education

Urban safetyHealth servicesGroningen (NL)

EducationJobs creation

Health servicesRotterdam (NL)

Urban safetyEducation

Health servicesWien (AT)Education

Jobs creationUrban safety

Graz (AT)Jobs creation

EducationAir pollutionBiałystok (PL)Jobs creation


Gdańsk (PL)Health services

RoadsJobs creationKraków (PL)


Jobs creationWarszawa (PL)Health services

RoadsPublic transport

Braga (PT)Jobs creation

Health servicesEducationLisboa (PT)

Health servicesJobs creationUrban safetyLjubljana (SI)

Health servicesJobs creation

HousingBratislava (SK)

RoadsAir pollution

Health servicesKosice (SK)

Jobs creationUrban safetyAir pollutionHelsinki (FI)


Public transportOulu (FI)


Education

544638

414040

585752

554946

535147

494442

474644

535250

6351

39

5651

38

6747

31

553737

5252

34

6459

32

5352

44

5150

35

6161

52

504847

Malmö (SE)Jobs creation

Health servicesUrban safety

Stockholm (SE)Housing

Jobs creationHealth services

Belfast (UK)Education

Health servicesJobs creationCardiff (UK)


Jobs creationGlasgow (UK)


Jobs creationLondon (UK)


Jobs creationManchester (UK)

EducationHealth servicesJobs creation

Newcastle (UK)Health servicesJobs creation

EducationBurgas (BG)Air pollution


Sofia (BG)Air pollution

RoadsHealth services

Zagreb (HR)Jobs creation

Health servicesHousing

Bucureşti (RO)Health services

EducationAir pollution

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Jobs creation


Piatra Neamț (RO)Jobs creation


Ankara (TR)Health services

EducationJobs creationAntalya (TR)


Jobs creationDiyarbakir (TR)

EducationJobs creation

Health servicesİstanbul (TR)


Education

page 29

2. Pollution and climate change 2.1 Clean and healthy cities Air quality and air pollution It was noted in the previous chapter that air pollution appeared among the three most important problems in 21 cities; for example, 56% of respondents in Sofia, 47% in Athens, 39% in Budapest and 37% in Bucharest mentioned it as one of their city’s main problems. Respondents in those four cities were also the most likely to somewhat or strongly agree with the statement that “air pollution was a major problem in their city” (between 92% and 96%). In Athens and Bucharest, more than 8 in 10 respondents strongly agreed with that statement (88% and 83%, respectively). All Italian cities included in this study were found at the bottom of this ranking – with a large majority of respondents who somewhat or strongly agreed that air pollution was a major problem in their city: 89% of interviewees in Rome, 86% in Naples, 84% in Bologna, 83% in Turin, and 82% in Palermo and Verona. A large number of cities ranked in the lowest quarter were capitals and/or large cities (with at least 500,000 inhabitants). Several of these cities were listed in the previous paragraphs (Athens, Budapest, Rome, Naples etc.), but the list also included cities such as Warsaw, Paris, Lisbon and London. The most notable exception among these lowest-ranked cities was Burgas, a city with less than 250,000 inhabitants; however, about 9 in 10 respondents there thought that air pollution was a major problem (18% “somewhat agreed” and 71% “strongly agreed”). All cities, where residents were the least likely to think that air pollution was a serious problem for their city, had less than 500,000 inhabitants. Respondents in Rostock, followed by those in Groningen and Bialystok, most frequently disagreed that air pollution was a problem (81% in Rostock and 75% in Groningen and Bialystok). In Oviedo, Rennes, Newcastle, Piatra Neamt, Leipzig and Aalborg, about two-thirds of respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed that air pollution was an issue (between 64% and 69%). A comparison with the results of the previous perception survey showed that – in the opinion of the inhabitants – many cities have improved their air quality in the past three years. For example, in 2006, just 6% of respondents in Valletta disagreed that air pollution was a problem in their city, this proportion increased to 23% in 2009. The opposite trend (i.e. a decrease in positive perceptions about air quality) was observed in a minority of the cities included this study: e.g. in Stockholm (-16 percentage points), Malmo (-16), Ostrava (-11) and Budapest (-10). Air pollution is a major problem

Air pollution is a major problem

3528

3619

2728

3611

201815201821

1513

2027

1812

2813109

5172120

13513101213101014

715

785787

39645109

45765765553354333344422

4647

3950

4139

3155

44444741

4237

43433426

3340

2236

3838

42292523

293625

272322242318

2416

2321

23201818

21151819181314

19171515151314151414

1313111212119753341

1318

1524

21161724

2131

252627

202732

302324

3222

3334

323434

2728

2740

2831

253735

2728

4227

233234

2645

3243

34464845

2525

3446

292729

4044

363035

3634404246

3635

3118

189

198

4386

711156

87

9911

14141014

2117

1526

1414171617

2727

2318

2930

3526

233339

214046

3634

4626

4131

41272431

4949

4330

494750

382841

47424649424239

4951

587174

8373

88

2431472471

542

82222

7224443312

91

6353

771

631341332245123131

522

83441121111121220

Rostock (DE)Groningen (NL)Białystok (PL)Oviedo (ES)Rennes (FR)Newcastle (UK)Piatra Neamț (RO)Leipzig (DE)Aalborg (DK)Oulu (FI)Hamburg (DE)Luxembourg (LU)Dortmund (DE)Cardiff (UK)Wien (AT)Helsinki (FI)Bordeaux (FR)Dublin (IE)Belfast (UK)Essen (DE)Antalya (TR)Málaga (ES)München (DE)Berlin (DE)Kosice (SK)Braga (PT)Ankara (TR)Diyarbakir (TR)Manchester (UK)Bratislava (SK)Glasgow (UK)Miskolc (HU)Gdansk (PL)Lille (FR)Malmö (SE)Tallinn (EE)Zagreb (HR)Amsterdam (NL)Riga (LV)Irakleio (EL)Ljubljana (SI)København (DK)İstanbul (TR)Stockholm (SE)Graz (AT)Praha (CZ)Marseille (FR)Rotterdam (NL)Liège (BE)Barcelona (ES)Valletta (MT)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Ostrava (CZ)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Kraków (PL)Vilnius (LT)Lefkosia (CY)Strasbourg (FR)Antwerpen (BE)Paris (FR)Warszawa (PL)London (UK)Palermo (IT)Torino (IT)Verona (IT)Bologna (IT)Madrid (ES)Lisboa (PT)Napoli (IT)Roma (IT)Burgas (BG)Sofia (BG)Bucureşti (RO)Budapest (HU)Athinia (EL)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Rostock (DE)Groningen (NL)Białystok (PL)Oviedo (ES)Rennes (FR)

Newcastle (UK)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Leipzig (DE)Aalborg (DK)

Oulu (FI)Hamburg (DE)

Luxembourg (LU)Dortmund (DE)

Cardiff (UK)Wien (AT)

Helsinki (FI)Bordeaux (FR)

Dublin (IE)Belfast (UK)Essen (DE)

Antalya (TR)Málaga (ES)

München (DE)Berlin (DE)Kosice (SK)Braga (PT)

Ankara (TR)Diyarbakir (TR)

Manchester (UK)Bratislava (SK)Glasgow (UK)Miskolc (HU)Gdansk (PL)

Lille (FR)Malmö (SE)Tallinn (EE)Zagreb (HR)

Amsterdam (NL)Riga (LV)

Irakleio (EL)Ljubljana (SI)

København (DK)İstanbul (TR)

Stockholm (SE)Graz (AT)Praha (CZ)

Marseille (FR)Rotterdam (NL)

Liège (BE)Barcelona (ES)Valletta (MT)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Ostrava (CZ)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Kraków (PL)Vilnius (LT)

Lefkosia (CY)Strasbourg (FR)Antwerpen (BE)

Paris (FR)Warszawa (PL)London (UK)Palermo (IT)Torino (IT)Verona (IT)Bologna (IT)Madrid (ES)Lisboa (PT)Napoli (IT)Roma (IT)

Burgas (BG)Sofia (BG)

Bucureşti (RO)Budapest (HU)

Athinia (EL)




page 31

Noise is a major problem More than three-quarters of respondents in Groningen and Oulu disagreed that noise was a major problem in their city (78% and 76%, respectively); only about a fifth of respondents in these cities agreed about this issue (19% and 22%, respectively). Nevertheless, in most other cities, more than half of respondents agreed that noise was a major problem in their city – this proportion ranged from 51% in Rotterdam and Strasbourg to 95% in Athens. The scatter plot below shows a strong correlation between the proportions of respondents who disagreed that air pollution was a major problem in their city and those who disagreed that noise was an important issue. As such, respondents in Athens, Bucharest, Sofia and Budapest were not only among the most likely to agree that air pollution was a major problem in their city, but also that noise was an issue; in these cities, between 85% and 95% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement about noise being a big problem. Furthermore, in these four cities, at least 6 in 10 respondents strongly agreed (between 61% and 82%) about noise. Noise is a major problem

Noise is a major problem

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

2623

1827

361924

2124

1815

10222225

131114

10108

1716

124814

881281114

221011139813

201216

1016

46

1811129

6761311789

5575445665434553

5253

5140

294539

4338

4344

47333430

414238

4039

393132

35413731

373530

35322820

312926

313225

172520

2620

3129

16222123

262224

1518

211815

191615151615141110111113966

2

1420

2219

182422

2024

203032

2828

2422

333433313334

28333835

2936

3233343334

234140

253337

253030

273032

3939

2942

3543

323536

263133

3223

4234

2446

35272834

2832

2442

2423

1613

52

712177101412

16109

1614

1919

121415

161718

231915

162416

2319222223

3316

1732

2622

333231353331

2625

3723

3123

343433

443939

4051

3445

5434

44555249

5552

6042

6165

7382

21231

5431212123531233112242325132323422

512222000222212111221111101111113111

Groningen (NL)Oulu (FI)Rostock (DE)Białystok (PL)Piatra Neamț (RO)Aalborg (DK)Newcastle (UK)Cardiff (UK)Luxembourg (LU)Belfast (UK)Oviedo (ES)Leipzig (DE)Bordeaux (FR)Rennes (FR)Dublin (IE)Manchester (UK)Hamburg (DE)Helsinki (FI)Amsterdam (NL)Dortmund (DE)München (DE)Braga (PT)Strasbourg (FR)Wien (AT)Kosice (SK)Rotterdam (NL)Glasgow (UK)Essen (DE)Miskolc (HU)Antwerpen (BE)København (DK)Graz (AT)Lille (FR)Riga (LV)Liège (BE)Malmö (SE)Tallinn (EE)Verona (IT)Berlin (DE)Vilnius (LT)Antalya (TR)Gdansk (PL)Valletta (MT)Ljubljana (SI)Diyarbakir (TR)Bratislava (SK)Málaga (ES)Zagreb (HR)Stockholm (SE)Ankara (TR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Ostrava (CZ)Bologna (IT)Torino (IT)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Marseille (FR)Paris (FR)London (UK)Burgas (BG)Praha (CZ)Palermo (IT)Lefkosia (CY)Barcelona (ES)Lisboa (PT)İstanbul (TR)Kraków (PL)Napoli (IT)Warszawa (PL)Roma (IT)Irakleio (EL)Madrid (ES)Budapest (HU)Sofia (BG)Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Groningen (NL)Oulu (FI)

Rostock (DE)Białystok (PL)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Aalborg (DK)

Newcastle (UK)Cardiff (UK)

Luxembourg (LU)Belfast (UK)Oviedo (ES)Leipzig (DE)

Bordeaux (FR)Rennes (FR)Dublin (IE)

Manchester (UK)Hamburg (DE)Helsinki (FI)

Amsterdam (NL)Dortmund (DE)München (DE)

Braga (PT)Strasbourg (FR)

Wien (AT)Kosice (SK)

Rotterdam (NL)Glasgow (UK)

Essen (DE)Miskolc (HU)

Antwerpen (BE)København (DK)

Graz (AT)Lille (FR)Riga (LV)Liège (BE)

Malmö (SE)Tallinn (EE)Verona (IT)Berlin (DE)Vilnius (LT)Antalya (TR)Gdansk (PL)

Valletta (MT)Ljubljana (SI)

Diyarbakir (TR)Bratislava (SK)Málaga (ES)Zagreb (HR)

Stockholm (SE)Ankara (TR)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Ostrava (CZ)Bologna (IT)Torino (IT)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Marseille (FR)

Paris (FR)London (UK)Burgas (BG)Praha (CZ)

Palermo (IT)Lefkosia (CY)

Barcelona (ES)Lisboa (PT)

İstanbul (TR)Kraków (PL)Napoli (IT)

Warszawa (PL)Roma (IT)

Irakleio (EL)Madrid (ES)

Budapest (HU)Sofia (BG)

Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)

DK/NA



page 33

Correlation between “air pollution” and “noise”

Correlation between “air pollution” and “noise”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% disagreeing that noise is a big problem

% disagreeing that air pollution is a big problem


Clean cities There was not only a high correlation between the proportions of respondents who disagreed that air and noise pollution were major problems in their city, but also between those who disagreed that air pollution was a problem and those who agreed that they lived in a clean city (a correlation coefficient of .694). In Oviedo, Piatra Neamt and Luxembourg, almost all respondents agreed that they lived in a clean city (96%-97%). In more than a third of the surveyed cities, however, less than half of respondents agreed that their city was clean. The lowest proportions were seen in Palermo, Budapest, Sofia and Athens; less than a sixth of interviewees in those cities somewhat or strongly agreed that they lived in a clean city (between 13% and 17%). Almost 6 in 10 respondents in Palermo, Sofia and Athens strongly disagreed that their city was clean (58%-59%). In accordance with the results for air and noise pollution, a majority of cities seemed to have made progress in terms of cleanliness in the past few years. For example, while the results of the previous perception survey showed that less than a tenth of respondents living in Marseilles or Naples agreed that their cities were clean, this proportion increased to slightly more than a quarter in 2009 (26%-27%). Note that respondents in Malmo and Stockholm were now also more likely to agree that they lived in a clean city (+22 and +23 percentage points compared to 2006) – although they had seen a decrease in air quality and an increase in noise pollution during the same period. Athens, Palermo and Brussels were the main exceptions to this positive trend. In these cities, the proportion of respondents who agreed that their city was clean decreased by at least 12 percentage points. For example, in 2006, 3 in 10 interviewees in Athens agreed that they lived in a clean city, while this proportion dropped to 16% in 2009 (-14 percentage points). Interestingly, cities that were described by their inhabitants as being clean were also the ones where a larger proportion always felt safe – as illustrated in the scatter plot below. For example, more than 9 in 10 respondents in Piatra Neamt, Luxembourg and Munich agreed that they lived in a clean city and

about three-quarters of them always felt safe there. Similarly, less than a sixth of respondents in Athens and Sofia described their city as clean and only slightly more – about a fifth – always felt safe in that city. Correlation between “a clean city” and “feeling safe”

Correlation between “a clean city” and “feeling safe”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


