fl_277_en . PERCEPÇÕES SOBRE A QUALIDADE DE VIDA- 2009 by PLATAFORMA DIGITAL SERVIÇO SOCIAL

Analytical Report

Flash EB No 251 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Public attitudes and perceptions in the euro area

Flash Eurobarometer f

European Commission

Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical report

Flash Eurobarometer 277 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Gallup Organisation

Fieldwork: November 2009

This survey was requested by the Directorate General for Regional Policy and coordinated by Directorate General Communication. page 1 This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

Flash EB Series #277

Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Conducted by The Gallup Organisation, Hungary upon the request of Directorate General for Regional Policy

Survey co-ordinated by Directorate General Communication This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

THE GALLUP ORGANISATION

Analytical report

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Main findings ......................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Perceptions about social reality........................................................................................................ 8 1.1 Health care, employment opportunities and housing costs ........................................................... 8 1.2 Poverty and financial difficulties ................................................................................................ 16 1.3 The presence of foreigners .......................................................................................................... 20 1.4 Feelings of safety and trust.......................................................................................................... 24 1.5 Cities’ most important problems ................................................................................................. 30 2. Pollution and climate change.......................................................................................................... 33 2.1 Clean and healthy cities............................................................................................................... 33 2.2 Cities committed to fight climate change .................................................................................... 41 3. Administrative services and city spending .................................................................................... 43 4. Satisfaction with cities’ infrastructure .......................................................................................... 47 5. Satisfaction with public transport.................................................................................................. 62 5.1 Frequency of using public transport ............................................................................................ 62 5.2 Means of commuting and commuting time ................................................................................. 64 5.3 Satisfaction with public transport ................................................................................................ 70 I. Annex tables ..................................................................................................................................... 91 II. Survey details ................................................................................................................................ 150 III. Questionnaire .............................................................................................................................. 153

page 3

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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 België/Belgique Bulgaria Česká Republika Danmark Deutschland

Eesti Éire/Ireland Elláda España

France

Italia

Kypros / Kıbrıs Latvija

City Antwerpen Brussel/Bruxelles Liège Burgas Sofia Ostrava Praha Aalborg København Berlin Dortmund Essen Hamburg Leipzig München Rostock* Tallinn Dublin Athina Irakleio Barcelona Madrid Málaga Oviedo Bordeaux Lille Marseille Paris Rennes Strasbourg Bologna Napoli Palermo Roma Torino Verona Lefkosia Riga

Country Lietuva Luxembourg (G.D.) Magyarország Malta Nederland Österreich Polska

Portugal România Slovenija Slovensko Suomi/Finland Sverige United Kingdom

Hrvatska Türkiye

City Vilnius Luxembourg Budapest Miskolc Valletta Amsterdam Groningen Rotterdam Graz Wien Białystok Gdańsk Kraków Warszawa Braga Lisboa Bucureşti Cluj-Napoca Piatra Neamţ Ljubljana Bratislava Kosice Helsinki Oulu Malmö Stockholm Belfast Cardiff Glasgow London Manchester Newcastle Zagreb Ankara Antalya Diyarbakır İstanbul

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

This Flash Eurobarometer survey (No 227) 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 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 report’s annex.

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 4

Analytical report

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Compared with previous surveys, Flash Eurobarometer No 227 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.

page 5

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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 6

Analytical report

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

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 7

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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 among the lowest 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.

page 8

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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

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) Gdaosk (PL) Kraków (PL) Irakleio (EL) Cluj-Napoc (RO) Budapest (HU) Riga (LV) Piatra Neamţ (RO) Vilnius (LT) Sofia (BG) Napoli (IT) Warszawa (PL) Palermo (IT) Athinia (EL) Bucureşti (RO) Burgas (BG)

Rather satisfied

Rather unsatisfied

54 58 62 52

Not at all satisfied

DK/NA

21 3 4 12 22 3 21 5 38 55 323 55 37 5 12 35 57 22 4 45 46 5 22 43 48 31 5 39 52 32 4 34 56 6 22 54 36 5 24 44 44 7 13 48 40 9 12 42 46 7 24 23 63 10 2 1 45 42 10 2 2 39 47 4 2 8 37 50 7 3 4 31 55 51 8 44 42 8 4 3 31 55 7 2 6 42 44 8 4 3 36 50 6 2 6 32 54 11 12 33 52 10 1 4 39 45 10 3 3 45 38 6 5 5 36 48 12 2 3 34 48 12 3 4 22 58 11 4 4 28 52 10 2 8 24 55 13 4 4 32 46 10 7 4 22 57 11 3 8 26 52 13 5 4 37 39 7 11 6 20 56 15 4 4 20 54 19 3 5 21 52 16 4 6 31 42 13 12 3 14 58 18 7 3 13 60 18 5 5 19 52 19 4 6 19 52 17 10 2 14 55 18 7 5 25 44 15 14 2 19 50 21 7 3 16 51 23 7 2 26 40 15 16 3 11 52 19 12 6 25 38 22 13 2 14 48 24 8 6 12 49 21 13 5 23 37 18 11 12 15 44 20 12 9 16 41 25 15 4 21 35 17 18 10 6 48 30 12 3 13 40 21 15 11 10 42 25 15 8 9 42 26 15 7 13 39 24 22 3 14 36 26 15 9 12 38 26 14 10 9 35 22 19 15 11 33 24 22 10 13 31 24 21 11 11 32 25 21 11 4 38 32 23 3 7 34 31 22 6 4 36 33 25 3 9 30 26 32 4 7 30 26 28 8 10 24 29 28 10 0

41 36 32 40

100

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 9

Flash EB No 277 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; mostly retired â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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 12.

page 10

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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

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 Neamţ (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)

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

DK/NA

23 38 14 8 17 14 43 18 9 17 16 40 21 10 13 13 41 24 8 15 11 42 23 6 18 14 38 23 17 8 14 36 21 16 12 12 38 18 6 27 11 38 30 13 9 8 40 32 10 11 5 43 29 7 17 13 32 22 20 13 10 32 24 22 13 4 37 29 16 14 7 33 26 25 9 6 33 24 25 13 4 35 29 19 14 10 28 24 15 23 8 29 19 24 20 8 29 28 11 25 7 30 28 30 5 6 31 28 23 13 8 29 33 9 21 5 31 12 9 44 6 28 32 13 21 3 31 32 11 24 13 21 27 34 6 9 24 26 24 17 3 29 28 16 24 10 21 26 31 12 9 22 20 40 10 2 29 36 10 24 5 25 29 20 22 4 25 39 25 7 4 25 32 25 15 5 23 29 30 13 3 24 34 23 17 5 21 26 32 16 5 21 29 42 3 3 24 32 27 15 4 21 41 12 22 3 21 32 23 21 4 19 31 18 28 5 18 29 34 14 4 17 29 40 11 2 19 46 29 5 1 18 49 17 15 4 16 34 36 11 2 16 23 38 21 1 16 50 18 15 1 15 32 41 10 2 15 45 20 18 2 15 44 34 5 5 12 16 62 6 4 12 30 48 5 6 10 27 54 3 2 14 22 47 15 2 13 27 47 11 1 13 22 55 9 2 12 33 26 27 1 13 47 26 13 3 10 32 50 5 1 12 28 48 10 1 12 47 30 10 2 11 22 52 13 1 12 35 44 8 2 10 30 46 13 0 11 33 44 12 2 9 33 45 11 1 8 44 42 5 3 4 20 69 3 1 7 12 71 10 1 5 15 71 7 03 24 70 3 03 20 75 2 0

100

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, % by city page 11

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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). For more details, see the chart on page 75.

page 12

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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

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 Neamţ (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)

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

75 71 71 70 69

Strongly agree

DK/NA

20 302 7 1 10 5 1 7 24 303 20 4 3 3 62 16 12 5 6 55 22 13 1 9 54 27 10 6 3 52 22 11 2 13 50 32 10 3 5 48 30 12 4 5 48 28 12 1 10 47 22 14 2 15 47 27 13 2 11 46 30 10 2 13 45 33 9 2 11 44 35 12 1 8 44 33 11 0 12 42 44 8 1 5 42 29 21 5 3 41 32 15 1 10 40 20 22 9 10 40 29 17 4 11 38 23 16 2 21 36 34 16 4 11 34 29 18 5 14 34 27 21 13 6 34 44 15 2 5 32 26 21 5 16 31 26 21 10 12 30 29 23 5 13 30 47 12 1 10 30 28 30 7 5 29 46 19 2 5 27 32 24 3 15 26 33 12 2 27 26 47 13 1 13 25 32 25 4 15 25 39 25 4 7 25 26 33 7 9 25 24 33 6 13 24 19 29 8 20 24 26 24 9 17 23 32 21 3 21 23 34 24 3 17 23 28 31 6 13 22 24 32 10 13 20 22 32 13 13 20 45 15 2 18 20 29 25 5 22 19 29 35 4 14 18 50 16 1 15 18 31 19 4 28 17 23 38 14 8 17 49 18 1 15 16 28 29 3 24 16 21 36 14 12 16 29 37 4 14 15 24 28 10 23 13 32 28 6 21 13 30 38 11 9 12 41 21 4 22 11 28 29 8 25 11 32 31 3 24 10 21 40 16 13 10 36 29 2 24 10 32 40 8 11 9 18 43 14 17 9 12 31 5 44 9 33 29 8 21 8 24 41 13 15 8 14 38 23 17 7 29 43 5 17 6 23 42 11 18 6 18 38 12 27 0