% agreeing that the city is clean


The city is clean

page 35

The city is clean

6775

50383735

26343436

2021

4325

22232120

1616

24181721

142125

1632

142321

1213

239

1817

1017

10101414

989815

126666913

766

310896523363335

22

3021

4655

5149

58505047

6359

3653

55535556

6057

48545551

585044

5337

5344

445249

4053

4341

4739

46454141

41414040

3334

403838373429

353534

3729

2726

2727

272424202320

1410

1311

233

68

111311111313

141519

1617161619

19152023

1826

182021

1927

211926

2621

3124

222931

3835

3024

2437

3540

282929343538

3027

40334244

3027

4237

50343539

3034

252425

3429

11114425543572

76775

711

74

91

10108

124

1213

911

165

1518

1410

510

1521

26121511

242322212118

2629

1624

1715

3137

2329

17363833

4438

505959

5058

000111111010111111011111211221031102121311111111122101212111111112011211111

Oviedo (ES)Piatra Neamț (RO)Luxembourg (LU)München (DE)Białystok (PL)Wien (AT)Groningen (NL)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Newcastle (UK)Braga (PT)Hamburg (DE)Verona (IT)Antalya (TR)Rostock (DE)Ljubljana (SI)Graz (AT)Stockholm (SE)Rennes (FR)Oulu (FI)Aalborg (DK)Cardiff (UK)Strasbourg (FR)Helsinki (FI)Lille (FR)Leipzig (DE)Bordeaux (FR)Ankara (TR)Malmö (SE)Diyarbakir (TR)Dortmund (DE)Riga (LV)Tallinn (EE)Gdansk (PL)Torino (IT)Zagreb (HR)Kosice (SK)Belfast (UK)Manchester (UK)Kraków (PL)Vilnius (LT)Essen (DE)Madrid (ES)Bologna (IT)Glasgow (UK)Lefkosia (CY)Amsterdam (NL)Ostrava (CZ)Rotterdam (NL)Dublin (IE)Valletta (MT)Antwerpen (BE)Miskolc (HU)Paris (FR)København (DK)London (UK)Burgas (BG)Praha (CZ)Warszawa (PL)Barcelona (ES)Bratislava (SK)İstanbul (TR)Irakleio (EL)Málaga (ES)Lisboa (PT)Berlin (DE)Liège (BE)Napoli (IT)Roma (IT)Marseille (FR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)Sofia (BG)Budapest (HU)Palermo (IT)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Oviedo (ES)Piatra Neamț (RO)Luxembourg (LU)

München (DE)Białystok (PL)

Wien (AT)Groningen (NL)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Newcastle (UK)


Verona (IT)Antalya (TR)Rostock (DE)Ljubljana (SI)

Graz (AT)Stockholm (SE)

Rennes (FR)Oulu (FI)

Aalborg (DK)Cardiff (UK)

Strasbourg (FR)Helsinki (FI)

Lille (FR)Leipzig (DE)

Bordeaux (FR)Ankara (TR)Malmö (SE)

Diyarbakir (TR)Dortmund (DE)

Riga (LV)Tallinn (EE)Gdansk (PL)Torino (IT)

Zagreb (HR)Kosice (SK)Belfast (UK)

Manchester (UK)Kraków (PL)Vilnius (LT)Essen (DE)

Madrid (ES)Bologna (IT)

Glasgow (UK)Lefkosia (CY)

Amsterdam (NL)Ostrava (CZ)

Rotterdam (NL)Dublin (IE)

Valletta (MT)Antwerpen (BE)

Miskolc (HU)Paris (FR)

København (DK)London (UK)Burgas (BG)Praha (CZ)

Warszawa (PL)Barcelona (ES)Bratislava (SK)İstanbul (TR)Irakleio (EL)Málaga (ES)Lisboa (PT)Berlin (DE)Liège (BE)Napoli (IT)Roma (IT)

Marseille (FR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)

Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)Sofia (BG)

Budapest (HU)Palermo (IT)




Healthy places to live Looking at both the perceived levels of air pollution and perceptions about whether a city was healthy to live in or not, similarities again existed: each time, the same cities appeared at the higher and lower ends of the rankings. The correlation coefficient for the relationship between these two variables at city level was .765 – a strong correlation. Rostock, Groningen, Bialystok, Oviedo, Rennes and Leipzig were cities with some of the highest proportions of interviewees who disagreed that air pollution was a problem. In those cities, respondents were also among the most likely to somewhat or strongly agree that their city was a healthy place to live: 97% in Rostock and Groningen, 96% in Oviedo, 94% in Bialystok, 93% in Rennes and 92% in Leipzig. Respondents in Piatra Neamt, Braga, Bordeaux, Luxembourg, Malaga and Hamburg were, however, just as likely to agree with this statement (between 92% and 97%). Respondents in Sofia and Athens were not only among the most likely to agree that air pollution was a major problem in their city, they were also the least likely to somewhat or strongly agree that it was a healthy place to live (13% and 17%, respectively) – more than half of those respondents strongly disagreed with this statement (56% and 58%, respectively). Although Sofia and Athens were the only cities where a majority strongly disagreed, in eight other cities more than half of respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed that they lived in a healthy place: Bucharest (71%), Istanbul (68%), Burgas (67%), Budapest (61%), Ostrava (58%), Naples and Warsaw (both 56%), and Prague (52%). Correlation between "air pollution" and "a healthy city"

Correlation between “air pollution” and “a healthy city”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% agreeing that the city is a healthy place to live



The city is a healthy place to live in

page 37

The city is a healthy place to live

5343

745662

3852

3735

303238

4538

3325

362327

4929

3824

3236

2444

35202426

361719

2918

2827

1917201719

11181619

30191718

1320

917

12191715

101416

7118889961210652

4454

234034

5842

5758

62605446

5256

6450

6358

3655

4758

5045

5636

45575249

395856

4553

4243

515348

5149

56495047

34464744

4941

4839

43373738

423736

4237

40373532

30281821

2112

11

22234325456758

69

99101012914

111214131218

1319

151521

16201819202422232625

1917

25162123

1923

2028

272327

2033

2533

2537

272839

323437

283130

242530

000001211111213122343

43675782

54

873

9912977

364

4511

8171211

1711

14914

1812

219

2113

209

1714

13242221

333638

475856

0111012112112221232113221211363332110241

6325

9612321

45533

75432458

103133431212

Rostock (DE)Groningen (NL)Piatra Neamț (RO)Oviedo (ES)Braga (PT)Bordeaux (FR)Białystok (PL)Luxembourg (LU)Rennes (FR)Leipzig (DE)Málaga (ES)Hamburg (DE)Wien (AT)München (DE)Cardiff (UK)Oulu (FI)Lille (FR)Aalborg (DK)Verona (IT)Antalya (TR)Strasbourg (FR)Newcastle (UK)Helsinki (FI)Belfast (UK)Dublin (IE)Bologna (IT)Diyarbakir (TR)Marseille (FR)Dortmund (DE)Liège (BE)Graz (AT)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Ljubljana (SI)Essen (DE)Ankara (TR)Lisboa (PT)Irakleio (EL)Gdansk (PL)Torino (IT)Barcelona (ES)Stockholm (SE)Amsterdam (NL)Berlin (DE)Kosice (SK)Malmö (SE)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Madrid (ES)Zagreb (HR)Manchester (UK)Paris (FR)Lefkosia (CY)Miskolc (HU)Tallinn (EE)København (DK)Kraków (PL)Palermo (IT)Vilnius (LT)Riga (LV)Rotterdam (NL)Roma (IT)London (UK)Glasgow (UK)Bratislava (SK)Valletta (MT)Antwerpen (BE)Praha (CZ)Napoli (IT)Warszawa (PL)Ostrava (CZ)Budapest (HU)Burgas (BG)İstanbul (TR)Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)Sofia (BG)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Rostock (DE)Groningen (NL)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Oviedo (ES)Braga (PT)

Bordeaux (FR)Białystok (PL)

Luxembourg (LU)Rennes (FR)Leipzig (DE)Málaga (ES)

Hamburg (DE)Wien (AT)

München (DE)Cardiff (UK)

Oulu (FI)Lille (FR)

Aalborg (DK)Verona (IT)Antalya (TR)

Strasbourg (FR)Newcastle (UK)

Helsinki (FI)Belfast (UK)Dublin (IE)

Bologna (IT)Diyarbakir (TR)Marseille (FR)

Dortmund (DE)Liège (BE)Graz (AT)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Ljubljana (SI)Essen (DE)Ankara (TR)Lisboa (PT)Irakleio (EL)Gdansk (PL)Torino (IT)

Barcelona (ES)Stockholm (SE)

Amsterdam (NL)Berlin (DE)Kosice (SK)Malmö (SE)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Madrid (ES)Zagreb (HR)

Manchester (UK)Paris (FR)

Lefkosia (CY)Miskolc (HU)Tallinn (EE)

København (DK)Kraków (PL)Palermo (IT)Vilnius (LT)Riga (LV)

Rotterdam (NL)Roma (IT)

London (UK)Glasgow (UK)Bratislava (SK)Valletta (MT)

Antwerpen (BE)Praha (CZ)Napoli (IT)

Warszawa (PL)Ostrava (CZ)

Budapest (HU)Burgas (BG)İstanbul (TR)

Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)Sofia (BG)




2.2 Cities committed to fight climate change The proportion of respondents who somewhat or strongly agreed that their city was committed to fight climate change (e.g. by promoting eco-friendly means of transport) ranged from 14% in Sofia to 76% in Luxembourg. Munich, Newcastle and Bordeaux joined Luxembourg at the higher end of the ranking (between 68% and 70% agreed), with Burgas and Palermo joining Sofia at the lower end (20% and 26%, respectively, agreed). Considerably less variation was observed in the proportion of respondents who strongly agreed that their city was committed to fight climate change – in a majority of cities in this study between one-tenth and one-fifth of respondents expressed strong agreement. Many respondents found it difficult to answer this question about their city’s commitment to fight climate change. In Piatra Neamt, Tallinn, Vilnius, Antwerp, Kosice and Burgas, more than 3 in 10 respondents gave a “don’t know” response (between 32% and 36%). In Dublin, Luxembourg, London, Barcelona and Belfast, however, less than a tenth of respondents did not answer this question. A comparison with the results discussed in the previous sections about healthy and clean cities once more showed similarities in the city rankings – cities where respondents were more likely to agree that there was a commitment to fight climate change were also the ones where respondents were, for example, somewhat more likely to agree that their city was a healthy place to live. The four scatter plots below show, nevertheless, that the correlation coefficients were somewhat smaller than most coefficients discussed earlier in the report. Correlation coefficients : air pollution, noise, a clean city, a healthy city

“air pollution”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


% agreeing that the city is committed to fight climate change


page 39

“noise”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% disagreeing that noise is a big problem



“a clean city”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% agreeing that the city is clean



“a healthy city”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% agreeing that the city is a healthy place to live



page 41

3. Administrative services and city spending Resources spent in a responsible way In a third of the cities in this study (24 out of 75), at least a slim majority of respondents thought that their city spent its resources in a responsible way. Interviewees in Luxembourg, Bordeaux and Piatra Neamt most frequently agreed that this was the case (69%, 67% and 65%, respectively). In the last-named city, respondents were also the most likely to strongly agree that resources were spent in a responsible way (35% vs. 15%-17% in Bordeaux and Luxembourg). While more than two-thirds of respondents in Luxembourg somewhat or strongly agreed that their city spent its resources in a responsible way, less than a tenth in Budapest held this view. In Budapest, more than two-thirds disagreed that resources were spent responsibly (52% “strongly disagreed” and 19% “somewhat disagreed”). Other cities with a similarly high level of disagreement were Dortmund (73%), Palermo (73%) and Athens (70%). All German cities included in this study (except Munich) were found at the bottom of this distribution – the proportion of respondents who somewhat or strongly disagreed that resources were spent responsibly in their city ranged from 52% in Leipzig to 73% in Dortmund. In Munich, on the other hand, only about a fifth (21%) of respondents disagreed that resources were spent responsibly, while 57% agreed with this view (13% “strongly agreed” and 44% “somewhat agreed”). As with the statement about cities’ commitment to fight climate change, city dwellers found it difficult to formulate an opinion about the management of the city’s resources – this may be due to a relatively low level of responsibilities at city level and/or a lack of transparency in management and expenditures. The proportion of “don’t know” responses ranged from less than a tenth in Dublin and Zagreb (6%-8%) to more than three times this proportion in Sofia, Bratislava, Brussels, Miskolc, Burgas and Kosice (between 30% and 35%). The city spends its resources in a responsible way

The city spends its resources in a responsible way

1715

351218

131823

1513

2211138131113

722

18131181411

5111213101116

671164

1498

4867814

87711

449

5447

329

38

38

2555

2344232

5252

305145

484335

4445

354644

48434542

4732

363941443739

45383736

383529

383734

3840

303434

373334323123

28282824

303024

28282722

262619

2418

2318

23171514

16141111

1210

7

1681014141517

1420

14141317

142025

1729

20172224

2018171721202222

2221

3425

21283028

242325

2025

2026

12333437

263741

162732

2829

4040

1626252928

4519

1825

4842

1925

1828

19

36579

39

612

67

64

613

98

711

1216

451621

79

91111

1017

10614

131119

2018

121913

1926

161715

1733

1912

172115

621

1312

491525

1324

1530

4736

1931

5445

4836

52

1220201615

2013

2210

2222

252323

1111

2010

1518

102123

1612

2621231820

231712

252115161113

1722212222

1035

1416116

1014

3419

2235

211819

832

2432

2215

3016

2014101215

212320

Luxembourg (LU)Bordeaux (FR)Piatra Neamț (RO)Groningen (NL)Newcastle (UK)Stockholm (SE)Braga (PT)Białystok (PL)Oviedo (ES)Malmö (SE)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Lille (FR)München (DE)Rennes (FR)Cardiff (UK)Aalborg (DK)Verona (IT)Helsinki (FI)Antalya (TR)Irakleio (EL)Belfast (UK)Rotterdam (NL)Strasbourg (FR)Manchester (UK)Glasgow (UK)Antwerpen (BE)Wien (AT)Valletta (MT)Bologna (IT)Torino (IT)Kraków (PL)Diyarbakir (TR)Oulu (FI)Ostrava (CZ)Gdansk (PL)Málaga (ES)København (DK)Ankara (TR)London (UK)Lisboa (PT)Paris (FR)Ljubljana (SI)Praha (CZ)Marseille (FR)İstanbul (TR)Burgas (BG)Graz (AT)Amsterdam (NL)Madrid (ES)Dublin (IE)Barcelona (ES)Hamburg (DE)Miskolc (HU)Warszawa (PL)Liège (BE)Kosice (SK)Lefkosia (CY)Rostock (DE)Leipzig (DE)Zagreb (HR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Tallinn (EE)Bratislava (SK)Roma (IT)Essen (DE)Sofia (BG)Bucureşti (RO)Napoli (IT)Berlin (DE)Dortmund (DE)Palermo (IT)Athinia (EL)Riga (LV)Vilnius (LT)Budapest (HU)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Luxembourg (LU)Bordeaux (FR)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Groningen (NL)Newcastle (UK)Stockholm (SE)

Braga (PT)Białystok (PL)Oviedo (ES)Malmö (SE)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Lille (FR)

München (DE)Rennes (FR)Cardiff (UK)Aalborg (DK)Verona (IT)Helsinki (FI)Antalya (TR)Irakleio (EL)Belfast (UK)

Rotterdam (NL)Strasbourg (FR)

Manchester (UK)Glasgow (UK)

Antwerpen (BE)Wien (AT)

Valletta (MT)Bologna (IT)Torino (IT)

Kraków (PL)Diyarbakir (TR)

Oulu (FI)Ostrava (CZ)Gdansk (PL)Málaga (ES)

København (DK)Ankara (TR)London (UK)Lisboa (PT)Paris (FR)

Ljubljana (SI)Praha (CZ)

Marseille (FR)İstanbul (TR)Burgas (BG)

Graz (AT)Amsterdam (NL)

Madrid (ES)Dublin (IE)

Barcelona (ES)Hamburg (DE)Miskolc (HU)

Warszawa (PL)Liège (BE)Kosice (SK)

Lefkosia (CY)Rostock (DE)Leipzig (DE)Zagreb (HR)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Tallinn (EE)

Bratislava (SK)Roma (IT)Essen (DE)Sofia (BG)

Bucureşti (RO)Napoli (IT)Berlin (DE)

Dortmund (DE)Palermo (IT)Athinia (EL)

Riga (LV)Vilnius (LT)

Budapest (HU)




page 43

4. Satisfaction with cities’ infrastructure Satisfaction with cultural facilities In a majority of cities (54 of 75), at least three-quarters of respondents were satisfied with their own city’s cultural facilities, such as concert halls, museums and libraries. In about half of the 54 cities, more than 50% of respondents were very satisfied with these facilities; this proportion was highest in Vienna (74%), Cardiff (71%), Newcastle (68%), Munich (71%), Berlin (68%) and Amsterdam (66%). In the above-mentioned cities, less than 1 in 20 respondents were dissatisfied with their city’s cultural facilities (e.g. 2% in Cardiff and 3% in Berlin). More than a quarter of respondents said they were rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with cultural facilities in Braga (26%), Malaga (27%), Palermo (30%), Nicosia (39%), Valletta (42%), Iraklion (45%) and Naples (46%). Nevertheless, only in Valletta and Naples did these unsatisfied respondents outnumber satisfied ones (Valletta: 42% “unsatisfied” vs. 35% “satisfied”; Naples: 46% “unsatisfied” vs. 41% “satisfied”). In many cities at the bottom of the ranking, a considerable number of respondents did not answer the question about cultural facilities. The largest proportions of “don’t know” responses were recorded in Turkish cities included in this study: 35% in Diyarbakir, 31% in Antalya and 30% in Ankara. Satisfaction with cultural facilities (e.g. concert halls and museums)

Satisfaction with cultural facilities (e.g. concert halls and museums)

7161

7464

6068667168

556064

6062

505353

616363

5342

5335

4628

4746

3941

33403743

3447

20323030

2627262427312926292626

3324

3433

191917

3021181924

148

2125

172226

1918

718

13

2535

2131

3526282325

383329

3330

423839

302828

3748

3855

4459

4042

4845

5346

4942

5137

62505252

565554575349515349

5252

4553

4241

545355

4147

504843

5251

3832

383026

3331

3423

22

121232101332224541435556

3646

4655866

21110789811

613

5916

77991213

101215

10515

1019

1419

2015

922

89

1823

261020

10

011100212

010013

1110111

12

21

11122

20

111

213

13

03

22

24

22334

54

73

37

97

118

107

817

108

722

2015

22

22432346432545432

7554444

75769788578

12568

10695

144

1310

310

14121187

1211

616

2111

14897

1119

267

3031

237

1335

24

Cardiff (UK)Helsinki (FI)Wien (AT)Glasgow (UK)København (DK)Berlin (DE)Amsterdam (NL)München (DE)Newcastle (UK)Paris (FR)Dublin (IE)Leipzig (DE)Stockholm (SE)Groningen (NL)Aalborg (DK)Luxembourg (LU)Belfast (UK)Manchester (UK)Hamburg (DE)London (UK)Essen (DE)Strasbourg (FR)Graz (AT)Oulu (FI)Malmö (SE)Ljubljana (SI)Rotterdam (NL)Dortmund (DE)Budapest (HU)Tallinn (EE)Warszawa (PL)Praha (CZ)Rennes (FR)Kraków (PL)Miskolc (HU)Antwerpen (BE)Barcelona (ES)Gdansk (PL)Lille (FR)Kosice (SK)Madrid (ES)Bratislava (SK)Bordeaux (FR)Torino (IT)Oviedo (ES)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Ostrava (CZ)Rostock (DE)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Liège (BE)Bologna (IT)Vilnius (LT)Białystok (PL)Zagreb (HR)Piatra Neamț (RO)Verona (IT)Marseille (FR)Lisboa (PT)Riga (LV)Roma (IT)Bucureşti (RO)Braga (PT)Athinia (EL)Málaga (ES)Palermo (IT)Sofia (BG)İstanbul (TR)Lefkosia (CY)Ankara (TR)Antalya (TR)Burgas (BG)Irakleio (EL)Napoli (IT)Diyarbakir (TR)Valletta (MT)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cardiff (UK)Helsinki (FI)Wien (AT)

Glasgow (UK)København (DK)

Berlin (DE)Amsterdam (NL)München (DE)Newcastle (UK)

Paris (FR)Dublin (IE)Leipzig (DE)

Stockholm (SE)Groningen (NL)

Aalborg (DK)Luxembourg (LU)

Belfast (UK)Manchester (UK)

Hamburg (DE)London (UK)Essen (DE)

Strasbourg (FR)Graz (AT)Oulu (FI)

Malmö (SE)Ljubljana (SI)

Rotterdam (NL)Dortmund (DE)Budapest (HU)

Tallinn (EE)Warszawa (PL)

Praha (CZ)Rennes (FR)Kraków (PL)Miskolc (HU)

Antwerpen (BE)Barcelona (ES)

Gdansk (PL)Lille (FR)

Kosice (SK)Madrid (ES)

Bratislava (SK)Bordeaux (FR)

Torino (IT)Oviedo (ES)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Ostrava (CZ)Rostock (DE)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Liège (BE)

Bologna (IT)Vilnius (LT)

Białystok (PL)Zagreb (HR)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Verona (IT)

Marseille (FR)Lisboa (PT)Riga (LV)Roma (IT)

Bucureşti (RO)Braga (PT)Athinia (EL)Málaga (ES)Palermo (IT)Sofia (BG)

İstanbul (TR)Lefkosia (CY)Ankara (TR)Antalya (TR)Burgas (BG)Irakleio (EL)Napoli (IT)

Diyarbakir (TR)Valletta (MT)




page 45

Satisfaction with public spaces – markets and pedestrian areas Satisfaction with public spaces was generally high: in 69 cities, a majority of respondents said they were very or rather satisfied with public spaces, such as markets and pedestrian areas in their city. Citizens of Oviedo, Munich, Groningen, Malmo, Cardiff, Luxembourg, Rennes, Newcastle and Piatra Neamt expressed the highest levels of satisfaction (between 90% and 96%). Furthermore, in most of these cities, more than 4 in 10 respondents were very satisfied, and less than 1 in 10 citizens were dissatisfied with their city’s public spaces. Many cities at the higher end of this ranking (where most respondents were satisfied with their city’s markets and pedestrian areas) were situated in northern and western European countries – such as Groningen and Malmo (see above), Aalborg, Stockholm and Strasbourg. One of the most notable exceptions at the higher end of the ranking, however, was Piatra Neamt where 46% of respondents were very satisfied and 44% rather satisfied with the public spaces of their city. A very different picture emerged at the lower end of the ranking: all of those cities were located in southern and eastern European countries. In Sofia, Bucharest, Athens, Naples, Palermo and Nicosia, less than half of respondents were very or rather satisfied with their city’s public spaces (between 35% and 49%) – the corresponding proportions of unsatisfied respondents were between 51% in Palermo and 65% in Athens. It is of interest to note that while Piatra Neamt scored among the highest cities in terms of satisfaction with public spaces, Bucharest was among the lowest. Focusing on respondents who selected the more extreme responses of being “very satisfied”, while almost half of interviewees living in Munich, Newcastle and Piatra Neamt selected this response, this proportion dropped to less than 10% in the lowest ranked cities (e.g. 6% in Naples and 9% in Nicosia). Furthermore, the proportion of “not at all satisfied” respondents was at least twice as high in the following cities: 19% in Palermo, 20% in Naples, 21% in Bucharest, 25% in Sofia, 30% in Nicosia and 37% in Athens. Satisfaction with public spaces (e.g. markets or pedestrian areas)

Satisfaction with public spaces (e.g. markets or pedestrian areas)

4347

443541

3633

4846

353434

312825

3736

253034

242018

283329

2424

3229

2028

2240

2827

2217

3519

262120202021

1317

3318161622

1527

18111512101413

212426

12151615

88699

6

5347

505850

5458

4244

545454

576062

4950

605551

616365

5450

525757

4952

6254

5840

5253

5762

435951

5657565554

6257

4156575751

5643

515853

55565253

454137

504442

3741

38363230

29

3556688758710910710111213

91413151412131415

101617

1313

81216

13161518

1518171718181922

1122212121

20151825

19212227

2423

1513

2726

242532

3136

2735

28

1011211242

3211

42222

52312

4422

622

22

962

4573

63566462

1435446

13123

91097

87

2020

101218

1619

2120

3025

37

Oviedo (ES)München (DE)Groningen (NL)Malmö (SE)Cardiff (UK)Luxembourg (LU)Rennes (FR)Newcastle (UK)Piatra Neamț (RO)Kosice (SK)Bordeaux (FR)Aalborg (DK)Leipzig (DE)Stockholm (SE)Lille (FR)Kraków (PL)Hamburg (DE)Strasbourg (FR)Rostock (DE)Glasgow (UK)Torino (IT)Paris (FR)Helsinki (FI)Amsterdam (NL)London (UK)Białystok (PL)Rotterdam (NL)Dortmund (DE)Manchester (UK)Kobenhavn (DK)Oulu (FI)Wien (AT)Ostrava (CZ)Antalya (TR)Belfast (UK)Graz (AT)Antwerpen (BE)Madrid (ES)Zagreb (HR)Berlin (DE)Dublin (IE)Praha (CZ)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Ljubljana (SI)Braga (PT)Gdansk (PL)Barcelona (ES)Bologna (IT)Ankara (TR)Essen (DE)Verona (IT)Bratislava (SK)Miskolc (HU)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Burgas (BG)Marseille (FR)Liège (BE)Tallinn (EE)Budapest (HU)Lisboa (PT)Málaga (ES)Warszawa (PL)Vilnius (LT)İstanbul (TR)Diyarbakir (TR)Roma (IT)Riga (LV)Irakleio (EL)Valletta (MT)Palermo (IT)Bucureşti (RO)Napoli (IT)Lefkosia (CY)Sofia (BG)Athinia (EL)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Oviedo (ES)München (DE)Groningen (NL)

Malmö (SE)Cardiff (UK)

Luxembourg (LU)Rennes (FR)

Newcastle (UK)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Kosice (SK)Bordeaux (FR)Aalborg (DK)Leipzig (DE)

Stockholm (SE)Lille (FR)

Kraków (PL)Hamburg (DE)Strasbourg (FR)

Rostock (DE)Glasgow (UK)

Torino (IT)Paris (FR)

Helsinki (FI)Amsterdam (NL)

London (UK)Białystok (PL)

Rotterdam (NL)Dortmund (DE)

Manchester (UK)Kobenhavn (DK)

Oulu (FI)Wien (AT)

Ostrava (CZ)Antalya (TR)Belfast (UK)

Graz (AT)Antwerpen (BE)

Madrid (ES)Zagreb (HR)Berlin (DE)Dublin (IE)Praha (CZ)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Ljubljana (SI)

Braga (PT)Gdansk (PL)

Barcelona (ES)Bologna (IT)Ankara (TR)Essen (DE)Verona (IT)

Bratislava (SK)Miskolc (HU)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Burgas (BG)

Marseille (FR)Liège (BE)

Tallinn (EE)Budapest (HU)

Lisboa (PT)Málaga (ES)

Warszawa (PL)Vilnius (LT)

İstanbul (TR)Diyarbakir (TR)

Roma (IT)Riga (LV)

Irakleio (EL)Valletta (MT)Palermo (IT)

Bucureşti (RO)Napoli (IT)

Lefkosia (CY)Sofia (BG)

Athinia (EL)




page 47

Satisfaction with “the beauty of streets and buildings in one’s neighbourhood” Citizens of Oviedo were not only the most likely to be satisfied with public spaces in their city, they were also among the most likely to be happy with the beauty of the streets and buildings in their neighbourhood: 49% of respondents were very satisfied and 47% were rather satisfied. Generally speaking, satisfaction with the beauty of streets and buildings in respondents’ neighbourhoods was high. In 25 cities, at least three-quarters of interviewees were content (ranging from 75% in Leipzig to 96% in Oviedo – see above) and in another 40 cities, between half and three-quarters of respondents expressed satisfaction (ranging from 52% in Burgas to 74% in Ljubljana). In the last 10 cities, however, respondents were more likely to be dissatisfied with the outlook of the streets and buildings in their neighbourhood than they were to be satisfied. Respondents living in Sofia were the least likely say they were happy with the beauty of their streets and buildings: 36% were satisfied vs. 73% who were dissatisfied (33% “rather unsatisfied” and 40% “not at all satisfied”). In Athens, Iraklion, Naples and Palermo, between 6 and 7 in 10 interviewees were not happy with the beauty of their neighbourhood’s streets and buildings. Finally, in Bucharest, Nicosia, Rome, Valetta and Lisbon, a slim majority of respondents expressed their dissatisfaction with this aspect of their neighbourhood (between 51% and 54%). Satisfaction with the beauty of streets in my neighbourhood

Respondents’ satisfaction with the beauty of streets and building in their neighbourhood

4946

373739

2733

393235

2937

2135

2939

312726

2427

3927

222927

1923252524

29222122

3122242321

1421

171716

1316

2123

1917

2817

1621

2517

2011

26181717

1123

1016

1115

119

514

108

4745

505046

5851

445046

5144

5945

5140

4851

5254

5038

5055

4646

5550474848

4350

5047

38464445

4653

45494748

5249

4341

4547

3646

4740

374439

4530

363635

4230

3731

3631

3431

3321

2118

37

1111

91191414

1513

1716161617181819

1617

1517

2223

22191820

1720

162224

2113

24192024

2220

2724262727

2429

2528

21242830

1827

2035

1428

2623

3514

3326

342223

3634

232133

11

12

63

6224

634

343432

65

85

224

797

107

1055

916

61112

811

138

101088

106

118

1513

99

2011

207

3016

1823

1233

1826

193231

2427

4148

40

Oviedo (ES)Stockholm (SE)Groningen (NL)Rostock (DE)Bordeaux (FR)Malmö (SE)Newcastle (UK)München (DE)Luxembourg (LU)Amsterdam (NL)Cardiff (UK)Wien (AT)Rennes (FR)Graz (AT)Aalborg (DK)Hamburg (DE)Białystok (PL)Rotterdam (NL)Helsinki (FI)Lille (FR)Strasbourg (FR)Piatra Neamţ (RO)København (DK)Oulu (FI)Leipzig (DE)Berlin (DE)Ljubljana (SI)Belfast (UK)Ostrava (CZ)Dublin (IE)Paris (FR)Glasgow (UK)Kraków (PL)Kosice (SK)Braga (PT)Antalya (TR)Praha (CZ)London (UK)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Gdansk (PL)Barcelona (ES)Manchester (UK)Torino (IT)Tallinn (EE)Madrid (ES)Verona (IT)Liège (BE)Antwerpen (BE)Essen (DE)Miskolc (HU)Warszawa (PL)Zagreb (HR)Budapest (HU)Bologna (IT)Dortmund (DE)Ankara (TR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Marseille (FR)Bratislava (SK)Diyarbakir (TR)Riga (LV)Vilnius (LT)Burgas (BG)Málaga (ES)İstanbul (TR)Lisboa (PT)Valletta (MT)Roma (IT)Lefkosia (CY)Bucureşti (RO)Palermo (IT)Napoli (IT)Irakleio (EL)Athinia (EL)Sofia (BG)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Oviedo (ES)Stockholm (SE)Groningen (NL)

Rostock (DE)Bordeaux (FR)

Malmö (SE)Newcastle (UK)München (DE)

Luxembourg (LU)Amsterdam (NL)

Cardiff (UK)Wien (AT)

Rennes (FR)Graz (AT)

Aalborg (DK)Hamburg (DE)Białystok (PL)

Rotterdam (NL)Helsinki (FI)

Lille (FR)Strasbourg (FR)

Piatra Neamţ (RO)København (DK)

Oulu (FI)Leipzig (DE)Berlin (DE)

Ljubljana (SI)Belfast (UK)Ostrava (CZ)

Dublin (IE)Paris (FR)

Glasgow (UK)Kraków (PL)Kosice (SK)Braga (PT)

Antalya (TR)Praha (CZ)

London (UK)Cluj-Napoc (RO)

Gdansk (PL)Barcelona (ES)

Manchester (UK)Torino (IT)

Tallinn (EE)Madrid (ES)Verona (IT)

Liège (BE)Antwerpen (BE)

Essen (DE)Miskolc (HU)

Warszawa (PL)Zagreb (HR)

Budapest (HU)Bologna (IT)

Dortmund (DE)Ankara (TR)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Marseille (FR)Bratislava (SK)


Vilnius (LT)Burgas (BG)Málaga (ES)İstanbul (TR)

Lisboa (PT)Valletta (MT)

Roma (IT)Lefkosia (CY)

Bucureşti (RO)Palermo (IT)