12 15

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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. The most significant changes in such positive opinions about the availability of reasonably priced housing were seen in Riga (+32 percentage points), Vilnius (+28), Tallinn (+23), Cluj-Napoca (+25), Piatra Neamt (+25), Valetta (+25) and Dublin (+23). For more details on the latter, see the chart on page 76.

page 14

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price Strongly agree

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 Neamţ (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)

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

DK/NA

29 42 17 3 8 23 44 16 5 11 22 44 16 8 11 16 48 27 7 3 17 42 20 6 16 12 44 22 6 17 21 33 22 15 9 8 45 24 9 14 21 30 21 23 4 14 37 32 9 9 12 38 30 8 12 11 37 26 9 16 13 35 33 12 8 14 33 18 18 17 16 30 20 23 10 14 32 23 12 19 16 31 23 25 6 12 34 22 22 11 12 33 21 19 15 17 28 17 27 12 17 26 20 18 18 18 23 14 22 22 12 29 28 29 3 11 29 22 27 12 12 28 27 17 17 10 29 23 26 13 8 30 27 21 14 13 25 24 34 4 8 29 21 34 9 16 19 21 29 15 8 26 32 23 11 12 22 21 37 9 8 25 34 18 15 6 27 31 16 21 11 21 22 27 19 4 28 30 21 17 8 22 32 25 14 7 22 27 35 9 11 18 19 48 5 3 24 37 30 7 5 21 29 37 8 5 21 26 31 17 8 17 30 42 3 5 20 36 34 6 3 22 35 28 11 6 17 31 34 12 4 19 37 24 16 2 20 37 24 17 2 21 29 23 26 5 17 43 25 10 4 17 26 47 6 2 18 26 41 14 3 16 22 50 8 2 17 34 32 14 1 17 28 36 18 3 15 44 30 7 6 12 20 56 7 3 14 33 38 12 7 10 27 46 10 4 13 37 41 5 4 12 31 45 7 2 14 36 36 13 4 12 12 67 5 3 13 48 26 10 3 11 35 45 6 4 10 21 60 4 3 9 32 54 3 1 9 22 64 4 1 9 28 55 8 2 8 20 64 6 1 8 35 53 3 2 6 41 44 7 1 5 41 48 5 06 23 65 7 02 19 77 1 0

100

Flash EB No 277 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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)3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as illustrated in the scatter plot on this page. 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 respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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. Correlation between perceptions about job opportunities and poverty 100

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .544

% disagreeing that poverty is a problem in the city

90 80

70 60 50 40 30

20 10 0 0

100

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

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. page 16

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Poverty is a problem Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

DK/NA

Aalborg (DK) 27 42 16 5 11 Oulu (FI) 14 48 27 6 5 Praha (CZ) 14 47 27 9 3 Oviedo (ES) 10 49 31 6 4 Valletta (MT) 23 30 28 10 10 Bratislava (SK) 12 39 34 10 5 Luxembourg (LU) 12 38 37 9 4 København (DK) 10 39 33 11 7 Groningen (NL) 11 37 35 7 11 Lefkosia (CY) 16 30 30 20 4 Stockholm (SE) 14 31 39 8 8 Warszawa (PL) 12 32 32 18 6 München (DE) 8 35 36 12 9 Gdansk (PL) 12 31 33 19 5 Rennes (FR) 10 33 37 10 10 Cardiff (UK) 11 32 36 14 8 Kraków (PL) 11 32 35 16 6 Helsinki (FI) 8 34 44 11 3 Antalya (TR) 15 26 26 30 3 Cluj-Napoc (RO) 12 29 28 26 6 Bologna (IT) 9 31 34 22 5 Verona (IT) 11 29 32 24 5 Newcastle (UK) 11 28 34 20 7 Ljubljana (SI) 10 29 36 21 4 Irakleio (EL) 9 29 32 28 2 Ostrava (CZ) 6 30 43 14 8 Amsterdam (NL) 7 28 46 12 7 Wien (AT) 6 28 39 20 7 Białystok (PL) 10 24 36 25 5 Burgas (BG) 13 21 28 31 7 Graz (AT) 6 27 46 15 6 Manchester (UK) 10 22 34 27 8 Kosice (SK) 5 26 44 18 6 Malmö (SE) 7 24 42 14 13 Málaga (ES) 5 26 49 18 2 Belfast (UK) 12 19 38 23 8 Strasbourg (FR) 7 23 47 18 5 Bordeaux (FR) 6 24 43 21 6 Madrid (ES) 6 23 51 17 3 Rostock (DE) 5 24 43 20 9 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 9 19 34 32 6 Sofia (BG) 12 16 26 44 3 Leipzig (DE) 4 24 47 19 7 Rotterdam (NL) 7 20 45 17 11 Braga (PT) 9 18 43 28 2 Hamburg (DE) 4 22 46 20 8 Roma (IT) 6 19 39 33 3 Barcelona (ES) 4 21 52 22 1 Essen (DE) 4 21 45 20 11 Ankara (TR) 9 15 32 43 2 London (UK) 7 18 36 35 5 Zagreb (HR) 11 13 22 53 2 Vilnius (LT) 7 17 29 42 5 Bucureşti (RO) 8 14 27 48 4 Dublin (IE) 8 14 38 37 4 Tallinn (EE) 4 17 35 39 5 Napoli (IT) 6 15 32 45 2 Glasgow (UK) 8 11 32 45 4 Antwerpen (BE) 4 15 49 19 14 Lille (FR) 4 14 49 30 3 Torino (IT) 3 15 41 36 5 Palermo (IT) 2 15 34 47 2 İstanbul (TR) 8 9 25 58 1 Paris (FR) 4 11 49 34 3 Dortmund (DE) 2 14 48 31 6 Berlin (DE) 3 12 41 41 4 Marseille (FR) 5 10 37 45 4 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 3 10 42 41 4 Athinia (EL) 4 10 24 61 2 Liège (BE) 3 10 53 32 3 Diyarbakir (TR) 5 7 23 64 1 Lisboa (PT) 3 7 39 50 1 Budapest (HU) 3 7 21 67 2 Riga (LV) 4 4 17 70 4 Miskolc (HU) 1 3 15 78 2 0

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 Neamţ (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)

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Difficulties in paying bills The proportion of respondents who answered that they never or rarely have difficulties in paying their bills at the end of month was the highest in Copenhagen, Aalborg and Stockholm (between 88% and 94%). In 12 other cities, more than 80% of respondents said they never or rarely have difficulties in paying such bills – almost all of these cities being in the northern or western part of Europe (e.g. Luxembourg, Essen, Hamburg and Helsinki). A majority of respondents in many cities across Europe thought that poverty was a problem in their city (see previous section); nevertheless, it was rare for more than half of them to admit having financial difficulties themselves. In Istanbul and Diyarbakir, roughly two-thirds (65%-66%) of respondents felt that they sometimes or always have difficulties in paying their monthly bills. In Valletta, Antalya, Ankara, Naples and Riga, between 50% and 57% of respondents stated that they have had a similar experience. A comparison with the results of the previous perception survey showed that, in Naples and Valletta, there was only a small change in the proportion of respondents who said they never have difficulties in paying monthly bills. However, the other cities at the bottom of the ranking in the current survey – Istanbul, Diyarbakir, Ankara, Athens and Iraklion – have seen a considerable decrease in the proportion of respondents who never or rarely have difficulties in paying such bills (between -9 and 16 percentage points). The opposite trend (i.e. a larger proportion of respondents who never or rarely have difficulties in paying bills in 2009 than in 2006) was observed, for example, in the Polish cities included in this survey: Gdansk (+18 percentage points), Cracow (+14), Warsaw (+12) and Bialystok (+6). For more details on the comparison of the results of the 2006 and 2009 perception surveys, see the chart on page 77. Correlation between “poverty” and “difficulties to pay bills” 100

% “never” having difficulties to pay bills

90 80 70 60

50 40 30 20

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .424

10 0 0

% disagreeing that poverty is a problem in the city

page 18

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Difficulties in paying bills at the end of the month Never

Rarely

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

Sometimes

Always

83 79 76 76 78

DK/NA

3 12 7 14 10 11 11 11 8 14 68 18 9 32 77 7 7 2 7 67 17 14 21 70 13 11 32 68 15 12 23 72 10 13 1 4 67 15 12 4 2 67 14 13 3 3 65 16 10 5 4 61 20 15 32 68 12 9 3 8 66 14 13 4 4 65 15 14 4 3 63 16 17 31 66 12 9 5 8 61 17 17 23 70 8 12 3 9 61 16 18 32 63 14 16 4 4 68 8 13 6 5 54 22 16 4 4 62 13 15 4 6 59 15 19 2 4 61 14 20 41 60 14 17 6 3 56 18 19 4 3 57 17 20 4 2 62 12 18 3 5 56 18 18 6 3 58 16 20 4 2 60 13 19 2 7 56 17 18 5 4 56 16 18 5 5 53 19 20 7 1 57 15 21 3 5 56 15 22 3 4 58 13 20 4 6 56 14 20 6 3 60 11 24 5 2 53 16 18 5 7 52 17 23 5 4 55 14 18 10 3 60 9 24 4 3 50 19 21 5 6 50 19 23 4 5 54 14 21 7 4 48 20 24 6 2 51 16 22 5 6 53 13 21 8 5 50 17 25 4 6 45 20 25 5 5 49 16 28 6 2 52 11 24 5 8 53 11 22 12 2 43 18 28 9 2 47 14 27 10 3 44 16 24 13 4 40 19 22 16 3 41 15 29 10 5 32 23 30 12 4 40 14 25 16 5 40 13 34 9 4 29 22 35 10 3 33 13 34 18 2 28 15 33 20 4 33 10 31 25 2 34 7 38 19 1 26 14 27 23 10 23 11 35 30 1 25 8 37 29 2 0