Napoli (IT)Irakleio (EL)Athinia (EL)

Sofia (BG)




page 49

Satisfaction with public parks and gardens (green spaces) Citizens of Malmo, Munich, Groningen, Cardiff and Luxembourg were not only among the most likely to be satisfied with public spaces in their city, they were also among the most satisfied with what their city had to offer in terms of green spaces, such as public parks and gardens. In these cities, between 92% and 94% of interviewees were happy with this aspect of their city. There were six more cities were at least 90% of satisfied citizens: Leipzig and Hamburg (both 93%), Bordeaux, Stockholm, Bialystok (all 91%) and Glasgow (90%). Respondents in Malmo, Munich, Hamburg, Cardiff and Bialystok were also the most likely to be very satisfied with their city’s parks and gardens (between 55% and 63%). The proportion of “very satisfied” respondents, however, dropped to about 1 in 20 in Athens and Palermo (4%-6%). A closer look at the lower end of the ranking showed that respondents in Athens or Palermo were not the only ones with a low level of satisfaction about available green spaces in their city, as the same was true for respondents in Iraklion, Naples and Nicosia. In each of these cities, less than 4 in 10 respondents were satisfied with gardens, parks and other green areas in their city; the proportions of dissatisfied respondents, however, were considerably higher: 76% in Athens, 67% in Iraklion, 63% in Naples, 61% in Nicosia and 60% in Palermo. A comparison, between the results of the 2006 and 2009 perception surveys showed that in a majority of cities in this study, satisfaction levels with cities’ parks, gardens and other green areas have increased. The highest rises were measured in Burgas (from 56% in 2006 to 82% in 2009; +24 percentage points), Bratislava (from 36% in 2006 to 60% in 2009; +24 percentage points), Antwerp (from 56% in 2006 to 78% in 2009; +22 percentage points) and Sofia (from 26% in 2006 to 48% in 2009; +22 percentage points). In about one-third of cities, satisfaction levels with green spaces and facilities have remained the same in the past few years, while in a few cities respondents were now less satisfied than they were three years ago: Nicosia (-14 percentage points), Iraklion (-12), Athens (-9), Brussels (-9), Palermo, Valetta and Roma (all -6). Satisfaction with green spaces (e.g. parks and gardens)

Satisfaction with green spaces (e.g. parks and gardens)

6263

5146

5858

5037

4955

5047

3833

5032

394242

5246

4045

3234313437

44313536

2741

3728

47273236

22282926

4425252424

3523

372220

3922

1717

142329

1218

1016

119131515

6879

4

3231

4247

3534

4254

4236

4042

5256

3856

494645

3540

4641

5451

524946

40524847

5641

4553

33544943

57504952

3352525150

4051

3748

4830

455049

503933

4841

4839

434540

3328

34302823

19

4556647787679106111010881071211121312121114131213111412

81217

1518

161717

10171620181616162324

102221

1627

2616

3132

3232313235

282437

2938

2926

10111312124211

5012

354

51323334234463

37

62

53

433

12473

4791057

15910

156

918

8610

13121312

2425

2332

2538

50

Malmö (SE)München (DE)Leipzig (DE)Groningen (NL)Hamburg (DE)Cardiff (UK)Luxembourg (LU)Bordeaux (FR)Stockholm (SE)Białystok (PL)Glasgow (UK)Newcastle (UK)Oviedo (ES)Helsinki (FI)Piatra Neamț (RO)Oulu (FI)Rennes (FR)København (DK)Riga (LV)London (UK)Dublin (IE)Belfast (UK)Dortmund (DE)Warszawa (PL)Torino (IT)Strasbourg (FR)Kraków (PL)Rotterdam (NL)Wien (AT)Rostock (DE)Amsterdam (NL)Berlin (DE)Paris (FR)Burgas (BG)Aalborg (DK)Tallinn (EE)Antalya (TR)Lille (FR)Essen (DE)Gdansk (PL)Madrid (ES)Antwerpen (BE)Graz (AT)Bologna (IT)Ankara (TR)Ljubljana (SI)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Praha (CZ)Ostrava (CZ)Manchester (UK)Marseille (FR)Zagreb (HR)Kosice (SK)Verona (IT)Diyarbakir (TR)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Roma (IT)Bucureşti (RO)Liège (BE)Vilnius (LT)İstanbul (TR)Bratislava (SK)Miskolc (HU)Barcelona (ES)Braga (PT)Budapest (HU)Lisboa (PT)Málaga (ES)Sofia (BG)Valletta (MT)Palermo (IT)Lefkosia (CY)Napoli (IT)Irakleio (EL)Athinia (EL)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Malmö (SE)München (DE)

Leipzig (DE)Groningen (NL)Hamburg (DE)Cardiff (UK)

Luxembourg (LU)Bordeaux (FR)Stockholm (SE)Białystok (PL)Glasgow (UK)

Newcastle (UK)Oviedo (ES)Helsinki (FI)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Oulu (FI)

Rennes (FR)København (DK)

Riga (LV)London (UK)Dublin (IE)

Belfast (UK)Dortmund (DE)Warszawa (PL)

Torino (IT)Strasbourg (FR)

Kraków (PL)Rotterdam (NL)

Wien (AT)Rostock (DE)

Amsterdam (NL)Berlin (DE)Paris (FR)

Burgas (BG)Aalborg (DK)Tallinn (EE)Antalya (TR)

Lille (FR)Essen (DE)

Gdansk (PL)Madrid (ES)

Antwerpen (BE)Graz (AT)

Bologna (IT)Ankara (TR)Ljubljana (SI)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Praha (CZ)

Ostrava (CZ)Manchester (UK)

Marseille (FR)Zagreb (HR)Kosice (SK)Verona (IT)

Diyarbakir (TR)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)

Roma (IT)Bucureşti (RO)

Liège (BE)Vilnius (LT)

İstanbul (TR)Bratislava (SK)Miskolc (HU)

Barcelona (ES)Braga (PT)

Budapest (HU)Lisboa (PT)Málaga (ES)Sofia (BG)

Valletta (MT)Palermo (IT)Lefkosia (CY)Napoli (IT)

Irakleio (EL)Athinia (EL)




page 51

Satisfaction with opportunities for outdoor recreation Not surprisingly, results for satisfaction with outdoor recreational opportunities (such as walking or cycling) showed many similarities with those for satisfaction with green spaces (public parks, gardens etc.) in the surveyed European cities. For both questions, a high level of satisfaction was measured in a majority of surveyed cities. Furthermore, similarities were seen in the ranking of cities for both questions – with the same ones appearing at the higher and lower ends. Respondents in Oulu and Helsinki were the most likely to be satisfied with the possibilities for outdoor recreation that their city had to offer (95% and 93%, respectively). Additionally, a majority of respondents in these cities reported being very satisfied with this aspect of city life (68% and 56%, respectively). Groningen, Cardiff, Munich, Rotterdam, Stockholm, Newcastle and Bordeaux joined the Finnish cities at the higher end of the ranking with between 85% and 90% of satisfied citizens. None of the highest ranked, in terms of satisfaction with outdoor recreational opportunities, were located in southern or eastern Europe; the highest ranked eastern European city was Prague (with 82% of satisfied citizens – 16th position), while the highest ranked southern European city was Turin (with 79% of satisfied citizens – 24th position). Respondents in Athens were not only the least satisfied with public parks and gardens in their city, they were also the least likely to be satisfied with the opportunities for cycling, walking and other outdoor recreation: just 23% of interviewees in Athens were satisfied, while 48% were not at all satisfied. Naples, Palermo, Valletta, Nicosia and Iraklion – once again – joined Athens at the lower end of the ranking with between 48% and 68% of dissatisfied respondents. In some cities, a considerable number of respondents found it difficult to answer the question about outdoor recreation. The largest proportions of “don’t know” responses were recorded in Riga and Bucharest (22%-23%). Satisfaction with outdoor recreation (e.g. walking or cycling)

Satisfaction with outdoor recreation (e.g. walking or cycling)

6856

4646

5637

5149

3241

363939

352929

4036

28374040

3227

2137

263234

20333436363432

4423

302223

362526

2021

3326

3318

281817

1416

1220

118

281314

301315

25141716

1215

4576

2737

4442

3249

3436

5343

474444

475353

4145

52434040

4852

5842

524643

5843434040

4042

305043

5049

364644

5148

354232

4736

4545

4845

4940

4851

304443

253936

25312726

3126

302421

17

35

7569

46689

69108101113

7119101114

914131315

11141215

121318

8171620

151212

1921

211516

91216

252123

1520272426

182527

1227

221728

18232324

3231

2421

11

1302

12211

112

2212

15

2442

53333

53

26

562

734

54

69

366

94

136

89

58

53

51010

111413

2010

15171234

1229

2531

3726

48

114464

106777

10768784

115

106647455567

103

876

11884

9108734

71213

1812

3128

1815

976

1343

131112

1616

523

610

33

228

Oulu (FI)Helsinki (FI)Groningen (NL)Cardiff (UK)München (DE)Rotterdam (NL)Stockholm (SE)Newcastle (UK)Bordeaux (FR)Leipzig (DE)København (DK)Malmö (SE)Aalborg (DK)Luxembourg (LU)Strasbourg (FR)Praha (CZ)Hamburg (DE)Amsterdam (NL)Rennes (FR)Belfast (UK)Wien (AT)Glasgow (UK)Graz (AT)Torino (IT)Lille (FR)Gdansk (PL)Ostrava (CZ)Ljubljana (SI)Essen (DE)Antwerpen (BE)Dortmund (DE)Berlin (DE)Dublin (IE)London (UK)Manchester (UK)Rostock (DE)Antalya (TR)Kosice (SK)Białystok (PL)Bologna (IT)Bratislava (SK)Piatra Neamț (RO)Marseille (FR)Kraków (PL)Verona (IT)Oviedo (ES)Zagreb (HR)Tallinn (EE)Ankara (TR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Sofia (BG)Braga (PT)Warszawa (PL)Madrid (ES)Liège (BE)Paris (FR)Miskolc (HU)Lisboa (PT)Barcelona (ES)Burgas (BG)Roma (IT)Málaga (ES)Diyarbakir (TR)Budapest (HU)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Istanbul (TR)Vilnius (LT)Irakleio (EL)Riga (LV)Lefkosia (CY)Valletta (MT)Palermo (IT)Napoli (IT)Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Oulu (FI)Helsinki (FI)

Groningen (NL)Cardiff (UK)

München (DE)Rotterdam (NL)Stockholm (SE)Newcastle (UK)Bordeaux (FR)Leipzig (DE)

København (DK)Malmö (SE)Aalborg (DK)

Luxembourg (LU)Strasbourg (FR)

Praha (CZ)Hamburg (DE)

Amsterdam (NL)Rennes (FR)Belfast (UK)Wien (AT)

Glasgow (UK)Graz (AT)Torino (IT)Lille (FR)

Gdansk (PL)Ostrava (CZ)Ljubljana (SI)Essen (DE)

Antwerpen (BE)Dortmund (DE)

Berlin (DE)Dublin (IE)

London (UK)Manchester (UK)

Rostock (DE)Antalya (TR)Kosice (SK)

Białystok (PL)Bologna (IT)

Bratislava (SK)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Marseille (FR)Kraków (PL)Verona (IT)Oviedo (ES)Zagreb (HR)Tallinn (EE)Ankara (TR)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Sofia (BG)Braga (PT)

Warszawa (PL)Madrid (ES)Liège (BE)Paris (FR)

Miskolc (HU)Lisboa (PT)

Barcelona (ES)Burgas (BG)Roma (IT)

Málaga (ES)Diyarbakir (TR)Budapest (HU)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Istanbul (TR)Vilnius (LT)Irakleio (EL)

Riga (LV)Lefkosia (CY)Valletta (MT)Palermo (IT)Napoli (IT)

Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)




page 53

Sports facilities Most city dwellers had no difficulties in answering the satisfaction questions discussed in the previous section (e.g. about public places or green spaces and facilities). A different picture, however, emerged when they were asked to estimate their satisfaction with their city’s sports facilities (such as sports fields and indoor sports halls). The proportion of “don’t know” responses ranged from 3%-4% in the Finnish cities – Helsinki and Oulu – to 44% in Liege and Riga. Other cities with a very high proportion of respondents who did not answer this question were Antalya (40%), Diyarbakir (37%) and Ankara (36%) in Turkey. Respondents in Helsinki, Oulu and Groningen were not only among the most likely to be satisfied with their city’s outdoor recreational opportunities, they were also (by far) the most likely to be satisfied with the sports facilities on offer: 92% in Helsinki, 89% in Oulu and 88% in Groningen. In each of these cities, at least 4 in 10 respondents were very satisfied with these types of facilities (45%, 40% and 52%, respectively). In the cities at the lower end of the ranking, however, a large proportion of respondents did not answer the question; of those who did, however, dissatisfied respondents outnumbered the satisfied. In Naples, 28% of respondents said they were happy with their city’s sports facilities, while almost twice as many said they were not satisfied (29% “rather unsatisfied” and 24% “not at all satisfied”). The corresponding proportions were 30% “satisfied” vs. 44% “unsatisfied” in Bucharest, 31% “satisfied” vs. 38% “unsatisfied” in Sofia and 32% “satisfied” vs. 51% “unsatisfied” in Palermo. A comparison with the results of the previous perception survey showed the proportion of respondents who were satisfied with their city’s sports facilities has increased in about one-third of the surveyed cities. Satisfaction with sports facilities (e.g. sports fields and indoor sport halls)

Satisfaction with sports facilities (e.g. sports fields and indoor sport halls)

4540

5236353237

3438

2338

2130

2531

122933

2427

1822

2928

152530

2216171722

1413

2125

1325

131820

131722

1419191614131315

101614

111011991215161518

91181112

311710

3

4749

364343

4439

4237

5136

5242

4638

574036

4441

5045

3838

514134

4348464641

4850

4136

4735

474139

454034

4036343739

393835

3933

3437383637373027252623

3229

3127

2029

202320

25

56

38

588678

5813

71013

671411141513

91071313

1020

13171717

105

23201918

1081417

1516171822

172026

2115

1123

17222425

2123

1111910

271619

1029

211916

29

01

11

212311

31

72

63

15

4232

29

33

63

13

2255

22

79

71

33

613

1013

665

74

79

123

66

1279

1812

1512

106

101010

2122

1725

1024

34

712

1615151616171919

9211515

241914

1815171816

2125

1719

2514

22191515

2632

101215

2128

3222

142016

252320

2525

182124

3824

3020232119

233336

4044

233533

3718

3126

4420

Helsinki (FI)Oulu (FI)Groningen (NL)Luxembourg (LU)Cardiff (UK)Amsterdam (NL)Aalborg (DK)Rotterdam (NL)München (DE)Lille (FR)Newcastle (UK)Rennes (FR)Dublin (IE)Bordeaux (FR)Glasgow (UK)Oviedo (ES)Malmö (SE)Manchester (UK)Dortmund (DE)Ostrava (CZ)Braga (PT)Leipzig (DE)Hamburg (DE)Piatra Neamț (RO)Verona (IT)Tallinn (EE)Belfast (UK)Praha (CZ)Bologna (IT)Rostock (DE)Strasbourg (FR)Berlin (DE)Madrid (ES)Barcelona (ES)Wien (AT)Antwerpen (BE)Málaga (ES)Zagreb (HR)Ljubljana (SI)Graz (AT)Stockholm (SE)Torino (IT)London (UK)Irakleio (EL)Marseille (FR)Lefkosia (CY)København (DK)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Kosice (SK)Warszawa (PL)Paris (FR)Essen (DE)Roma (IT)Valletta (MT)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Bratislava (SK)Lisboa (PT)Kraków (PL)Białystok (PL)Gdansk (PL)Athinia (EL)Burgas (BG)İstanbul (TR)Ankara (TR)Antalya (TR)Liège (BE)Miskolc (HU)Budapest (HU)Vilnius (LT)Diyarbakir (TR)Palermo (IT)Sofia (BG)Bucureşti (RO)Riga (LV)Napoli (IT)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Helsinki (FI)Oulu (FI)

Groningen (NL)Luxembourg (LU)

Cardiff (UK)Amsterdam (NL)

Aalborg (DK)Rotterdam (NL)München (DE)

Lille (FR)Newcastle (UK)

Rennes (FR)Dublin (IE)

Bordeaux (FR)Glasgow (UK)Oviedo (ES)Malmö (SE)

Manchester (UK)Dortmund (DE)

Ostrava (CZ)Braga (PT)

Leipzig (DE)Hamburg (DE)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Verona (IT)Tallinn (EE)Belfast (UK)Praha (CZ)

Bologna (IT)Rostock (DE)

Strasbourg (FR)Berlin (DE)Madrid (ES)

Barcelona (ES)Wien (AT)

Antwerpen (BE)Málaga (ES)Zagreb (HR)Ljubljana (SI)

Graz (AT)Stockholm (SE)

Torino (IT)London (UK)Irakleio (EL)

Marseille (FR)Lefkosia (CY)

København (DK)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)

Kosice (SK)Warszawa (PL)

Paris (FR)Essen (DE)Roma (IT)

Valletta (MT)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)

Bratislava (SK)Lisboa (PT)Kraków (PL)

Białystok (PL)Gdansk (PL)Athinia (EL)Burgas (BG)İstanbul (TR)Ankara (TR)Antalya (TR)Liège (BE)

Miskolc (HU)Budapest (HU)

Vilnius (LT)Diyarbakir (TR)

Palermo (IT)Sofia (BG)

Bucureşti (RO)Riga (LV)

Napoli (IT)




page 55

General satisfaction with a city’s facilities Overall, however, a positive picture emerged in terms of city dwellers’ satisfaction with the various types of facilities that cities provide. In a majority of the surveyed cities (e.g. Newcastle, Oviedo and Ostrava), at least three-quarters of respondents reported being satisfied with at least four of the six items listed in the survey, while this proportion dropped below 50% in just 11 cities (e.g. Valetta and Iraklion). Finally, the proportion of respondents who were satisfied with just one, or even none, of the types of facilities listed in the survey remained below 10% in more than two-thirds of surveyed cities. Interestingly, cities where many respondents expressed their satisfaction with each one of the facilities listed in the survey were also the ones where respondents were more likely to agree that their city spent its resources in a responsible way – as illustrated in the scatter plot below. For example, a large majority (64%) of respondents in Groningen expressed their satisfaction with each one of the facilities listed in the survey and a similar proportion (63%) thought that their city spent its resources in a responsible way. Correlation between “satisfaction with a city’s facilities and amenities” and “responsible management”

Correlation between “satisfaction with a city’s facilities and amenities” and “responsible management”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% agreeing that the city spen

ds resources in a responsible way

% satisfied with all six facilities and amenities


page 57

5. Satisfaction with public transport 5.1 Frequency of using public transport When city dwellers were asked how frequently they used their city’s public transport, Nicosia stood out from the pack with 84% of respondents saying they never used public transport. In the remaining cities, however, this proportion ranged from less than 5% in Paris, Helsinki and Prague to about 50% in Braga and Palermo (47% and 53%, respectively). The largest proportions of “frequent public transport users”, on the other hand, were found in Paris, London, Prague, Stockholm and Budapest – there, at least three-quarters of respondents took a bus, metro or another means of public transport in their city at least once a week (between 75% and 86%). Furthermore, between 44% and 59% of respondents in these capital cities used public transport every single day of the week. A majority of Europe’s capitals were ranked in the highest third of this ranking (i.e. cities with the most “frequent public transport users”). Several capitals were listed in the previous paragraphs (Stockholm, London etc.), but the top third also included cities such as Riga (73% of “frequent public transport users”), Warsaw (70%), Madrid (73%) and Lisbon (64%). Strikingly, two of Europe’s capitals, Rome and Amsterdam were ranked among cities where less than half of respondents took a bus, metro or another means of public transport in their city at least once a week (41% and 44%, respectively). In Rome, 45% of respondents said they used public transport less than once a month or never. The corresponding proportion for Amsterdam was lower – at 32%. In Nicosia, Oulu, Palermo and Braga, on the other hand, two-thirds or more respondents used public transport in their city less than once a month (or never). It was noted above that 84% of respondents in Nicosia never used public transport – however, this proportion was five times smaller in Oulu (17% – the corresponding proportions for Palermo and Braga were, respectively, 43% and 47%). In Oulu, about half of respondents (48%) said that although they used public transport, this was less than once a month. Frequency of using public transport

Frequency of using public transport

594449

3949

4335

424141

4846

424745

4045

4143

3740

332930343736

262730

252427

202929

232121

18202322

171823

13242128

2019

151318202018

1422

1619

1221

1719

1312911

514

844

273428

3726

30383132292324

282224

2924

2723

2724

303432292626

343328

323229

362424

303130

33302727

313023

33212417

2425

293024222122

2617

2320

2716

2018

1815

1715

1910

1311

4

6111214

911131312

1381416

76991111121012

2015

1213111319

16171820

1610

2223

2123

142220

1331

22161919

161521

1525

219

191415181724

1321

171313

121319

1222

913

202

6685

81287912

10910

111313111114

915

812

161515

131611

14141412

1218

19131714

2019

1922

1515

142023

1121

2025

2021

1821

13201622

2424

2125

1321

1621

2720

2920

1448

6

2545

83

6765

1065

13119

10109

1411

1657

111014121113131111

1618

7111011

159

1117

614

241512

2819151712

1531

1832

2325

2213

242020

3829

4039

2742

2447

5317

84

Paris (FR)London (UK)Praha (CZ)Stockholm (SE)Budapest (HU)Helsinki (FI)Riga (LV)Barcelona (ES)Madrid (ES)Kraków (PL)Bucureşti (RO)Warszawa (PL)Wien (AT)Miskolc (HU)Sofia (BG)Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Tallinn (EE)Kosice (SK)Bratislava (SK)Lisboa (PT)Zagreb (HR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)München (DE)Berlin (DE)Gdańsk (PL)Białystok (PL)Ostrava (CZ)Newcastle (UK)İstanbul (TR)Rennes (FR)Athinia (EL)Glasgow (UK)Ankara (TR)Antwerpen (BE)Vilnius (LT)Hamburg (DE)Graz (AT)Strasbourg (FR)Luxembourg (LU)Belfast (UK)Dublin (IE)Rostock (DE)Bordeaux (FR)København (DK)Diyarbakir (TR)Torino (IT)Cardiff (UK)Leipzig (DE)Bologna (IT)Burgas (BG)Ljubljana (SI)Manchester (UK)Amsterdam (NL)Málaga (ES)Liège (BE)Rotterdam (NL)Roma (IT)Marseille (FR)Antalya (TR)Dortmund (DE)Malmö (SE)Piatra Neamț (RO)Oviedo (ES)Essen (DE)Napoli (IT)Lille (FR)Irakleio (EL)Valletta (MT)Aalborg (DK)Verona (IT)Groningen (NL)Braga (PT)Palermo (IT)Oulu (FI)Lefkosia (CY)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Paris (FR)London (UK)Praha (CZ)

Stockholm (SE)Budapest (HU)

Helsinki (FI)Riga (LV)

Barcelona (ES)Madrid (ES)Kraków (PL)

Bucureşti (RO)Warszawa (PL)

Wien (AT)Miskolc (HU)

Sofia (BG)Cluj‐Napoca (RO)

Tallinn (EE)Kosice (SK)

Bratislava (SK)Lisboa (PT)Zagreb (HR)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)München (DE)

Berlin (DE)Gdańsk (PL)

Białystok (PL)Ostrava (CZ)

Newcastle (UK)İstanbul (TR)Rennes (FR)Athinia (EL)

Glasgow (UK)Ankara (TR)

Antwerpen (BE)Vilnius (LT)

Hamburg (DE)Graz (AT)

Strasbourg (FR)Luxembourg (LU)

Belfast (UK)Dublin (IE)

Rostock (DE)Bordeaux (FR)

København (DK)Diyarbakir (TR)

Torino (IT)Cardiff (UK)Leipzig (DE)Bologna (IT)Burgas (BG)Ljubljana (SI)

Manchester (UK)Amsterdam (NL)

Málaga (ES)Liège (BE)

Rotterdam (NL)Roma (IT)

Marseille (FR)Antalya (TR)

Dortmund (DE)Malmö (SE)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Oviedo (ES)Essen (DE)Napoli (IT)Lille (FR)

Irakleio (EL)Valletta (MT)Aalborg (DK)Verona (IT)

Groningen (NL)Braga (PT)

Palermo (IT)Oulu (FI)

Lefkosia (CY)

Every day At least once a week At least once a month Less than once a month Never DK/NA

Q4C. How often do you use public transport in [CITY NAME]?Base: all respondents, % by city

page 59

5.2 Means of commuting and commuting time Means of transport for commuting

[Note: all proportions in this section refer to respondents who travel to work or to an educational establishment (sample sizes ranged from 200 in Antwerp to 419 in Copenhagen).] In line with the results in the previous section, the proportion of respondents who used public transport to go to work or college ranged from less than one-tenth in Nicosia and Oulu (4% and 7%, respectively) to two-thirds in Paris and Prague (66%-67%). Once again Europe’s capitals were found among cities with the highest proportions of respondents who used public transport to commute – for example, 60% in London, 56% in Bratislava and 52% in Sofia. Nicosia and Oulu, on the other hand, were cities where only a minority of respondents used public transport to commute (4% and 7%, respectively). However, while 91% of respondents in Nicosia travelled by car (or motorbike) and just 5% walked or cycled to work, almost equal proportions of respondents in Oulu drove a car or walked/cycled to work (45% and 48%, respectively). For a more detailed analysis of the results for the latter means of transport, see page 62. Means of transport mostly used to go to work or training place

Means of transport mostly used to go to work or training place

6766

6060605959565554545454535352525250504949484846444443424040

36363434333232323131302929292929282727272726252524242423232222

1818181817151514111197

4

176

61519

12913141616

108

2213

610121922

1916

35111316

1223

2024

3621

121316

262222

8141715

2618

128

191414

3834

122732

1416

311216

484548

1924

1332

1765

141625

4163

485

1327

342419

273031312928

3338

2034

39383324

2629

3415

413940

4333

3834

2041

515150344644

585350

5144

5259

6252

5659

3437

584337

6057

416260

293026

5957

6348

6518

7168

6346

2745

91

3201222010121

502

362222120101142021

70222250111121122452242112341

62121212111

Paris (FR)Praha (CZ)Warszawa (PL)Riga (LV)London (UK)Budapest (HU)Bucureşti (RO)Bratislava (SK)Miskolc (HU)Kosice (SK)Barcelona (ES)Madrid (ES)Ostrava (CZ)Ankara (TR)Wien (AT)Tallinn (EE)Kraków (PL)Sofia (BG)İstanbul (TR)Helsinki (FI)Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Zagreb (HR)Stockholm (SE)Lisboa (PT)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Białystok (PL)Gdańsk (PL)Berlin (DE)Hamburg (DE)München (DE)Diyarbakir (TR)Rennes (FR)Vilnius (LT)Newcastle (UK)Torino (IT)Burgas (BG)Rostock (DE)Leipzig (DE)Roma (IT)Athinia (EL)Bordeaux (FR)Glasgow (UK)Ljubljana (SI)Dublin (IE)Lille (FR)Dortmund (DE)Bologna (IT)Marseille (FR)Manchester (UK)Graz (AT)Strasbourg (FR)Essen (DE)Rotterdam (NL)Antalya (TR)Liège (BE)Belfast (UK)Piatra Neamț (RO)Napoli (IT)Luxembourg (LU)Oviedo (ES)Malmö (SE)Amsterdam (NL)Cardiff (UK)Málaga (ES)Valletta (MT)Antwerpen (BE)Verona (IT)København (DK)Palermo (IT)Irakleio (EL)Braga (PT)Aalborg (DK)Groningen (NL)Oulu (FI)Lefkosia (CY)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Paris (FR)Praha (CZ)

Warszawa (PL)Riga (LV)

London (UK)Budapest (HU)Bucureşti (RO)Bratislava (SK)Miskolc (HU)Kosice (SK)

Barcelona (ES)Madrid (ES)Ostrava (CZ)Ankara (TR)Wien (AT)Tallinn (EE)Kraków (PL)Sofia (BG)

İstanbul (TR)Helsinki (FI)

Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Zagreb (HR)

Stockholm (SE)Lisboa (PT)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Białystok (PL)Gdańsk (PL)Berlin (DE)

Hamburg (DE)München (DE)Diyarbakir (TR)

Rennes (FR)Vilnius (LT)

Newcastle (UK)Torino (IT)

Burgas (BG)Rostock (DE)Leipzig (DE)Roma (IT)

Athinia (EL)Bordeaux (FR)Glasgow (UK)Ljubljana (SI)Dublin (IE)Lille (FR)

Dortmund (DE)Bologna (IT)

Marseille (FR)Manchester (UK)

Graz (AT)Strasbourg (FR)

Essen (DE)Rotterdam (NL)

Antalya (TR)Liège (BE)

Belfast (UK)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Napoli (IT)Luxembourg (LU)

Oviedo (ES)Malmö (SE)

Amsterdam (NL)Cardiff (UK)Málaga (ES)

Valletta (MT)Antwerpen (BE)

Verona (IT)København (DK)

Palermo (IT)Irakleio (EL)Braga (PT)

Aalborg (DK)Groningen (NL)

Oulu (FI)Lefkosia (CY)

Public transport Biking/Walking Car/Motorbike Other DK/NA

Q4B. Which means of transport do you mostly/primarily use to go to your working/training place?Base: those who travel to work or educational establishment, % by city

page 61

Although the proportion of respondents who used a car or motorbike to travel to work or college was nowhere close to the figure for Nicosia (91%), in about half of the surveyed cities, a car or motorbike was the dominant mode of transport. Respondents in Nicosia (see above), Palermo (71%), Iraklion (68%) and Verona (65%) were the most likely to select “car” or “motorbike” as a response. A more detailed look at commuting methods showed that a motorbike was predominantly used in Italian, Spanish and Greek cities. For example, 19% of respondents in Palermo, 14% in Iraklion and 13% in Barcelona said they usually used their motorbike to get to work. In eight cities, a relative majority of respondents – at least – said they usually walked or cycled to work or college. Respondents in Copenhagen and Groningen were the most likely to select this response (65% and 63%, respectively). In Graz, Malmo, Oulu, Amsterdam and Oviedo, between 38% and 48% of respondents walked or cycled to work. Additionally, Groningen, Copenhagen and Amsterdam could be defined as “cycling cities”. In Groningen and Copenhagen, 60% respondents cycled to work or college. The corresponding proportion for Amsterdam was 46%. In Nicosia and the Turkish cities – Ankara, Istanbul and Diyarbakir – no respondents selected this response. On the other hand, respondents who walked to their work or place of education were most frequently found in Oviedo (48%), Diyarbakir (36%) and Antalya (31%). Means of transport mostly used to go to work or training place–car/motorbike and biking/walking

Means of transport mostly used to go to work or training place –car/motorbike and biking/walking

89525455626361

526059595857

5058

495753

4651

4351495046484646454444434241414140393939383837333534333434333233293231313030292928

1527252624262421202017181411

2191411101

1000011

80

914

71

90114221110122001010101410210120410000001

1312030030020

03

9171

68656363626260605959595858575756

535252515151505048464645444443434141414039393838383737

343434343434333333313130302929292827272726262424

20201918

1513

Lefkosia (CY)Palermo (IT)Irakleio (EL)Verona (IT)

Valletta (MT)Braga (PT)

Dortmund (DE)Napoli (IT)Liège (BE)

Luxembourg (LU)Cardiff (UK)

Manchester (UK)Lille (FR)Roma (IT)

Strasbourg (FR)Málaga (ES)Belfast (UK)

Marseille (FR)Athinia (EL)Dublin (IE)

Bologna (IT)Vilnius (LT)