9 12 11 8

100

Q3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? Base: all respondents, % by city page 19

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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.

page 20

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

The presence of foreigners is good for the city Strongly agree

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

Somewhat agree 48

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

DK/NA

6 21 4 3 5 45 38 6 4 6 50 33 6 5 6 34 50 8 5 3 48 34 6 5 8 48 33 5 2 12 27 54 8 4 7 31 49 12 3 4 44 36 5 3 13 40 40 10 3 7 28 52 11 2 8 35 44 10 6 4 45 33 6 6 11 41 36 8 5 10 37 40 13 5 5 39 38 7 7 9 25 51 9 2 13 34 42 8 5 11 43 34 10 10 4 28 48 12 7 5 23 52 9 4 12 39 36 11 8 6 40 35 10 10 6 21 54 10 1 14 18 55 18 6 2 24 49 13 7 7 24 49 14 7 6 30 42 14 7 7 39 33 10 10 8 27 45 18 8 2 28 43 12 7 9 22 49 18 4 7 19 50 10 7 14 28 41 11 11 9 19 50 19 7 5 19 50 10 6 16 15 54 15 11 6 28 40 12 14 7 21 47 19 4 9 20 47 20 9 4 17 49 20 5 10 33 33 10 8 16 40 25 14 16 6 31 34 12 12 12 26 39 13 14 9 28 36 12 13 11 20 43 15 11 11 27 36 13 20 4 28 35 15 15 8 22 39 14 7 17 32 29 12 17 10 16 45 23 7 10 17 43 23 9 7 13 46 24 12 5 12 47 23 11 6 14 45 23 7 11 11 48 27 9 6 16 42 25 10 8 15 42 26 8 9 9 47 29 10 5 8 46 26 15 5 13 42 27 8 11 14 40 19 17 10 9 44 33 9 5 19 34 16 16 15 12 41 25 14 8 8 44 26 18 5 9 41 26 18 6 16 32 19 20 13 8 39 23 20 10 10 38 23 9 21 8 33 29 19 13 9 31 24 32 4 7 24 24 41 4 0

44 33

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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 twothirds (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 (see the chart on page 78). Correlation between two statements about foreigners 100

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .503

% agreeing that foreigners are well integrated

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

% agreeing that the presence of foreigners is good page 22

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Foreigners are well integrated Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

DK/NA

Antalya (TR) 31 36 13 9 11 Groningen (NL) 14 52 16 1 16 Cluj-Napoc (RO) 27 38 7 2 25 Cardiff (UK) 21 45 16 10 8 Kosice (SK) 14 51 11 1 23 Braga (PT) 22 44 13 7 15 Luxembourg (LU) 15 50 28 5 3 Bratislava (SK) 17 46 11 2 23 Ljubljana (SI) 17 46 15 8 14 Lille (FR) 13 50 17 4 16 Bordeaux (FR) 13 49 15 4 18 Rennes (FR) 13 49 16 4 17 Málaga (ES) 13 48 26 5 7 Budapest (HU) 15 46 11 5 22 Strasbourg (FR) 10 50 24 6 10 Lisboa (PT) 9 50 24 8 9 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 31 27 6 3 33 Dublin (IE) 18 41 18 15 8 Palermo (IT) 9 50 22 11 9 London (UK) 20 38 23 13 7 Newcastle (UK) 19 39 19 13 10 Manchester (UK) 20 38 17 15 11 Glasgow (UK) 17 41 16 14 12 Marseille (FR) 18 39 22 14 8 Bucureşti (RO) 19 37 15 5 25 İstanbul (TR) 22 34 19 14 12 Verona (IT) 9 47 27 11 7 Diyarbakir (TR) 22 33 15 12 17 Zagreb (HR) 28 27 16 15 14 Oviedo (ES) 8 45 32 7 9 Rostock (DE) 8 44 26 2 20 Kraków (PL) 16 36 12 2 34 Praha (CZ) 11 41 26 7 16 Amsterdam (NL) 8 43 35 6 7 Aalborg (DK) 8 43 25 8 16 Ankara (TR) 17 33 20 13 17 Paris (FR) 8 42 32 7 10 München (DE) 9 41 31 6 14 Bologna (IT) 5 45 28 14 9 Valletta (MT) 16 33 12 10 29 Miskolc (HU) 14 34 8 3 40 Burgas (BG) 27 21 7 4 41 Irakleio (EL) 17 31 24 20 8 København (DK) 4 44 33 10 9 Roma (IT) 5 42 31 13 8 Belfast (UK) 12 35 27 15 12 Oulu (FI) 5 42 33 7 14 Ostrava (CZ) 12 35 20 7 27 Sofia (BG) 22 24 10 9 36 Warszawa (PL) 13 32 17 6 32 Gdansk (PL) 14 29 9 3 44 Torino (IT) 3 40 35 13 9 Vilnius (LT) 13 30 15 7 35 Rotterdam (NL) 7 36 39 10 9 Napoli (IT) 6 37 32 14 11 Liège (BE) 7 34 25 23 10 Hamburg (DE) 5 35 41 8 11 Białystok (PL) 12 28 19 8 33 Leipzig (DE) 6 33 33 5 23 Riga (LV) 17 22 15 13 33 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 8 31 29 23 10 Stockholm (SE) 7 31 39 12 11 Tallinn (EE) 9 29 27 11 25 Madrid (ES) 5 33 47 10 6 Barcelona (ES) 5 31 44 14 6 Antwerpen (BE) 2 34 29 25 11 Helsinki (FI) 3 33 47 12 6 Malmö (SE) 4 31 37 23 5 Essen (DE) 4 30 41 10 15 Dortmund (DE) 4 28 42 14 12 Lefkosia (CY) 10 20 31 34 6 Berlin (DE) 4 25 53 12 6 Graz (AT) 5 24 44 16 12 Wien (AT) 3 23 50 14 10 Athinia (EL) 6 14 25 52 3 0

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

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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%).

page 24

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Generally speaking, most people in the city can be trusted Strongly agree

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 Neamţ (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)

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

DK/NA

34 56 4 2 4 26 62 7 24 27 61 50 7 24 64 9 13 22 65 9 32 31 56 8 14 24 62 8 3 3 21 63 7 3 6 31 52 10 2 4 27 55 12 3 4 26 55 10 2 6 24 56 12 3 5 26 54 13 2 6 20 59 11 4 7 35 43 9 8 5 18 59 19 32 30 45 10 8 6 20 54 15 4 7 30 44 11 11 3 18 56 13 8 6 17 57 18 5 4 13 60 19 4 5 13 58 17 3 9 15 56 21 4 4 15 56 15 8 6 12 58 24 5 3 17 51 17 10 6 20 46 20 8 7 12 53 19 7 8 7 58 24 8 3 8 57 15 5 15 11 54 15 10 11 11 54 18 6 11 25 38 15 16 6 27 36 16 16 5 6 56 22 9 8 11 50 24 12 3 18 42 17 14 9 10 49 20 13 8 17 42 16 11 14 15 43 20 10 13 13 45 20 11 11 10 47 22 15 6 20 36 21 14 8 14 43 25 14 5 6 49 27 15 4 23 31 22 22 4 10 42 21 21 6 10 40 24 19 7 5 44 23 19 9 5 44 28 14 9 8 40 32 15 5 17 31 23 28 1 11 36 27 13 13 12 35 25 25 2 5 41 29 20 6 16 30 21 25 9 6 39 30 18 7 5 39 32 11 15 15 28 26 27 5 14 29 27 29 2 7 35 29 25 5 9 32 28 21 10 8 33 28 23 8 6 32 30 20 12 15 22 24 35 4 4 32 38 12 14 5 30 36 19 10 5 29 32 26 8 7 24 22 41 7 3 24 29 37 6 6 20 22 48 5 3 19 25 50 2 5 16 23 48 8 4 10 26 59 2 0

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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 (see the chart on page 79). 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%). Correlation between “trust in people” and “feeling safe in the city” 100

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .828

% “always” feeling safe in their city

80 70

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

% agreeing that most people in the city can be trusted page 26

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Respondents feel safe in the city Always

Oviedo (ES) Groningen (NL) Aalborg (DK) Oulu (FI) München (DE) Piatra Neamţ (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)

Sometimes

Rarely

84 79 78 77 76 73 73 69 67 67 65 64 63 63 63 61 61 61 60 60 60 59 59 59 58 57 56 56 55 54 53 53 52 52 51 51 51 50 49 49 48 48 47 47 47 47 45 45 44 44 42 42 41 41 41 41 39 36 36 35 34 34 34 33 33 32 32 32 31 30 30 25 36 20 30 20 30 14 42 0