Glasgow (UK)Newcastle (UK)Bordeaux (FR)

Torino (IT)Antwerpen (BE)

Aalborg (DK)Rostock (DE)

Oulu (FI)Leipzig (DE)Ljubljana (SI)Gdańsk (PL)

Rotterdam (NL)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Stockholm (SE)Rennes (FR)

Białystok (PL)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)

Tallinn (EE)Kraków (PL)Ostrava (CZ)

Hamburg (DE)Antalya (TR)Essen (DE)

Zagreb (HR)München (DE)Warszawa (PL)

Burgas (BG)Wien (AT)Graz (AT)Sofia (BG)

Madrid (ES)Berlin (DE)

Bratislava (SK)Miskolc (HU)Malmö (SE)

Bucureşti (RO)Cluj‐Napoca (RO)

Kosice (SK)Oviedo (ES)

Barcelona (ES)Budapest (HU)Groningen (NL)

Praha (CZ)Amsterdam (NL)

Helsinki (FI)Riga (LV)

İstanbul (TR)Ankara (TR)

Diyarbakir (TR)London (UK)

København (DK)Lisboa (PT)Paris (FR)

Car Motorbike

Q4B. Which means of transport do you mostly/primarily use to go to your working/training place?Base: those who travel to work or educational establishment, % by city

6060

046

383737

280

1921

129

125

15001

171718

1013

0814

019

475589

120016531232126203441104653111111231110

53

483

1084

1036

1614

313

302

11262523

764

129

22136

191810

1512141298

16151616151111121513111213128

11131099

1112129679

111010987656555

663

484848

4541

38363534323231

272626252424232222222221201919191919181717171616161616161616151514141414141413131313131212121212121211101098886665

København (DK)Groningen (NL)

Oviedo (ES)Amsterdam (NL)

Oulu (FI)Malmö (SE)Aalborg (DK)

Graz (AT)Diyarbakir (TR)

Lisboa (PT)Essen (DE)

Antalya (TR)Antwerpen (BE)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Rotterdam (NL)

Ljubljana (SI)Burgas (BG)Braga (PT)

Málaga (ES)München (DE)

Berlin (DE)Leipzig (DE)Helsinki (FI)Rostock (DE)Ankara (TR)Rennes (FR)

Hamburg (DE)İstanbul (TR)

Cluj‐Napoca (RO)London (UK)Cardiff (UK)Bologna (IT)Dublin (IE)Paris (FR)

Bordeaux (FR)Verona (IT)Kosice (SK)Belfast (UK)Irakleio (EL)

Barcelona (ES)Białystok (PL)

Luxembourg (LU)Torino (IT)

Zagreb (HR)Riga (LV)

Glasgow (UK)Miskolc (HU)Athinia (EL)Palermo (IT)

Marseille (FR)Liège (BE)

Manchester (UK)Valletta (MT)

Newcastle (UK)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)

Wien (AT)Bratislava (SK)

Vilnius (LT)Sofia (BG)

Strasbourg (FR)Budapest (HU)

Lille (FR)Gdańsk (PL)Napoli (IT)

Stockholm (SE)Madrid (ES)Kraków (PL)

Bucureşti (RO)Roma (IT)

Ostrava (CZ)Dortmund (DE)

Tallinn (EE)Praha (CZ)

Warszawa (PL)Lefkosia (CY)

Biking Walking

page 63

Length of time to commute

[Note: all proportions in this section refer to respondents who travel to work or to an educational establishment] 6

City dwellers were also asked how long it usually took them to travel to their work or educational establishment. Not surprisingly, commuting times were the longest in Europe’s capitals and large cities (i.e. those with more than 500,000 inhabitants). In Paris, Stockholm, Rotterdam, Prague, Warsaw, Bucharest, Budapest and London, at least half of respondents answered that they spent over 30 minutes per day to go to their workplace or educational establishment (between 50% and 65%). Additionally, respondents in London and Budapest were most likely to report a commuting time of more than one hour (23% and 32%, respectively). Some of Europe’s smaller cities were found at the top of this ranking (e.g. Iraklion, Oviedo, Oulu, Braga, Luxemburg, Verona and Burgas) – in these cities, less than a sixth of respondents needed more than 30 minutes to commute to their workplace or educational institution (between 12% and 16%) and at least a quarter of them needed not more than 10 minutes (between 25% and 36%). Not surprisingly, in smaller cities where many respondents walked to work, a significant number did not need much time to commute (e.g. in Oviedo or Diyarbakir). Nonetheless, the time to commute does not appear to be directly related to the mode of transport. Although commuting times were the longest in Europe’s capitals – which were also the cities where a majority of respondents commuted by public transport, there were some examples of cities with a more dominant use of car/motorbike or bicycle where commuting times were equally long: for example, 52% of respondents in Dublin said they drove their car to work and a similar proportion (48%) said they needed at least 30 minutes to reach their workplace. Similarly, 48% of interviewees in Amsterdam walked or cycled to their workplace and a similar proportion said that they usually spent 30 minutes or more to go to work. Minutes per day spent to go to work or training place

Minutes per day spent to go to work or training place

352726

36262625

1825

2224

191620

27172323

3219

1614141619

14101519

1418

10121415171517

1216

1114

1114141213111116

121519

131010131511131215

101312109

6128777107

363941

374039

3940

3835

40374638

3235

3631

333140

2928

3627

343327

383530

34323331303127

2630

2926

2331

242929

2422

202924

2626

2322

2326

2324

1821

2519

172122

1819

1820

16139

13

18221913

201921

2518

2518

2418

2220

2720

2413

2620

3131

202725

2930

142223

26262223222224

2921

2726

3221

272421

2728252022

1522

27272318

2319

251919

21232121

2518

2218

2117

1615

69789712

108961311

713

111116

101314

131517

141515131215

121217

1417

131719

1519

1515202021

181721

181315151515201918

1316172523

15181815

2425

2017

2122

231517

33

25462

556

55

594

64

5745886

6610

7107

711

75

691010

106

1010

1098

101111

13151212131511

1111

131214

1213

1717

1515

1613

19171819

2019

25

313223125361434462576544874

877

1077

128

1054

88894558968

1112131099

1112151413

89

1412

1518

81212

171715

1932

23

Irakleio (EL)Oviedo (ES)Oulu (FI)Braga (PT)Luxembourg (LU)Verona (IT)Burgas (BG)Białystok (PL)Piatra Neamț (RO)Palermo (IT)Diyarbakir (TR)Graz (AT)Bologna (IT)Valletta (MT)Lefkosia (CY)Kosice (SK)Aalborg (DK)Málaga (ES)Antalya (TR)Bordeaux (FR)Rennes (FR)Lisboa (PT)Ljubljana (SI)Lille (FR)Marseille (FR)Strasbourg (FR)Tallinn (EE)Vilnius (LT)Napoli (IT)Rostock (DE)Antwerpen (BE)Bratislava (SK)Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Liège (BE)København (DK)Dortmund (DE)Essen (DE)München (DE)Barcelona (ES)Leipzig (DE)Newcastle (UK)Belfast (UK)Wien (AT)Torino (IT)Helsinki (FI)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Roma (IT)Hamburg (DE)Riga (LV)Athinia (EL)Ostrava (CZ)Malmö (SE)Ankara (TR)Gdańsk (PL)Cardiff (UK)Zagreb (HR)Groningen (NL)İstanbul (TR)Manchester (UK)Glasgow (UK)Madrid (ES)Berlin (DE)Miskolc (HU)Sofia (BG)Dublin (IE)Amsterdam (NL)Kraków (PL)Paris (FR)Stockholm (SE)Rotterdam (NL)Praha (CZ)Warszawa (PL)Bucureşti (RO)Budapest (HU)London (UK)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Irakleio (EL)Oviedo (ES)

Oulu (FI)Braga (PT)

Luxembourg (LU)Verona (IT)Burgas (BG)

Białystok (PL)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Palermo (IT)Diyarbakir (TR)

Graz (AT)Bologna (IT)Valletta (MT)Lefkosia (CY)Kosice (SK)

Aalborg (DK)Málaga (ES)Antalya (TR)

Bordeaux (FR)Rennes (FR)Lisboa (PT)

Ljubljana (SI)Lille (FR)

Marseille (FR)Strasbourg (FR)

Tallinn (EE)Vilnius (LT)Napoli (IT)

Rostock (DE)Antwerpen (BE)Bratislava (SK)

Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Liège (BE)

København (DK)Dortmund (DE)

Essen (DE)München (DE)Barcelona (ES)

Leipzig (DE)Newcastle (UK)

Belfast (UK)Wien (AT)Torino (IT)

Helsinki (FI)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)

Roma (IT)Hamburg (DE)

Riga (LV)Athinia (EL)Ostrava (CZ)Malmö (SE)Ankara (TR)Gdańsk (PL)Cardiff (UK)Zagreb (HR)

Groningen (NL)İstanbul (TR)

Manchester (UK)Glasgow (UK)Madrid (ES)Berlin (DE)

Miskolc (HU)Sofia (BG)Dublin (IE)

Amsterdam (NL)Kraków (PL)

Paris (FR)Stockholm (SE)Rotterdam (NL)

Praha (CZ)Warszawa (PL)Bucureşti (RO)Budapest (HU)London (UK)

Less than 10 minutes Between 10-20 minutes Between 20-30 minutesBetween 30-45 minutes Between 45-60 minutes More than 60 minutes

Q4A. How many minutes per day do you usually spend to go to your working/training place?Base: those who travel to work or educational establishment, % by city

page 65

5.3 Satisfaction with public transport Satisfaction with public transport The total level of satisfaction with public transport (i.e. the sum of “very” and “fairly” satisfied citizens) ranged from 12% in Palermo to 93% in Helsinki, while the proportion of respondents who said they were very satisfied ranged from virtually no-one in Palermo and Naples (1%-2%) to 53% in Vienna. In about half of the surveyed cities roughly two-thirds of respondents answered that they were very or rather satisfied with their city’s public transport. Cities such as Strasbourg, Stockholm, Hamburg, Newcastle and Groningen joined Helsinki and Vienna at the higher end of the ranking with satisfaction levels above 80%. In most of those cities, a majority of respondents also used public transport at least once a week (see section 5.1). In Groningen, however, just 24% were “frequent public transport users” and 9% used it to go their work or educational institution – nonetheless, 83% of respondents were very or fairly satisfied with public transport in Groningen. In Roma, Naples, Nicosia and Palermo, on the other hand, at least half of respondents were dissatisfied with their city’s public transport (between 50% and 74%). A slim majority (55%) of respondents in Nicosia were not at all satisfied with their city’s public transport. This is in accordance with the finding that – in the views of its inhabitants – public transport was Nicosia’s major problem (see section 1.5). In some cities, a considerable proportion of respondents found it difficult to answer this question about their city’s public transport (e.g. 39% in Braga and 28% in Vilnius) – more than half of respondents who gave a “don’t know” response never used their city’s public transport. When comparing the results of the 2006 and 2009 perception surveys, the largest increase in satisfaction with public transport was seen in Bratislava: in 2009, 58% of its respondents said they were rather or very satisfied with the city’s public transport, vs. 30% in 2006 (+28 percentage points). The largest decrease in satisfaction was observed in Miskolc (55% in 2009 from 73% in 2006; -18 percentage points). Satisfaction with public transport

Satisfaction with public transport

4253

3643

3739

4742

3343

342227303538

2729

1838

1834

2234

16312829

1739

2821

2827

142423

142425

1324

141720

1612172018

14212020

1419

1519

1212129

1914

211412

6799

324

1

5137

5345

5047

4044

5241

496155524744

5553

6443

6345

5644

61464948

5937

4855

4748

604849

564643

5544

545147

5154494547

514444

424642

4539

454443

4534

3629

3437

42393734

3226

1311

45547769

5651111

510799688

614

107896911121015

816

1012151618

11916

1115141513171622

1714

131317

1011

20212221

1017

1213

730

262128

3033

1236

12

1222

12

34

243

33

235

232

24

4366

4367

45

36

44

6108

913

66

1166

4510

66

9171610

55

7611

71461415

514

178

152025

5538

12564473

87

1124

105

874

1089

134

814109

141176

105

144

1413846

111110

156

1313

181297

1213

81012

2626

151712

1824

282424

398

1025

1415141614

Helsinki (FI)Wien (AT)Strasbourg (FR)Rennes (FR)Stockholm (SE)Hamburg (DE)Rostock (DE)München (DE)Bordeaux (FR)Newcastle (UK)Groningen (NL)Paris (FR)København (DK)Rotterdam (NL)Luxembourg (LU)Leipzig (DE)Amsterdam (NL)Praha (CZ)Oviedo (ES)Antwerpen (BE)Malmö (SE)Dortmund (DE)Madrid (ES)Belfast (UK)Białystok (PL)Glasgow (UK)Cardiff (UK)Lille (FR)Kraków (PL)Zagreb (HR)London (UK)Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Graz (AT)Aalborg (DK)Barcelona (ES)Ostrava (CZ)Tallinn (EE)Málaga (ES)Dublin (IE)Berlin (DE)Ljubljana (SI)Diyarbakir (TR)Warszawa (PL)Gdańsk (PL)Marseille (FR)Bologna (IT)Lisboa (PT)Liège (BE)Essen (DE)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Oulu (FI)Riga (LV)Manchester (UK)Ankara (TR)İstanbul (TR)Athinia (EL)Piatra Neamț (RO)Burgas (BG)Bratislava (SK)Kosice (SK)Miskolc (HU)Torino (IT)Antalya (TR)Vilnius (LT)Valletta (MT)Irakleio (EL)Braga (PT)Budapest (HU)Bucureşti (RO)Verona (IT)Sofia (BG)Roma (IT)Napoli (IT)Lefkosia (CY)Palermo (IT)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Helsinki (FI)Wien (AT)

Strasbourg (FR)Rennes (FR)

Stockholm (SE)Hamburg (DE)Rostock (DE)

München (DE)Bordeaux (FR)Newcastle (UK)Groningen (NL)

Paris (FR)København (DK)Rotterdam (NL)

Luxembourg (LU)Leipzig (DE)

Amsterdam (NL)Praha (CZ)Oviedo (ES)

Antwerpen (BE)Malmö (SE)

Dortmund (DE)Madrid (ES)Belfast (UK)

Białystok (PL)Glasgow (UK)Cardiff (UK)

Lille (FR)Kraków (PL)Zagreb (HR)London (UK)

Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Graz (AT)

Aalborg (DK)Barcelona (ES)Ostrava (CZ)Tallinn (EE)Málaga (ES)Dublin (IE)Berlin (DE)

Ljubljana (SI)Diyarbakir (TR)Warszawa (PL)

Gdańsk (PL)Marseille (FR)Bologna (IT)Lisboa (PT)Liège (BE)Essen (DE)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Oulu (FI)Riga (LV)

Manchester (UK)Ankara (TR)İstanbul (TR)Athinia (EL)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Burgas (BG)

Bratislava (SK)Kosice (SK)

Miskolc (HU)Torino (IT)

Antalya (TR)Vilnius (LT)

Valletta (MT)Irakleio (EL)Braga (PT)

Budapest (HU)Bucureşti (RO)

Verona (IT)Sofia (BG)Roma (IT)Napoli (IT)

Lefkosia (CY)Palermo (IT)




page 67

Reasons for not using public transport In order to understand better why certain city dwellers were dissatisfied with public transport and/or were not using it, relevant respondents were asked to explain why they never used their city’s public transport. Some caution should, nevertheless, be exercised when interpreting the results as in some cities very few respondents did not use public transport; as such, not many respondents answered this question. Respondents – who never used public transport – were presented with a list of 10 possible reasons for not using public transport (e.g. not frequent enough, not adapted to the required itinerary, too expensive or not safe). Nevertheless, many respondents named “another” reason for not using public transport in their city – this proportion ranged from 31% in Palermo and Marseilles to 86% in Paris. “Other” reasons for not using public transport, for example, could have been limited mobility: respondents simply might have been unable to use public transport in their city because they could not move around easily (e.g. many of the older respondents gave “other” reasons for not using public transport). Other respondents might not have experienced a need to use public transport, as other methods (e.g. car or bicycle) were sufficient and convenient to move around in their city. Of the reasons listed in the survey, those linked to insufficient infrastructure – i.e. public transport not being frequent enough, not adapted to itineraries and not easy to access – were mentioned most frequently. Respondents in Rennes and Bologna were the most likely to complain that public transport was not adapted to their itinerary (31% and 28%, respectively). In Ljubljana, Iraklion, Helsinki, Nicosia and Graz, at least of quarter of respondents gave this reason for not using public transport (25%-27%). Respondents living in Nicosia were also most likely to mention an insufficient frequency of public transport as a reason for not using such facilities (37%). In Palermo and Manchester, about a fifth of respondents complained about this issue (22% and 19%, respectively). The proportions of respondents who said they never used public transport because it was not easy to access from where they lived or to where they needed to go were the highest in Helsinki (20%), Aalborg (19%), Dublin, Berlin, Stockholm and Ljubljana (all 17%). Furthermore, complaints about variations in time schedules and unreliable schedules were most frequently mentioned by respondents in Nicosia (23%), Manchester (19%), Palermo (18%) and Roma (16%). In Manchester (again), Munich, Miskolc, Budapest and Berlin, respondents were the most likely to say that public transport was too expensive (between 16% and 21%). Prague stood out with one-third (32%) of respondents who felt that public transport was too congested and 20% who said it was unsafe. Finally, respondents who simply did not like using public transport were most frequently found in some French cities included in this study: Marseilles (33%), Bordeaux (28%) and Lille (26%).