Never

DK/NA

14 11 19 10 21 11 20 20 19 41 21 23 23 31 25 4 2 30 21 30 21 31 12 33 31 29 6 1 29 6 2 28 7 3 23 8 8 29 7 3 27 8 4 31 3 4 32 6 2 34 5 2 32 7 2 29 7 3 29 8 3 33 5 2 36 6 2 39 32 36 6 2 32 8 4 36 6 3 36 6 4 29 9 9 39 6 3 41 4 3 43 4 2 37 9 3 37 6 6 30 7 11 42 6 2 42 5 4 30 9 12 28 6 17 41 7 3 38 9 6 37 9 6 40 9 5 36 7 12 32 12 11 37 8 10 34 16 4 46 7 4 32 14 10 46 7 5 31 14 14 30 13 15 48 8 3 40 15 6 44 9 10 25 18 21 51 8 4 44 11 11 35 18 12 33 12 19 32 13 20 36 14 15 55 8 5 36 16 13 32 16 19 37 18 13 35 22 12 46 11 12 15 22 20 29 11 39 17 27 60

100

Q3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? Base: all respondents, % by city page 27

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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). For more details on the comparison of the results of the 2006 and 2009 perception surveys, see the chart on page 80. Correlation between feeling safe in cities and neighbourhoods 100

% “always” feeling safe in their own neighbourhood

90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .897

20 10 0 0

% “always” feeling safe in their city

v page 28

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Respondents feel safe in theirneighbourhood Always

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 Neamţ (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)

Sometimes

Rarely

91 91 91 90 89 89 88 88 88 87 87 87 84 84 83 83 82 82 80 79 79 78 77 76 76 76 75 75 74 74 74 74 73 72 71 71 70 70 70 69 68 67 67 67 67 66 66 65 64 63 63 62 61 60 60 60 59 59 58 56 55 54 53 53 52 50 49 48 46 46 46 44 38 38 33 32 0

Never

DK/NA

7 10 8 10 8 10 7 20 9 01 8 21 9 11 11 0 10 11 11 10 12 10 10 12 12 2 3 13 12 15 11 14 12 17 10 14 22 18 20 16 41 13 4 4 19 21 19 31 19 31 18 23 21 21 19 23 20 32 22 22 18 4 4 20 42 19 2 6 21 3 3 22 4 2 19 3 7 21 6 2 18 3 9 26 32 25 32 24 5 2 24 5 2 24 4 4 25 4 4 21 5 7 20 7 7 30 22 25 5 4 22 10 2 23 6 8 27 7 3 25 9 3 27 6 5 30 6 4 28 6 5 25 7 7 23 8 9 22 11 8 23 9 9 25 8 9 22 10 11 37 4 4 27 8 11 34 7 5 38 5 4 21 12 15 34 7 8 31 12 8 25 6 21 30 17 7 29 9 16 27 10 15 32 9 13 38 9 14 35 11 13 13 21 60

100

Q3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? Base: all respondents, % by city page 29

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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.

page 30

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Perceptions about cities’ most important problems (three most mentioned issues) Antwerpen (BE) Urban safety Roads Air pollution Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) Urban safety Jobs creation Education Liège (BE) Urban safety Jobs creation Air pollution Ostrava (CZ) Air pollution Jobs creation Urban safety Praha (CZ) Air pollution Noise Urban safety Aalborg (DK) Health services Education Jobs creation Kobenhavn (DK) Health services Education Jobs creation Berlin (DE) Jobs creation Education Urban safety Dortmund (DE) Jobs creation Education Roads Essen (DE) Jobs creation Education Health services Hamburg (DE) Education Jobs creation Urban safety Leipzig (DE) Jobs creation Education Roads München (DE) Education Jobs creation Urban safety Rostock (DE) Jobs creation Education Health services Tallinn (EE) Jobs creation Health services Social services Athinia (EL) Health services Air pollution Jobs creation Irakleio (EL) Roads Health services Jobs creation Barcelona (ES) Jobs creation Health services Urban safety Madrid (ES) Jobs creation Health services Urban safety

47 30 30 45 37 35 50 43 33 55 40 32 43 38 34 49 47 40 39 38 33

68 59

66 51 31

60 51

59 52 35 69 50 31 50 43 34 72 51 36 55 44 34 52 47 38 45 44 39 54 46 41 59 48 37

Málaga (ES) Jobs creation Health services Education Oviedo (ES) Jobs creation Health services Education Bordeaux (FR) Jobs creation Housing Health services Lille (FR) Jobs creation Urban safety Health services Marseille (FR) Jobs creation Urban safety Education Paris (FR) Housing Jobs creation Education Rennes (FR) Jobs creation Education Health services Strasbourg (FR) Jobs creation Air pollution Education Dublin (IE) Jobs creation Health services Education Bologna (IT) Jobs creation Air pollution Urban safety Napoli (IT) Jobs creation Air pollution Health services Palermo (IT) Jobs creation Air pollution Health services Roma (IT) Jobs creation Air pollution Public transport Torino (IT) Jobs creation Air pollution Urban safety Verona (IT) Air pollution Jobs creation Urban safety Lefkosia (CY) Public transport Health services Air pollution Riga (LV) Jobs creation Health services Social services Vilnius (LT) Jobs creation Health services Urban safety Luxembourg (LU) Education Jobs creation Housing

45 39

65 48 40 52 37 36 51 39 37 50 38 34 51 41 36 51 42 35

47 44 39 63 63 48 42 38 37 73

39 35 38 36

49 39 33 39 37

48 42 29 45 44 35

69 59

53 46 31 47 44 39

Budapest (HU) Jobs creation Health services Air pollution Miskolc (HU) Jobs creation Urban safety Health services Valletta (MT) Air pollution Health services Roads Amsterdam (NL) Education Urban safety Health services Groningen (NL) Education Jobs creation Health services Rotterdam (NL) Urban safety Education Health services Wien (AT) Education Jobs creation Urban safety Graz (AT) Jobs creation Education Air pollution Białystok (PL) Jobs creation Health services Roads Gdaosk (PL) Health services Roads Jobs creation Kraków (PL) Health services Roads Jobs creation Warszawa (PL) Health services Roads Public transport Braga (PT) Jobs creation Health services Education Lisboa (PT) Health services Jobs creation Urban safety Ljubljana (SI) Health services Jobs creation Housing Bratislava (SK) Roads Air pollution Health services Kosice (SK) Jobs creation Urban safety Air pollution Helsinki (FI) Health services Education Public transport Oulu (FI) Health services Jobs creation Education

Malmö (SE) Jobs creation Health services Urban safety Stockholm (SE) Housing 78 Jobs creation 49 Health services 40 Belfast (UK) Education 45 Health services 37 Jobs creation 31 Cardiff (UK) Health services 46 Education 39 Jobs creation 38 Glasgow (UK) Health services 44 Education 41 Jobs creation 40 London (UK) Health services 52 Education 41 Jobs creation 38 Manchester (UK) Education 48 Health services 46 Jobs creation 45 Newcastle (UK) Health services 41 Jobs creation 41 Education 38 Burgas (BG) Air pollution 71 Health services 60 Jobs creation 38 Sofia (BG) Air pollution 52 Roads 49 Health services 44 Zagreb (HR) Jobs creation 53 Health services 45 Housing 43 Bucureşti (RO) Health services 56 Education 44 Air pollution 38 Cluj-Napoc (RO) Jobs creation 70 Health services 67 Education 43 Piatra Neamţ (RO) Jobs creation 62 51 Health services Education 37 Ankara (TR) 45 Health services Education 45 33 Jobs creation Antalya (TR) 30 Health services 30 Education 29 Jobs creation Diyarbakir (TR) 44 Education 27 Jobs creation 23 Health services İstanbul (TR) 66 Health services 46 Jobs creation 40 Education 50 46 39

54 46 38 41 40 40 58 57 52 55 49 46 53 51 47 49 44 42 47 46 44 53 52 50 63 51 39 56 51 38

47 31 37 37

52 52

64 59

53 52 44 51 50 35 61 61 52 50 48 47

64 59 53

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

page 31

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

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

Braga (PT) 78 Helsinki (FI) 73 Oulu (FI) 72 Dublin (IE) 72 Lisboa (PT) 71 Białystok (PL) 70 Riga (LV) 69 69 Piatra Neamţ (RO) Belfast (UK) 68 Warszawa (PL) 67 Bucureşti (RO) 66 Cardiff (UK) 65 Kraków (PL) 64 Ankara (TR) 63 Glasgow (UK) 62 Newcastle (UK) 62 Diyarbakir (TR) 61 Athinia (EL) 60 Cluj-Napoc (RO) 59 Gdaosk (PL) 59 Burgas (BG) 55 Antalya (TR) 54 İstanbul (TR) 54 Aalborg (DK) 53 London (UK) 52 Madrid (ES) 52 Oviedo (ES) 52 Zagreb (HR) 52 Budapest (HU) 52 Malmö (SE) 51 Barcelona (ES) 51 Vilnius (LT) 51 Manchester (UK) 50 Ljubljana (SI) 50 Málaga (ES) 49 Tallinn (EE) 48 Irakleio (EL) 47 Lefkosia (CY) 47 Wien (AT) 46 Miskolc (HU) 46 Stockholm (SE) 45 Groningen (NL) 44 Kobenhavn (DK) 44 Rotterdam (NL) 44 Sofia (BG) 44 Amsterdam (NL) 44 Lille (FR) 43 Valletta (MT) 43 Luxembourg (LU) 43 Palermo (IT) 42 Rostock (DE) 42 Bordeaux (FR) 42 Napoli (IT) 41 Rennes (FR) 41 Graz (AT) 41 Marseille (FR) 40 Roma (IT) 40 Strasbourg (FR) 40 Torino (IT) 39 Paris (FR) 39 Essen (DE) 38 Bratislava (SK) 37 Hamburg (DE) 35 Leipzig (DE) 35 Dortmund (DE) 33 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 33 Bologna (IT) 32 Liège (BE) 31 Berlin (DE) 31 München (DE) 28 Verona (IT) 24 Antwerpen (BE) 22 Kosice (SK) 19 Praha (CZ) 18 Ostrava (CZ) 17

Analytical report

Education and training

Diyarbakir (TR) 67 Berlin (DE) 66 Hamburg (DE) 64 Belfast (UK) 63 Oulu (FI) 62 Ankara (TR) 60 Essen (DE) 59 Glasgow (UK) 59 Dortmund (DE) 57 Rostock (DE) 56 Leipzig (DE) 55 München (DE) 55 Newcastle (UK) 53 Antalya (TR) 53 Cardiff (UK) 53 Dublin (IE) 53 Wien (AT) 52 Aalborg (DK) 52 İstanbul (TR) 52 Manchester (UK) 52 Luxembourg (LU) 51 Amsterdam (NL) 51 Helsinki (FI) 50 Groningen (NL) 49 London (UK) 49 Braga (PT) 48 Rennes (FR) 48 Graz (AT) 47 Rotterdam (NL) 46 Oviedo (ES) 46 Málaga (ES) 46 Strasbourg (FR) 46 Barcelona (ES) 46 Kobenhavn (DK) 45 Bucureşti (RO) 45 Madrid (ES) 44 Riga (LV) 44 Paris (FR) 44 Lisboa (PT) 44 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 40 Cluj-Napoc (RO) 40 Marseille (FR) 40 Lille (FR) 39 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 38 Bordeaux (FR) 38 Liège (BE) 38 Athinia (EL) 37 Białystok (PL) 37 Gdaosk (PL) 37 Irakleio (EL) 36 Antwerpen (BE) 36 Lefkosia (CY) 36 Malmö (SE) 35 Warszawa (PL) 35 Valletta (MT) 33 Sofia (BG) 32 Stockholm (SE) 32 Kraków (PL) 31 Ljubljana (SI) 30 Tallinn (EE) 29 Zagreb (HR) 29 Napoli (IT) 29 Bologna (IT) 29 Vilnius (LT) 29 Budapest (HU) 28 Torino (IT) 28 Roma (IT) 27 Palermo (IT) 27 Burgas (BG) 27 Verona (IT) 26 Miskolc (HU) 24 Praha (CZ) 23 Ostrava (CZ) 20 Kosice (SK) 18 Bratislava (SK) 15

61 59 59 58 53 52 51 51 51 51 50 50 50 50 49 48 48 47 47 47 47 46 46 44 44 43 42 41 41 40 39 39 39 38 37 36 36 36 35 35 34 34 33 32 32 30 29 28 28 27 25 24 24 24 23 23 22 22 22 21 20 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 13 13 9 9 8 6

Q5. Among the following issues, which are the three most important for your city? Base: all respondents, % by city page 32

Analytical report

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

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). For more details on the latter, see the chart on page 81.

page 33

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Air pollution is a major problem Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

DK/NA

Rostock (DE) 35 46 13 4 2 Groningen (NL) 28 47 18 3 4 Białystok (PL) 36 39 15 8 3 Oviedo (ES) 19 50 24 6 1 Rennes (FR) 27 41 21 7 4 Newcastle (UK) 28 39 16 11 7 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 36 31 17 15 2 Leipzig (DE) 11 55 24 6 4 Aalborg (DK) 20 44 21 8 7 Oulu (FI) 18 44 31 7 1 Hamburg (DE) 15 47 25 9 5 Luxembourg (LU) 20 41 26 9 4 Dortmund (DE) 18 42 27 11 2 Cardiff (UK) 21 37 20 14 8 Wien (AT) 15 43 27 14 2 Helsinki (FI) 13 43 32 10 2 Bordeaux (FR) 20 34 30 14 2 Dublin (IE) 27 26 23 21 2 Belfast (UK) 18 33 24 17 7 Essen (DE) 12 40 32 15 2 Antalya (TR) 28 22 22 26 2 Málaga (ES) 13 36 33 14 4 München (DE) 10 38 34 14 4 Berlin (DE) 9 38 32 17 4 Kosice (SK) 5 42 34 16 3 Braga (PT) 17 29 34 17 3 Ankara (TR) 21 25 27 27 1 Diyarbakir (TR) 20 23 28 27 2 Manchester (UK) 13 29 27 23 9 Bratislava (SK) 5 36 40 18 1 Glasgow (UK) 13 25 28 29 6 Miskolc (HU) 10 27 31 30 3 Gdansk (PL) 12 23 25 35 5 Lille (FR) 13 22 37 26 3 Malmö (SE) 10 24 35 23 7 Tallinn (EE) 10 23 27 33 7 Zagreb (HR) 14 18 28 39 1 Amsterdam (NL) 7 24 42 21 6 Riga (LV) 15 16 27 40 3 Irakleio (EL) 7 23 23 46 1 Ljubljana (SI) 8 21 32 36 3 København (DK) 5 23 34 34 4 İstanbul (TR) 7 20 26 46 1 Stockholm (SE) 8 18 45 26 3 Graz (AT) 7 18 32 41 3 Praha (CZ) 3 21 43 31 2 Marseille (FR) 9 15 34 41 2 Rotterdam (NL) 6 18 46 27 4 Liège (BE) 4 19 48 24 5 Barcelona (ES) 5 18 45 31 1 Valletta (MT) 10 13 25 49 2 Cluj-Napoc (RO) 9 14 25 49 3 Ostrava (CZ) 4 19 34 43 1 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 5 17 46 30 3 Kraków (PL) 7 15 29 49 1 Vilnius (LT) 6 15 27 47 5 Lefkosia (CY) 5 15 29 50 2 Strasbourg (FR) 7 13 40 38 2 Antwerpen (BE) 6 14 44 28 8 Paris (FR) 5 15 36 41 3 Warszawa (PL) 5 14 30 47 4 London (UK) 5 14 35 42 4 Palermo (IT) 3 13 36 46 1 Torino (IT) 3 13 34 49 1 Verona (IT) 5 11 40 42 2 Bologna (IT) 4 12 42 42 1 Madrid (ES) 3 12 46 39 1 Lisboa (PT) 3 11 36 49 1 Napoli (IT) 3 9 35 51 1 Roma (IT) 3 7 31 58 1 Burgas (BG) 4 5 18 71 2 Sofia (BG) 4 3 18 74 1 Bucureşti (RO) 4 3 9 83 2 Budapest (HU) 2 4 19 73 2 Athinia (EL) 2 1 8 88 0 0

Rostock (DE) Groningen (NL) Białystok (PL) Oviedo (ES) Rennes (FR) Newcastle (UK) Piatra Neamţ (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)

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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. A comparison with results of the 2006 perception survey showed that not only air pollution, but also problems with noise seemed to have increased in Stockholm and Malmo. In 2006, 63% of interviewees in Malmo and 52% in Stockholm disagreed that noise was a major issue in their city; the corresponding proportions in 2009 were, respectively, 40% and 33%. A large decrease in the proportion of respondents who disagreed that noise was a problem was also seen – again – in Ostrava (52% in 2006 vs. 32% in 2009; -20 percentage points). For more details on the latter, see the chart on page 82. Correlation between “air pollution” and “noise” 100

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .867

% disagreeing that noise is a big problem

90 80 70

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

100

% disagreeing that air pollution is a big problem

page 35

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Noise is a major problem Strongly disagree

Groningen (NL) Oulu (FI) Rostock (DE) Białystok (PL) Piatra Neamţ (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)

Somewhat disagree

26 23 18 27

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

5 2 21 51 22 7 2 40 19 12 3 36 29 18 17 1 19 45 24 7 5 24 39 22 10 4 21 43 20 14 3 24 38 24 12 1 18 43 20 16 2 15 44 30 10 1 10 47 32 9 2 22 33 28 16 1 22 34 28 14 2 25 30 24 19 3 13 41 22 19 5 11 42 33 12 3 14 38 34 14 1 10 40 33 15 2 10 39 31 16 3 8 39 33 17 3 17 31 34 18 1 16 32 28 23 1 12 35 33 19 2 4 41 38 15 2 8 37 35 16 4 14 31 29 24 2 8 37 36 16 3 8 35 32 23 2 12 30 33 19 5 8 35 34 22 1 11 32 33 22 3 14 28 34 23 2 22 20 23 33 3 10 31 41 16 2 11 29 40 17 3 13 26 25 32 4 9 31 33 26 2 8 32 37 22 2 13 25 25 33 5 20 17 30 32 1 12 25 30 31 2 16 20 27 35 2 10 26 30 33 2 16 20 32 31 2 4 31 39 26 0 6 29 39 25 0 18 16 29 37 0 11 22 42 23 2 12 21 35 31 2 9 23 43 23 2 6 26 32 34 2 7 22 35 34 1 6 24 36 33 2 13 15 26 44 1 11 18 31 39 1 7 21 33 39 1 8 18 32 40 2 9 15 23 51 2 5 19 42 34 1 5 16 34 45 1 7 15 24 54 1 5 15 46 34 1 4 16 35 44 1 4 15 27 55 0 5 14 28 52 1 6 11 34 49 1 6 10 28 55 1 5 11 32 52 1 4 11 24 60 1 3 13 42 42 1 4 9 24 61 3 5 6 23 65 1 5 6 16 73 1 3 2 13 82 1 0