6. A comparison with the results of the 2006 perception survey In the annex, 15 charts are shown that summarize the results of the current survey in comparison with those of the previous perception survey (conducted in 2006). The greatest increases in the proportion of respondents who agreed that good jobs were easy to find were seen in Stockholm and Malmo (respectively, +18 and +17 percentage points). These same cities were identified as the ones that had seen the largest increases in the proportion of interviewees who agreed that there was a responsible management of resources in their city and agreed that administrative services had helped them efficiently (between +17 and +26 percentage points). Iraklion, on the other hand, was regularly found among the cities that had seen the largest decrease in such positive perceptions when comparing the results of the current survey with those of 2006.

page 69

Annex 1 (in English only) Comparison 2009/2006

It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price(% agree) 2006-2009

424433404540285346464735274134253263332718224725161733522316554930152022171921101738255426295922124514506639203723103687246511061962081016381732

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Riga (LV)Vilnius (LT)

Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Valletta (MT)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Tallinn (EE)Dublin (IE)

Málaga (ES)Cardiff (UK)Antalya (TR)Belfast (UK)Burgas (BG)

Bordeaux (FR)Ankara (TR)Malmö (SE)İstanbul (TR)

Sofia (BG)Oulu (FI)

Rotterdam (NL)Praha (CZ)

Bucureşti (RO)Rennes (FR)Miskolc (HU)

Lille (FR)Bratislava (SK)Marseille (FR)Madrid (ES)

Diyarbakir (TR)Kraków (PL)Zagreb (HR)Oviedo (ES)

Groningen (NL)Gdańsk (PL)

Stockholm (SE)Lefkosia (CY)Kosice (SK)

København (DK)Strasbourg (FR)

Napoli (IT)Lisboa (PT)

Warszawa (PL)Irakleio (EL)

Barcelona (ES)Newcastle (UK)Budapest (HU)

Athinia (EL)Dortmund (DE)Antwerpen (BE)

Helsinki (FI)Manchester (UK)

London (UK)Essen (DE)Braga (PT)

Glasgow (UK)Torino (IT)

Palermo (IT)Graz (AT)

Bologna (IT)Paris (FR)

Aalborg (DK)Leipzig (DE)

Białystok (PL)Berlin (DE)

Luxembourg (LU)München (DE)

Verona (IT)Roma (IT)Wien (AT)

Amsterdam (NL)Ljubljana (SI)

Hamburg (DE)Ostrava (CZ)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Liège (BE)

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly

disagree with each of these statements?Base: all respondents, % of ”Strongly and somewhat agree” by city

Diff:2009 200632

28

25

25

25

23

23

18

17

17

16

15

15

14

14

13

13

13

12

12

11

11

11

11

9

8

8

8

7

7

7

7

7

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐2

‐2

‐3

‐3

‐3

‐4

‐5

‐5

‐5

‐6

‐8

page 71

Difficulties in paying bills at the end of the month(% never) 2006-2009

6761636859614053516760665347575560705678655660585654412852578363797670766848457750435667685056604453496140726252544026665662616550533234335829253323

0 20 40 60 80 10

Helsinki (FI)Gdańsk (PL)

Oulu (FI)Bratislava (SK)Kraków (PL)

Warszawa (PL)Palermo (IT)Verona (IT)Lisboa (PT)Oviedo (ES)Rennes (FR)Kosice (SK)Braga (PT)Torino (IT)

Madrid (ES)Málaga (ES)Vilnius (LT)

Antwerpen (BE)Paris (FR)Graz (AT)

Newcastle (UK)Białystok (PL)Barcelona (ES)

Liège (BE)Cardiff (UK)Bologna (IT)Roma (IT)Napoli (IT)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Strasbourg (FR)

Aalborg (DK)Berlin (DE)

Stockholm (SE)København (DK)Dortmund (DE)

Luxembourg (LU)Essen (DE)

London (UK)Lefkosia (CY)Malmö (SE)

Manchester (UK)Burgas (BG)

Glasgow (UK)Hamburg (DE)Ostrava (CZ)Belfast (UK)

Amsterdam (NL)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Budapest (HU)Zagreb (HR)

Marseille (FR)Cluj‐Napoca (RO)

Sofia (BG)Wien (AT)

Rotterdam (NL)Lille (FR)

Dublin (IE)Miskolc (HU)Valletta (MT)München (DE)

Tallinn (EE)Groningen (NL)

Leipzig (DE)Praha (CZ)

Bordeaux (FR)Ljubljana (SI)Athinia (EL)Antalya (TR)Ankara (TR)

Bucureşti (RO)Irakleio (EL)


İstanbul (TR)


Base: all respondents, % of ”Never” by city

Diff:

0

2009 200618

18

17

15

14

12

12

12

12

11

10

10

9

9

8

8

8

8

7

6

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐2

‐2

‐2

‐2

‐2

‐3

‐3

‐3

‐4

‐4

‐5

‐5

‐5

‐7

‐9

‐9

‐9

‐10

‐10

‐10

‐10

‐15

‐16

Foreigners are well integrated (% agree)2006-2009

3835566463656643634558656043504660405144524863515655502959654049573966525932613449596236265636384743294847614352586555585058393049376636413945472048

0 20 40 60 80 10

Stockholm (SE)Malmö (SE)Verona (IT)

Bratislava (SK)Lille (FR)

Kosice (SK)Groningen (NL)Rotterdam (NL)Bordeaux (FR)Warszawa (PL)London (UK)Braga (PT)

Strasbourg (FR)Torino (IT)Paris (FR)

Ostrava (CZ)Lisboa (PT)

Hamburg (DE)Aalborg (DK)Gdańsk (PL)Praha (CZ)

København (DK)Ljubljana (SI)

Amsterdam (NL)Bucureşti (RO)Diyarbakir (TR)München (DE)


Luxembourg (LU)Białystok (PL)Miskolc (HU)Marseille (FR)Leipzig (DE)

Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Kraków (PL)Palermo (IT)

Dortmund (DE)Budapest (HU)

Essen (DE)Bologna (IT)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Rennes (FR)Helsinki (FI)Wien (AT)

İstanbul (TR)Antwerpen (BE)

Tallinn (EE)Roma (IT)

Vilnius (LT)Graz (AT)

Burgas (BG)Belfast (UK)Málaga (ES)Napoli (IT)Oviedo (ES)

Newcastle (UK)Cardiff (UK)Zagreb (HR)

Glasgow (UK)Ankara (TR)

Manchester (UK)Riga (LV)

Lefkosia (CY)Valletta (MT)Madrid (ES)Antalya (TR)

Barcelona (ES)Liège (BE)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Sofia (BG)Oulu (FI)

Athinia (EL)Irakleio (EL)



Diff:

0

2009 200626

23

15

13

12

12

11

8

8

7

6

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐2

‐3

‐3

‐3

‐3

‐3

‐3

‐4

‐4

‐4

‐4

‐5

‐5

‐5

‐5

‐5

‐6

‐6

‐7

‐7

‐7

‐7

‐9

‐11

‐11

‐11

‐12

‐12

‐12

‐15

‐15

‐16

‐17

page 73

Respondents feel safe in the city (% always) 2006-2009

3669496149644551424447425161533258513959525056416753566079774763543534484144735960344873413041766563673120472084613352333055597832604725571445323634

0 20 40 60 80 10

Napoli (IT)Bordeaux (FR)Gdańsk (PL)Verona (IT)Malmö (SE)

Stockholm (SE)Bologna (IT)

Lille (FR)Warszawa (PL)Marseille (FR)Kraków (PL)Tallinn (EE)Berlin (DE)Zagreb (HR)Palermo (IT)London (UK)Białystok (PL)Cardiff (UK)

Bratislava (SK)Dortmund (DE)

Belfast (UK)Antalya (TR)Rennes (FR)Torino (IT)Helsinki (FI)

Strasbourg (FR)Newcastle (UK)Hamburg (DE)Groningen (NL)

Oulu (FI)Madrid (ES)Ljubljana (SI)

Rotterdam (NL)Manchester (UK)

Vilnius (LT)Antwerpen (BE)

Dublin (IE)Kosice (SK)

Luxembourg (LU)Leipzig (DE)Essen (DE)Lisboa (PT)

Diyarbakir (TR)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Glasgow (UK)Praha (CZ)Roma (IT)

München (DE)Amsterdam (NL)

Wien (AT)København (DK)

Ostrava (CZ)İstanbul (TR)Lefkosia (CY)

Sofia (BG)Oviedo (ES)Graz (AT)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Paris (FR)Riga (LV)Liège (BE)

Valletta (MT)Málaga (ES)Aalborg (DK)Burgas (BG)

Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Barcelona (ES)Bucureşti (RO)

Braga (PT)Athinia (EL)Ankara (TR)

Budapest (HU)Irakleio (EL)Miskolc (HU)


Base: all respondents, % of ”Always” by city

Diff:

0

2009 2006

21

19

18

15

15

14

13

13

11

11

11

10

10

10

10

10

9

8

8

8

7

7

7

7

6

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐3

‐3

‐3

‐3

‐4

‐4

‐5

‐6

‐6

‐8

‐9

‐9

‐10

‐11

‐19

‐20

Respondents feel safe in their neighbourhood(% always) 2006-2009

5287889068897655887663676653718270797491878464776083596782757083617266895671877480547988769174337384746762756978584653637060606567385938494446504846

0 20 40 60 80 10

Napoli (IT)Berlin (DE)

Hamburg (DE)Leipzig (DE)Gdańsk (PL)Essen (DE)Dublin (IE)

Manchester (UK)Dortmund (DE)Białystok (PL)Kraków (PL)

Warszawa (PL)Cardiff (UK)London (UK)Verona (IT)

Stockholm (SE)Glasgow (UK)Ljubljana (SI)Belfast (UK)

München (DE)Luxembourg (LU)

Bordeaux (FR)Liège (BE)

Rotterdam (NL)Tallinn (EE)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Bologna (IT)Palermo (IT)Wien (AT)Lille (FR)

Newcastle (UK)København (DK)

Madrid (ES)Malmö (SE)

Marseille (FR)Oviedo (ES)Roma (IT)

Antwerpen (BE)Oulu (FI)

Málaga (ES)Helsinki (FI)Torino (IT)

Zagreb (HR)Groningen (NL)

Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Aalborg (DK)Rennes (FR)Sofia (BG)

Strasbourg (FR)Graz (AT)

Antalya (TR)Lefkosia (CY)

Barcelona (ES)Braga (PT)Paris (FR)

Amsterdam (NL)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)

Riga (LV)Lisboa (PT)

Bratislava (SK)Diyarbakir (TR)Budapest (HU)Valletta (MT)Kosice (SK)Ankara (TR)Burgas (BG)Miskolc (HU)Athinia (EL)Ostrava (CZ)

Bucureşti (RO)Praha (CZ)

Irakleio (EL)İstanbul (TR)Vilnius (LT)


Base: all respondents, % of ”Always” by city

Diff:

0

2009 200621

21

18

17

17

16

15

15

14

13

13

12

11

11

10

10

9

9

8

8

8

7

6

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐2

‐3

‐3

‐3

‐4

‐4

‐4

‐4

‐4

‐5

‐6

‐7

‐8

‐8

‐8

‐10

‐10

‐11

‐11

‐13

‐17

‐19

‐20

‐25

page 75

Air pollution is a major problem (% “disagree”) 2006-2009

56234147546067474155506168663258525048325735255235166220692017383116612546292319232044213328242015361075975142319212312652746662074176306233427

0 20 40 60 80 10

Helsinki (FI)Valletta (MT)Bratislava (SK)


Dortmund (DE)Newcastle (UK)

Kosice (SK)Manchester (UK)

Bordeaux (FR)Málaga (ES)

Luxembourg (LU)Rennes (FR)Leipzig (DE)Zagreb (HR)Cardiff (UK)Belfast (UK)Antalya (TR)

München (DE)Amsterdam (NL)

Wien (AT)Lille (FR)

Praha (CZ)Essen (DE)

Gdańsk (PL)Verona (IT)

Oulu (FI)Paris (FR)

Oviedo (ES)Vilnius (LT)Torino (IT)

Glasgow (UK)Riga (LV)

Bologna (IT)Hamburg (DE)

Graz (AT)Braga (PT)

Ljubljana (SI)Rotterdam (NL)

London (UK)Barcelona (ES)Lefkosia (CY)

Diyarbakir (TR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)

Tallinn (EE)København (DK)Marseille (FR)

Strasbourg (FR)Madrid (ES)Miskolc (HU)

Roma (IT)Groningen (NL)

Burgas (BG)Białystok (PL)Lisboa (PT)Liège (BE)

Warszawa (PL)Kraków (PL)

Cluj‐Napoc (RO)Napoli (IT)

Aalborg (DK)İstanbul (TR)Ankara (TR)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Antwerpen (BE)

Sofia (BG)Athinia (EL)Palermo (IT)

Bucureşti (RO)Irakleio (EL)

Budapest (HU)Ostrava (CZ)Malmö (SE)

Stockholm (SE)


disagree with each of these statements?Base: all respondents, % of ”’Strongly and somewhat disagree” by city

Diff:

0

19

17

16

15

15

15

15

14

14

13

13

13

13

13

12

12

11

11

11

11

10

10

10

9

9

8

8

8

8

8

7

7

7

7

6

6

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐2

‐3

‐9

‐10

‐11

‐16

‐16

2009 2006

Noise is a major problem (% “disagree”) 2006-2009

365554566242193437504267512440354747264563286436763553424520592941211543623919374737175756794240216416296548502946429331245351624151843331111333240

0 20 40 60 80 10

Valletta (MT)Dublin (IE)

Manchester (UK)Bordeaux (FR)Belfast (UK)

Lille (FR)İstanbul (TR)Zagreb (HR)Vilnius (LT)

Amsterdam (NL)København (DK)

Białystok (PL)Helsinki (FI)Praha (CZ)Tallinn (EE)Málaga (ES)

Strasbourg (FR)Wien (AT)

London (UK)Glasgow (UK)Cardiff (UK)Paris (FR)

Newcastle (UK)Ljubljana (SI)

Oulu (FI)Bratislava (SK)Hamburg (DE)

Riga (LV)Rotterdam (NL)Barcelona (ES)

Oviedo (ES)Marseille (FR)

Liège (BE)Lefkosia (CY)Madrid (ES)Miskolc (HU)

Luxembourg (LU)Berlin (DE)Lisboa (PT)

Antalya (TR)Braga (PT)