52 53

DK/NA

14 20

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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). For more, see the chart on page 83. 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” 100 90

% “always” feeling safe in their city

80 70 60 50 40 30

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .728

20 10 0 0

100

% agreeing that the city is clean

page 37

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

The city is clean Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

DK/NA

Oviedo (ES) 67 30 2 10 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 75 21 3 10 Luxembourg (LU) 50 46 3 10 München (DE) 38 55 6 11 Białystok (PL) 37 51 8 41 Wien (AT) 35 49 11 41 Groningen (NL) 26 58 13 21 Cluj-Napoc (RO) 34 50 11 51 Newcastle (UK) 34 50 11 51 Braga (PT) 36 47 13 40 Hamburg (DE) 20 63 13 31 Verona (IT) 21 59 14 50 Antalya (TR) 43 36 15 7 1 Rostock (DE) 25 53 19 21 Ljubljana (SI) 22 55 16 7 1 Graz (AT) 23 53 17 6 1 Stockholm (SE) 21 55 16 7 1 Rennes (FR) 20 56 16 7 1 Oulu (FI) 16 60 19 50 Aalborg (DK) 16 57 19 7 1 Cardiff (UK) 24 48 15 11 1 Strasbourg (FR) 18 54 20 7 1 Helsinki (FI) 17 55 23 41 Lille (FR) 21 51 18 9 1 Leipzig (DE) 14 58 26 12 Bordeaux (FR) 21 50 18 10 1 Ankara (TR) 25 44 20 10 1 Malmö (SE) 16 53 21 8 2 Diyarbakir (TR) 32 37 19 12 2 Dortmund (DE) 14 53 27 41 Riga (LV) 23 44 21 12 0 Tallinn (EE) 21 44 19 13 3 Gdansk (PL) 12 52 26 9 1 Torino (IT) 13 49 26 11 1 Zagreb (HR) 23 40 21 16 0 Kosice (SK) 9 53 31 5 2 Belfast (UK) 18 43 24 15 1 Manchester (UK) 17 41 22 18 2 Kraków (PL) 10 47 29 14 1 Vilnius (LT) 17 39 31 10 3 Essen (DE) 10 46 38 5 1 Madrid (ES) 10 45 35 10 1 Bologna (IT) 14 41 30 15 1 Glasgow (UK) 14 41 24 21 1 Lefkosia (CY) 9 41 24 26 1 Amsterdam (NL) 8 41 37 12 1 Ostrava (CZ) 9 40 35 15 1 Rotterdam (NL) 8 40 40 11 1 Dublin (IE) 15 33 28 24 1 Valletta (MT) 12 34 29 23 2 Antwerpen (BE) 6 40 29 22 2 Miskolc (HU) 6 38 34 21 1 Paris (FR) 6 38 35 21 0 København (DK) 6 37 38 18 1 London (UK) 9 34 30 26 2 Burgas (BG) 13 29 27 29 1 Praha (CZ) 7 35 40 16 2 Warszawa (PL) 6 35 33 24 1 Barcelona (ES) 6 34 42 17 1 Bratislava (SK) 3 37 44 15 1 İstanbul (TR) 10 29 30 31 1 Irakleio (EL) 8 27 27 37 1 Málaga (ES) 9 26 42 23 1 Lisboa (PT) 6 27 37 29 1 Berlin (DE) 5 27 50 17 1 Liège (BE) 2 27 34 36 2 Napoli (IT) 3 24 35 38 0 Roma (IT) 3 24 39 33 1 Marseille (FR) 6 20 30 44 1 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 3 23 34 38 2 Bucureşti (RO) 3 20 25 50 1 Athinia (EL) 3 14 24 59 1 Sofia (BG) 5 10 25 59 1 Budapest (HU) 2 13 34 50 1 Palermo (IT) 2 11 29 58 1 0

Oviedo (ES) Piatra Neamţ (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)

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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” 100

% agreeing that the city is a healthy place to live

90 80 70

60 50 40 30 20

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .765

10 0 0

100

% disagreeing that air pollution is a big problem

page 39

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

The city is a healthy place to live Strongly agree

Rostock (DE) Groningen (NL) Piatra Neamţ (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)

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

DK/NA

20 201 74 23 201 56 40 301 62 34 40 38 58 3 11 52 42 2 22 37 57 5 11 35 58 4 11 30 62 5 12 32 60 6 11 38 54 7 11 45 46 5 22 38 52 8 12 33 56 6 32 25 64 9 11 36 50 9 22 23 63 9 23 27 58 10 3 2 49 36 10 4 1 29 55 12 31 38 47 9 4 3 24 58 14 32 32 50 11 6 2 36 45 12 7 1 24 56 14 5 2 44 36 13 7 1 35 45 12 8 1 20 57 18 23 24 52 13 5 6 26 49 19 4 3 36 39 15 8 3 17 58 15 7 3 19 56 21 32 29 45 16 9 1 18 53 20 9 1 28 42 18 12 0 27 43 19 9 2 19 51 20 7 4 17 53 24 7 1 20 48 22 3 6 17 51 23 6 3 19 49 26 4 2 11 56 25 4 5 18 49 19 5 9 16 50 17 11 6 19 47 25 8 1 30 34 16 17 2 19 46 21 12 3 17 47 23 11 2 18 44 19 17 1 13 49 23 11 4 20 41 20 14 5 9 48 28 9 5 17 39 27 14 3 12 43 23 18 3 19 37 27 12 7 17 37 20 21 5 15 38 33 9 4 10 42 25 21 3 14 37 33 13 2 16 36 25 20 4 7 42 37 9 5 11 37 27 17 8 8 40 28 14 10 8 37 39 13 3 8 35 32 24 1 9 32 34 22 3 9 30 37 21 3 6 28 28 33 4 12 18 31 36 3 10 21 30 38 1 6 21 24 47 2 5 12 25 58 1 2 11 30 56 2 43

Strongly disagree 54

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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. “noise”

“air pollution” 100

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .537

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .599

% disagreeing that noise is a big problem

% disagreeing that air pollution is a big problem

100

80 70

60 50 40 30 20 10

80 70

60 50 40 30 20 10

0 0

100

% agreeing that the city is committed to fight climate change

“a clean city” 90

% agreeing that the city is a healthy place to live

100

% agreeing that the city is clean

100

“a healthy city”

100

60 50 40 30 20

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .516

% agreeing that the city is committed to fight climate change

80 70

60 50 40 30 20

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .639

10 0

% agreeing that the city is committed to fight climate change

100

% agreeing that the city is committed to fight climate change

page 41

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

The city is committed to fight against climate change Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

DK/NA

Luxembourg (LU) 23 53 14 4 7 München (DE) 18 52 17 2 12 Newcastle (UK) 24 46 11 6 14 Bordeaux (FR) 18 50 10 4 17 Dublin (IE) 27 37 20 14 3 Manchester (UK) 21 43 16 8 12 København (DK) 18 45 21 6 11 London (UK) 20 42 18 13 8 Rostock (DE) 10 52 19 3 16 Belfast (UK) 23 40 21 9 9 Malmö (SE) 17 45 14 4 20 Strasbourg (FR) 17 45 16 6 16 Cardiff (UK) 17 45 16 8 15 Hamburg (DE) 14 47 24 4 11 Groningen (NL) 17 44 14 4 22 Rennes (FR) 15 46 11 5 23 Wien (AT) 16 45 24 3 12 Stockholm (SE) 15 46 18 5 16 Glasgow (UK) 21 37 18 11 13 Lille (FR) 16 42 10 6 25 Leipzig (DE) 10 47 25 3 15 Miskolc (HU) 18 40 15 8 19 Barcelona (ES) 9 47 25 11 8 Braga (PT) 19 37 13 16 15 Berlin (DE) 11 44 29 6 11 Amsterdam (NL) 11 44 24 8 13 Oviedo (ES) 10 45 22 9 14 Rotterdam (NL) 12 43 19 6 20 Málaga (ES) 11 43 28 10 10 Marseille (FR) 13 39 18 15 15 Graz (AT) 14 38 29 9 10 Helsinki (FI) 6 45 32 6 11 Torino (IT) 14 37 21 8 21 Paris (FR) 9 39 22 10 20 Essen (DE) 9 39 31 6 15 Madrid (ES) 8 40 31 12 10 Ljubljana (SI) 10 37 25 17 11 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 23 25 11 10 32 Aalborg (DK) 9 37 21 4 28 Verona (IT) 15 31 17 16 21 Bologna (IT) 13 32 22 13 19 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 8 37 23 13 19 Kraków (PL) 14 31 24 15 16 Cluj-Napoc (RO) 21 24 14 13 28 Dortmund (DE) 7 37 33 4 18 Antalya (TR) 19 25 15 18 23 Lisboa (PT) 8 36 24 17 15 Antwerpen (BE) 6 36 19 6 33 Praha (CZ) 6 36 23 8 27 Ostrava (CZ) 8 34 23 7 29 Valletta (MT) 10 31 19 14 26 Oulu (FI) 5 36 34 6 19 Kosice (SK) 10 30 23 5 33 Irakleio (EL) 14 25 22 26 13 Ankara (TR) 13 26 25 18 19 Bratislava (SK) 6 31 27 8 27 Gdansk (PL) 10 27 27 15 22 Tallinn (EE) 11 26 19 13 32 Białystok (PL) 9 27 28 16 21 Lefkosia (CY) 12 24 24 29 11 İstanbul (TR) 11 25 22 26 16 Diyarbakir (TR) 12 22 20 19 27 Budapest (HU) 8 26 26 25 15 Liège (BE) 5 29 31 13 22 Warszawa (PL) 6 26 28 23 18 Zagreb (HR) 10 20 21 39 11 Athinia (EL) 10 20 22 38 10 Napoli (IT) 8 21 24 25 22 Roma (IT) 8 21 31 24 15 Bucureşti (RO) 8 21 16 39 17 Vilnius (LT) 10 19 18 21 32 Riga (LV) 8 20 16 31 25 Palermo (IT) 6 20 23 33 18 Burgas (BG) 7 13 17 28 36 Sofia (BG) 2 12 21 38 26 0

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

100

Analytical report

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

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 lastnamed 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%). A comparison with the results of the 2006 perception survey showed that the level of agreement decreased most significantly in Dortmund (-22 percentage points), Oulu and Zagreb (both -19), Budapest, Brussels and Miskolc (all -17)4 – these cities experienced the largest decrease in positive perceptions about city spending. Bialystok, Stockholm, Malmo and Luxembourg, on the other hand, have seen the largest increase in the proportion of interviewees who agreed that there was a responsible management of resources in their city (at least +20 percentage points). For example, in 2006, just 35% of respondents in Stockholm agreed that resources were spent responsibly; this proportion was almost twice as high in the current survey (61%). For more details on the latter, see the chart on page 84.

It should, however, also be noted that Miskolc and Brussels experience an increase in the proportion of respondents who gave a “don’t” know response (respectively, +7 and +10 percentage points). page 43

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

The city spends its resources in a responsible way Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

DK/NA

Luxembourg (LU) 17 52 16 3 12 Bordeaux (FR) 15 52 8 6 20 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 35 30 10 5 20 Groningen (NL) 12 51 14 7 16 Newcastle (UK) 18 45 14 9 15 Stockholm (SE) 13 48 15 3 20 Braga (PT) 18 43 17 9 13 Białystok (PL) 23 35 14 6 22 Oviedo (ES) 15 44 20 12 10 Malmö (SE) 13 45 14 6 22 Cluj-Napoc (RO) 22 35 14 7 22 Lille (FR) 11 46 13 6 25 München (DE) 13 44 17 4 23 Rennes (FR) 8 48 14 6 23 Cardiff (UK) 13 43 20 13 11 Aalborg (DK) 11 45 25 9 11 Verona (IT) 13 42 17 8 20 Helsinki (FI) 7 47 29 7 10 Antalya (TR) 22 32 20 11 15 Irakleio (EL) 18 36 17 12 18 Belfast (UK) 13 39 22 16 10 Rotterdam (NL) 11 41 24 4 21 Strasbourg (FR) 8 44 20 5 23 Manchester (UK) 14 37 18 16 16 Glasgow (UK) 11 39 17 21 12 Antwerpen (BE) 5 45 17 7 26 Wien (AT) 11 38 21 9 21 Valletta (MT) 12 37 20 9 23 Bologna (IT) 13 36 22 11 18 Torino (IT) 10 38 22 11 20 Kraków (PL) 11 35 22 10 23 Diyarbakir (TR) 16 29 21 17 17 Oulu (FI) 6 38 34 10 12 Ostrava (CZ) 7 37 25 6 25 Gdansk (PL) 11 34 21 14 21 Málaga (ES) 6 38 28 13 15 København (DK) 4 40 30 11 16 Ankara (TR) 14 30 28 19 11 London (UK) 9 34 24 20 13 Lisboa (PT) 8 34 23 18 17 Paris (FR) 4 37 25 12 22 Ljubljana (SI) 8 33 20 19 21 Praha (CZ) 6 34 25 13 22 Marseille (FR) 7 32 20 19 22 İstanbul (TR) 8 31 26 26 10 Burgas (BG) 14 23 12 16 35 Graz (AT) 8 28 33 17 14 Amsterdam (NL) 7 28 34 15 16 Madrid (ES) 7 28 37 17 11 Dublin (IE) 11 24 26 33 6 Barcelona (ES) 4 30 37 19 10 Hamburg (DE) 4 30 41 12 14 Miskolc (HU) 9 24 16 17 34 Warszawa (PL) 5 28 27 21 19 Liège (BE) 4 28 32 15 22 Kosice (SK) 4 27 28 6 35 Lefkosia (CY) 7 22 29 21 21 Rostock (DE) 3 26 40 13 18 Leipzig (DE) 2 26 40 12 19 Zagreb (HR) 9 19 16 49 8 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 3 24 26 15 32 Tallinn (EE) 8 18 25 25 24 Bratislava (SK) 3 23 29 13 32 Roma (IT) 8 18 28 24 22 Essen (DE) 2 23 45 15 15 Sofia (BG) 5 17 19 30 30 Bucureşti (RO) 5 15 18 47 16 Napoli (IT) 5 14 25 36 20 Berlin (DE) 2 16 48 19 14 Dortmund (DE) 3 14 42 31 10 Palermo (IT) 4 11 19 54 12 Athinia (EL) 4 11 25 45 15 Riga (LV) 2 12 18 48 21 Vilnius (LT) 3 10 28 36 23 Budapest (HU) 2 7 19 52 20 0

Luxembourg (LU) Bordeaux (FR) Piatra Neamţ (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) 100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Administrative services help efficiently Respondents in Luxembourg, Bordeaux, Groningen and Newcastle were not only among the most likely to agree that their city spent its resources responsibly, they were also among the most likely to somewhat or strongly agree that they were helped efficiently when they contacted administrative services in their city (between 68% and 72%). The aforementioned cities were this time joined by Antwerp, Aalborg, Cardiff and Lille – in these cities, between 67% and 78% of interviewees agreed that help from the city’s administrative services was efficient. Roughly a quarter of respondents in Palermo, Riga and Berlin somewhat or strongly agreed that they had been helped efficiently when they contacted their city’s administrative services (between 25% and 27%). Other cities at the lower end of this ranking were Miskolc and Athens – with a total agreement level of 31%-32%. Athens was also the city where respondents were the most likely to disagree that that administrative services helped efficiently (66% “somewhat disagree” and “strongly disagree” responses) – a figure similar to the situation in Palermo (64%). In Miskolc, on the other hand, respondents were most likely to give a “don’t know” response (47%). Rather unexpectedly, however, respondents in Piatra Neamt and Budapest were equally likely to agree that administrative services in their city had helped them efficiently (both 52%) – note that respondents in Piatra Neamt were among the most likely to agree that their city spent its resources in a responsible way, while respondents in Budapest were the least likely to share this view. Nonetheless, the correlation coefficient for the relationship between the proportion of respondents who agreed that a) resources were spent in a responsible way and b) administrative services helped citizens efficiently was .709 – a strong correlation between the two variables at the city level. A comparison with the results of the 2006 perception survey showed that Stockholm and Malmo – once again – have seen the largest increase in the proportion of respondents who agreed that administrative services had helped them efficiently (+20 and +17 percentage points, respectively), while Miskolc and Riga have seen the largest decrease in this level of agreement (-15 and -14 percentage points, respectively). For more details on the latter, see the chart on page 85. Correlation between “responsible management” and “helpful administrative services”

% agreeing that administrative services help efficiently

100 90 80 70 60

50 40 30

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .709

20 10 0 0

100

% agreeing that the city spends resources in a responsible way

page 45

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Administrative services help efficiently Strongly agree

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

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

DK/NA

7 3 12 11 5 12 28 10 7 14 22 14 7 11 25 13 6 12 23 15 9 8 21 16 7 9 24 21 4 7 23 18 5 10 26 14 8 12 15 51 17 7 10 19 46 17 7 11 14 51 25 6 4 14 50 18 7 11 13 50 19 4 15 22 40 12 12 15 24 37 16 14 9 11 50 25 6 8 12 48 19 6 15 23 38 11 11 18 16 44 19 11 11 16 44 17 10 14 15 44 19 8 13 20 39 16 9 17 22 35 15 15 12 12 45 21 14 9 13 44 23 9 11 22 35 16 12 16 11 45 29 11 5 9 47 23 10 11 14 42 25 11 9 19 37 21 18 6 17 38 17 10 18 16 39 18 9 18 10 45 24 6 16 16 39 17 12 17 15 38 7 5 35 11 42 29 13 5 10 43 22 11 14 20 32 16 15 16 20 32 19 16 13 20 32 11 8 30 17 34 13 3 33 13 37 21 13 15 10 40 31 12 7 8 41 27 8 15 9 41 24 12 14 20 29 22 19 11 13 35 30 17 6 15 32 23 21 9 13 34 24 9 20 12 35 22 7 25 12 34 26 25 4 12 34 27 8 20 7 36 24 21 11 15 29 22 22 12 7 36 23 8 25 9 33 21 7 30 14 27 26 24 9 9 31 19 8 34 16 24 23 16 21 16 23 23 32 5 11 26 27 30 7 8 28 21 10 33 12 23 21 34 10 6 29 21 10 35 7 27 27 6 32 6 27 26 5 35 5 27 29 30 9 10 21 15 12 42 7 25 26 40 4 13 18 12 10 47 4 23 36 13 25 7 19 13 29 32 5 20 29 35 12 21