Gdańsk (PL)Napoli (IT)

Leipzig (DE)Rennes (FR)

Groningen (NL)Graz (AT)

Verona (IT)Palermo (IT)Aalborg (DK)

Roma (IT)Cluj‐Napoc (RO)

Piatra Neamț (RO)München (DE)Dortmund (DE)

Bologna (IT)Kosice (SK)Athinia (EL)Torino (IT)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Budapest (HU)

Essen (DE)Diyarbakir (TR)Warszawa (PL)

Burgas (BG)Irakleio (EL)Kraków (PL)

Antwerpen (BE)Ankara (TR)

Bucureşti (RO)Sofia (BG)

Stockholm (SE)Ostrava (CZ)Malmö (SE)


disagree with each of these statements?Base: all respondents, % of ”Strongly and somewhat disagree” by city

Diff:

0

20

17

15

12

12

11

9

9

8

8

7

6

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐2

‐2

‐3

‐3

‐3

‐3

‐4

‐4

‐4

‐4

‐4

‐4

‐5

‐5

‐6

‐6

‐6

‐6

‐7

‐7

‐8

‐9

‐19

‐20

‐23

2009 2006

page 77

The city is clean (% agree)2006-2009

7669274626487140886972426156738377834878545884426493814263556562761572765024964344964397323844846973464972712776835629631584346840336754355650132616

0 20 40 60 80 10

Stockholm (SE)Malmö (SE)Napoli (IT)

Valletta (MT)Marseille (FR)

Dublin (IE)Bordeaux (FR)Bratislava (SK)Białystok (PL)

Diyarbakir (TR)Lille (FR)

Warszawa (PL)Belfast (UK)Kraków (PL)Cardiff (UK)

Newcastle (UK)Ljubljana (SI)

Hamburg (DE)Rotterdam (NL)

Antalya (TR)Glasgow (UK)

Manchester (UK)Wien (AT)

Burgas (BG)Gdańsk (PL)

München (DE)Verona (IT)Praha (CZ)Torino (IT)

Madrid (ES)Tallinn (EE)Kosice (SK)Oulu (FI)

Sofia (BG)Helsinki (FI)Graz (AT)

Amsterdam (NL)Bucureşti (RO)

Luxembourg (LU)London (UK)

Paris (FR)Piatra Neamț (RO)København (DK)

Oviedo (ES)Berlin (DE)

İstanbul (TR)Miskolc (HU)

Groningen (NL)Ankara (TR)Aalborg (DK)

Antwerpen (BE)Ostrava (CZ)

Strasbourg (FR)Leipzig (DE)Roma (IT)

Rennes (FR)Braga (PT)Essen (DE)Liège (BE)

Zagreb (HR)Budapest (HU)

Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Málaga (ES)

Dortmund (DE)Barcelona (ES)

Lisboa (PT)Riga (LV)

Bologna (IT)Irakleio (EL)Vilnius (LT)

Lefkosia (CY)Palermo (IT)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Athinia (EL)



Diff:

0

2009 200623

22

19

19

18

17

17

15

15

14

13

12

11

11

10

10

9

9

9

9

9

8

8

8

7

7

7

7

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐2

‐3

‐4

‐5

‐5

‐6

‐7

‐8

‐8

‐10

‐11

‐11

‐12

‐13

‐14

The city spends its resources in a responsible way (% agree) 2006-2009

586158694136333166545739426563404449555826395243215749633654295645204352195644615652472641575035184650344414292550133415155431494435352633279274416

0 20 40 60 80 10

Białystok (PL)Stockholm (SE)

Malmö (SE)Luxembourg (LU)

Ljubljana (SI)Burgas (BG)

Warszawa (PL)Kosice (SK)

Bordeaux (FR)Antalya (TR)

Lille (FR)Marseille (FR)

Lisboa (PT)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Groningen (NL)Praha (CZ)

Ostrava (CZ)Valletta (MT)Verona (IT)Oviedo (ES)

Bratislava (SK)İstanbul (TR)Belfast (UK)London (UK)

Sofia (BG)München (DE)Bologna (IT)

Newcastle (UK)Graz (AT)

Helsinki (FI)Leipzig (DE)Rennes (FR)

Diyarbakir (TR)Bucureşti (RO)

Ankara (TR)Rotterdam (NL)

Napoli (IT)Aalborg (DK)Málaga (ES)Braga (PT)

Cardiff (UK)Strasbourg (FR)

Torino (IT)Tallinn (EE)Paris (FR)

Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Antwerpen (BE)

Dublin (IE)Berlin (DE)Kraków (PL)

Glasgow (UK)Hamburg (DE)Gdańsk (PL)

Riga (LV)Lefkosia (CY)Essen (DE)

Manchester (UK)Vilnius (LT)

Barcelona (ES)Palermo (IT)Athinia (EL)Irakleio (EL)Liège (BE)Wien (AT)

København (DK)Madrid (ES)

Amsterdam (NL)Roma (IT)

Miskolc (HU)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)

Budapest (HU)Zagreb (HR)

Oulu (FI)Dortmund (DE)



Diff:

0

2009 200631

26

21

20

16

14

13

13

13

11

10

10

9

9

8

8

8

8

7

7

7

6

6

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐2

‐3

‐3

‐4

‐4

‐6

‐6

‐6

‐6

‐7

‐7

‐8

‐8

‐8

‐9

‐10

‐11

‐12

‐14

‐14

‐17

‐17

‐17

‐19

‐19

‐22

page 79

Administrative services help efficiently (% agree)2006-2009

5153435668686055555058555735786057725048685353673942575567624651403769555640614457464133655970606552494764612766685348502534356061323656443146472631

0 20 40 60 80 10

Stockholm (SE)Malmö (SE)

Bratislava (SK)Praha (CZ)Lille (FR)

Bordeaux (FR)Ljubljana (SI)Kraków (PL)

Marseille (FR)Warszawa (PL)Białystok (PL)Gdańsk (PL)Lisboa (PT)

Bucureşti (RO)Antwerpen (BE)

Ostrava (CZ)Antalya (TR)

Groningen (NL)Helsinki (FI)

Diyarbakir (TR)Luxembourg (LU)

Málaga (ES)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Rotterdam (NL)Zagreb (HR)Kosice (SK)

Valletta (MT)London (UK)Belfast (UK)Rennes (FR)

Hamburg (DE)Budapest (HU)München (DE)

Sofia (BG)Aalborg (DK)

Oulu (FI)Madrid (ES)Vilnius (LT)Dublin (IE)

Burgas (BG)Amsterdam (NL)

Essen (DE)İstanbul (TR)Napoli (IT)Braga (PT)

København (DK)Newcastle (UK)

Verona (IT)Oviedo (ES)

Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Paris (FR)

Ankara (TR)Strasbourg (FR)Glasgow (UK)

Berlin (DE)Bologna (IT)Cardiff (UK)Torino (IT)

Lefkosia (CY)Barcelona (ES)Palermo (IT)Leipzig (DE)Wien (AT)

Manchester (UK)Liège (BE)

Tallinn (EE)Graz (AT)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Roma (IT)

Athinia (EL)Irakleio (EL)

Dortmund (DE)Riga (LV)

Miskolc (HU)



Diff:

0

2009 200620

17

14

14

13

13

12

12

12

12

11

10

10

10

9

8

8

7

6

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐2

‐3

‐4

‐5

‐5

‐6

‐6

‐6

‐7

‐7

‐8

‐8

‐9

‐10

‐14

‐15

Satisfaction with cultural facilities (% satisfied) 2006-2009

7792905982828386828091918587785291886793576752948596916782898073928093728667925279869594959484729286967894919077944187739387827780499076716859544135

0 20 40 60 80 10

Białystok (PL)Luxembourg (LU)Strasbourg (FR)

Sofia (BG)Bratislava (SK)Madrid (ES)

Barcelona (ES)Warszawa (PL)

Kosice (SK)Bordeaux (FR)London (UK)Belfast (UK)Kraków (PL)

Budapest (HU)Cluj‐Napoca (RO)

Burgas (BG)Essen (DE)

Ljubljana (SI)Málaga (ES)Dublin (IE)

İstanbul (TR)Braga (PT)

Ankara (TR)Berlin (DE)

Miskolc (HU)Cardiff (UK)

Manchester (UK)Bucureşti (RO)

Gdańsk (PL)Malmö (SE)Oviedo (ES)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Aalborg (DK)Torino (IT)Paris (FR)

Marseille (FR)Rennes (FR)Athinia (EL)

Stockholm (SE)Antalya (TR)Ostrava (CZ)Praha (CZ)

Glasgow (UK)Amsterdam (NL)

Wien (AT)Newcastle (UK)Antwerpen (BE)

Lisboa (PT)Groningen (NL)

Tallinn (EE)Helsinki (FI)Liège (BE)

København (DK)Hamburg (DE)

Graz (AT)Vilnius (LT)

München (DE)Diyarbakir (TR)Dortmund (DE)

Verona (IT)Leipzig (DE)

Rotterdam (NL)Lille (FR)

Bologna (IT)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)

Irakleio (EL)Oulu (FI)

Zagreb (HR)Riga (LV)Roma (IT)

Palermo (IT)Lefkosia (CY)Napoli (IT)

Valletta (MT)

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each

of the following issues:Base: all respondents, % of ”Very and rather satisfied” by city

Diff:

page 81

0

2009 200620

13

13

13

12

11

10

10

10

10

9

9

8

8

8

7

7

7

7

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐3

‐3

‐4

‐4

‐7

‐9

‐22

‐27

Satisfaction with green spaces (% satisfied)2006-2009

8260487881667186796983877489757791815586369193758883859085548284798969939292748354785388806191688386897764788183889458599194628575888239674376233238

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Burgas (BG)Bratislava (SK)

Sofia (BG)Antwerpen (BE)

Tallinn (EE)Bucureşti (RO)

Kosice (SK)Belfast (UK)Madrid (ES)Verona (IT)

Rotterdam (NL)Riga (LV)

Marseille (FR)Newcastle (UK)

Praha (CZ)Ljubljana (SI)

Bordeaux (FR)Lille (FR)

Braga (PT)Dublin (IE)Napoli (IT)

Luxembourg (LU)Groningen (NL)

Ostrava (CZ)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Kraków (PL)Warszawa (PL)Glasgow (UK)

Torino (IT)Budapest (HU)

Paris (FR)Strasbourg (FR)

Gdańsk (PL)Oviedo (ES)

Diyarbakir (TR)Leipzig (DE)

Hamburg (DE)Cardiff (UK)Zagreb (HR)

Amsterdam (NL)Lisboa (PT)Bologna (IT)Málaga (ES)Rennes (FR)Essen (DE)

İstanbul (TR)Białystok (PL)

Cluj‐Napoca (RO)Berlin (DE)

London (UK)Helsinki (FI)Ankara (TR)Liège (BE)Graz (AT)

Antalya (TR)Wien (AT)

København (DK)München (DE)Barcelona (ES)Miskolc (HU)

Stockholm (SE)Malmö (SE)Vilnius (LT)

Dortmund (DE)Manchester (UK)

Oulu (FI)Aalborg (DK)Palermo (IT)

Roma (IT)Valletta (MT)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Athinia (EL)Irakleio (EL)Lefkosia (CY)



Diff:2009 200626

24

22

22

16

15

14

14

14

14

13

13

11

11

11

10

9

9

8

8

8

8

8

8

7

7

7

6

6

6

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐3

‐4

‐6

‐6

‐6

‐9

‐9

‐12

‐14

Satisfaction with sport facilities (% satisfied)2006-2009

5146477146594779536366745576426361896065606853316768693992716568594773785167387663576976667362895563425058696549586441704032304941537628563242483040

0 20 40 60 80 10

Warszawa (PL)Białystok (PL)Bratislava (SK)

Dublin (IE)Gdańsk (PL)Ljubljana (SI)Kraków (PL)

Luxembourg (LU)Kosice (SK)Madrid (ES)

Piatra Neamț (RO)Lille (FR)

Marseille (FR)München (DE)

Burgas (BG)Barcelona (ES)

Antwerpen (BE)Groningen (NL)

Málaga (ES)Tallinn (EE)Zagreb (HR)

Dortmund (DE)Cluj‐Napoca (RO)

Sofia (BG)Leipzig (DE)Braga (PT)

Manchester (UK)Budapest (HU)

Helsinki (FI)Bordeaux (FR)

Praha (CZ)Ostrava (CZ)

Graz (AT)Lisboa (PT)Rennes (FR)Cardiff (UK)Paris (FR)

Hamburg (DE)Vilnius (LT)

Amsterdam (NL)Berlin (DE)

London (UK)Malmö (SE)

Rotterdam (NL)Verona (IT)

Newcastle (UK)Wien (AT)Oulu (FI)

Lefkosia (CY)Strasbourg (FR)

İstanbul (TR)Essen (DE)Torino (IT)Oviedo (ES)Belfast (UK)

Valletta (MT)Stockholm (SE)

Bologna (IT)Ankara (TR)

Glasgow (UK)Miskolc (HU)

Diyarbakir (TR)Bucureşti (RO)

Roma (IT)Antalya (TR)

København (DK)Aalborg (DK)Napoli (IT)

Irakleio (EL)Palermo (IT)Athinia (EL)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Riga (LV)Liège (BE)



Diff:

0

2009 200621

20

16

16

15

15

15

15

12

11

10

10

9

9

8

7

7

7

7

7

6

6

6

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

0

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐2

‐2

‐3

‐4

‐4

‐4

‐4

‐5

‐5

‐5

‐5

‐5

‐6

‐7

‐7

‐7

‐9

‐11

‐11

‐13

‐13

‐16

page 83

Satisfaction with public transport (% satisfied)2006-2009

5843728268757660796887767778836690827458828284507583767647806870846876708277817265568965486817548293768291874667668665356260497949665365285060126855

0 20 40 60 80 10

Bratislava (SK)Sofia (BG)Tallinn (EE)

København (DK)Marseille (FR)

Graz (AT)Kraków (PL)İstanbul (TR)Madrid (ES)

Diyarbakir (TR)Stockholm (SE)

Zagreb (HR)Białystok (PL)Belfast (UK)

Groningen (NL)Lisboa (PT)

Strasbourg (FR)Praha (CZ)

Barcelona (ES)Burgas (BG)Oviedo (ES)

Luxembourg (LU)Bordeaux (FR)Valletta (MT)Aalborg (DK)

Paris (FR)Cluj‐Napoca (RO)

London (UK)Bucureşti (RO)

Malmö (SE)Ljubljana (SI)Málaga (ES)

Newcastle (UK)Gdańsk (PL)Cardiff (UK)Dublin (IE)

Rotterdam (NL)Glasgow (UK)

Antwerpen (BE)Ostrava (CZ)

Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Kosice (SK)Rennes (FR)

Riga (LV)Budapest (HU)Warszawa (PL)Lefkosia (CY)Torino (IT)

Amsterdam (NL)Helsinki (FI)

Lille (FR)Leipzig (DE)Wien (AT)

Hamburg (DE)Verona (IT)Bologna (IT)Liège (BE)

München (DE)Oulu (FI)Roma (IT)

Ankara (TR)Piatra Neamț (RO)

Braga (PT)Dortmund (DE)

Irakleio (EL)Essen (DE)

Antalya (TR)Manchester (UK)

Napoli (IT)Vilnius (LT)Athinia (EL)Palermo (IT)Berlin (DE)

Miskolc (HU)



Diff:

0

28

19

19

17

17

16

15

14

14

13

12

12

12

12

11

11

10

10

10

10

10

9

9

8

8

8

8

8

8

7

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1

‐2

‐2

‐2

‐3

‐4

‐5

‐5

‐5

‐7

‐8

‐9

‐9

‐10

‐12

‐13

‐18

2009 2006

page 85

For further information, please refer to:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.htm http://www.urbanaudit.org http://www.urbact.eu/en/home/index

The texts of this publication do not bind the Commission.

Date post:	11-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trandung
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

"Survey on perception of quality of life in 75 European cities" in 2009

Documents