Strongly disagree

51 42 47 43 45 47 44 45 41

100

Analytical report

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

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. A comparison, between the results of the 2006 and 2009 perception surveys, concerning satisfaction with cultural facilities, did not reveal many large differences; in most cities, satisfaction levels have somewhat increased since 2006 or remained the same during this period. There were, however, some exceptions. The largest increase in satisfaction was observed in Bialystok: in 2006, a slim majority of respondents there said they were rather or very satisfied with its public places; in 2009, however, 77% expressed their satisfaction (+20 percentage points). In Valletta, on the other hand, the proportion of satisfied respondents has decreased by 27 percentage points (from 62% in 2006 to 35% in 2009). A similar decrease in satisfaction was also observed in Naples; while 63% of its interviewees said they were happy with cultural facilities, this proportion has decreased to 41% in the current survey (-22 percentage points). For more details on the comparison of the results of the 2006 and 2009 perception surveys, see the chart on page 86.

page 47

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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

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 Neamţ (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)

Rather satisfied

Rather unsatisfied

DK/NA

112 202 74 21 10 4 64 31 21 3 60 35 3 12 68 26 21 3 66 28 10 4 71 23 0 6 68 25 12 4 55 38 313 60 33 3 22 64 29 20 5 60 33 21 4 62 30 20 5 50 42 40 4 53 38 5 13 53 39 4 32 61 30 11 7 63 28 41 5 63 28 31 5 53 37 5 04 42 48 514 53 38 5 14 35 55 6 14 46 44 31 7 28 59 6 2 5 47 40 42 7 46 42 6 1 6 39 48 41 9 41 45 6 1 7 33 53 5 1 8 40 46 5 2 8 37 49 8 2 5 43 42 6 2 7 34 51 6 0 8 47 37 21 12 20 62 11 1 5 32 50 10 1 6 30 52 7 2 8 30 52 8 1 10 26 56 9 3 6 27 55 8 1 9 26 54 11 3 5 24 57 6 0 14 27 53 13 3 4 31 49 5 2 13 29 51 9 2 10 26 53 16 23 29 49 7 4 10 26 52 7 2 14 26 52 9 2 12 33 45 9 3 11 24 53 12 3 8 34 42 13 4 7 33 41 10 5 12 19 54 12 4 11 19 53 15 7 6 17 55 10 3 16 30 41 5 3 21 21 47 15 7 11 18 50 10 9 14 19 48 19 7 8 24 43 14 11 9 14 52 19 8 7 8 51 20 10 11 21 38 15 7 19 25 32 9 8 26 17 38 22 17 7 22 30 8 10 30 26 26 9 8 31 19 33 18 7 23 18 31 23 22 7 7 34 26 20 13 18 23 10 15 35 13 22 20 22 24 61

Not at all satisfied 35

100

Analytical report

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

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.

page 49

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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

Oviedo (ES) München (DE) Groningen (NL) Malmö (SE) Cardiff (UK) Luxembourg (LU) Rennes (FR) Newcastle (UK) Piatra Neamţ (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)

Rather satisfied

Rather unsatisfied

43 47 44

Not at all satisfied

DK/NA

31 50 51 35 58 6 1 41 50 6 2 36 54 8 1 33 58 8 1 48 42 7 2 46 44 5 4 35 54 8 2 34 54 7 3 34 54 10 2 31 57 9 1 28 60 10 1 25 62 7 4 37 49 10 2 36 50 11 2 25 60 12 2 30 55 13 2 34 51 9 5 24 61 14 2 20 63 13 3 18 65 15 1 28 54 14 2 33 50 12 4 29 52 13 4 24 57 14 2 24 57 15 2 32 49 10 6 29 52 16 2 20 62 17 2 28 54 13 2 22 58 13 2 40 40 8 9 28 52 12 6 27 53 16 2 22 57 13 4 17 62 16 5 35 43 15 7 19 59 18 3 26 51 15 6 21 56 18 3 20 57 17 5 20 56 17 6 20 55 18 6 21 54 18 4 13 62 19 6 17 57 22 2 33 41 11 14 18 56 22 3 16 57 21 5 16 57 21 4 22 51 21 4 15 56 20 6 27 43 15 13 18 51 18 12 11 58 25 3 15 53 19 9 12 55 21 10 10 56 22 9 14 52 27 7 13 53 24 8 21 45 23 7 24 41 15 20 26 37 13 20 12 50 27 10 15 44 26 12 16 42 24 18 15 37 25 16 8 41 32 19 8 38 31 21 6 36 36 20 9 32 27 30 9 30 35 25 6 29 28 37 0

53 47 50

100

Analytical report

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

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 threequarters 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%).

page 51

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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

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)

Rather satisfied

Rather unsatisfied

Not at all satisfied

DK/NA

3 1 Oviedo (ES) Stockholm (SE) 7 1 37 50 11 1 Groningen (NL) 37 50 11 2 Rostock (DE) Bordeaux (FR) 39 46 9 6 Malmö (SE) 27 58 11 3 Newcastle (UK) 33 51 9 6 39 44 14 2 München (DE) 32 50 14 2 Luxembourg (LU) 35 46 15 4 Amsterdam (NL) Cardiff (UK) 29 51 13 6 37 44 17 3 Wien (AT) 21 59 16 4 Rennes (FR) Graz (AT) 35 45 16 3 Aalborg (DK) 29 51 16 4 39 40 17 3 Hamburg (DE) 31 48 18 4 Białystok (PL) 27 51 18 3 Rotterdam (NL) 26 52 19 2 Helsinki (FI) Lille (FR) 24 54 16 6 Strasbourg (FR) 27 50 17 5 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 39 38 15 8 København (DK) 27 50 17 5 22 55 22 2 Oulu (FI) 29 46 23 2 Leipzig (DE) 27 46 22 4 Berlin (DE) Ljubljana (SI) 19 55 19 7 Belfast (UK) 23 50 18 9 Ostrava (CZ) 25 47 20 7 Dublin (IE) 25 48 17 10 Paris (FR) 24 48 20 7 Glasgow (UK) 29 43 16 10 Kraków (PL) 22 50 22 5 Kosice (SK) 21 50 24 5 Braga (PT) 22 47 21 9 Antalya (TR) 31 38 13 16 Praha (CZ) 22 46 24 6 London (UK) 24 44 19 11 Cluj-Napoc (RO) 23 45 20 12 Gdansk (PL) 21 46 24 8 Barcelona (ES) 14 53 22 11 Manchester (UK) 21 45 20 13 Torino (IT) 17 49 27 8 Tallinn (EE) 17 47 24 10 Madrid (ES) 16 48 26 10 Verona (IT) 13 52 27 8 Liège (BE) 16 49 27 8 Antwerpen (BE) 21 43 24 10 Essen (DE) 23 41 29 6 Miskolc (HU) 19 45 25 11 Warszawa (PL) 17 47 28 8 Zagreb (HR) 28 36 21 15 Budapest (HU) 17 46 24 13 Bologna (IT) 16 47 28 9 Dortmund (DE) 21 40 30 9 Ankara (TR) 25 37 18 20 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 17 44 27 11 Marseille (FR) 20 39 20 20 Bratislava (SK) 11 45 35 7 Diyarbakir (TR) 26 30 14 30 Riga (LV) 18 36 28 16 Vilnius (LT) 17 36 26 18 Burgas (BG) 17 35 23 23 Málaga (ES) 11 42 35 12 İstanbul (TR) 23 30 14 33 Lisboa (PT) 10 37 33 18 Valletta (MT) 16 31 26 26 Roma (IT) 11 36 34 19 Lefkosia (CY) 15 31 22 32 Bucureşti (RO) 11 34 23 31 Palermo (IT) 9 31 36 24 Napoli (IT) 5 33 34 27 Irakleio (EL) 14 21 23 41 Athinia (EL) 10 21 21 48 Sofia (BG) 8 18 33 40 49 46

100

Analytical report

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

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). For more details on the comparison of the results of the 2006 and 2009 perception surveys, see the chart on page 87.

page 53

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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

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 Neamţ (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)

Rather satisfied

Rather unsatisfied

62 63

Not at all satisfied

DK/NA

41 50 51 42 5 1 46 47 6 1 58 35 6 1 58 34 4 3 50 42 7 1 37 54 7 2 49 42 8 1 55 36 7 2 50 40 6 4 47 42 7 2 38 52 9 1 33 56 10 1 50 38 6 5 32 56 11 0 39 49 10 1 42 46 10 2 42 45 8 3 52 35 8 5 46 40 10 4 40 46 7 5 45 41 12 1 32 54 11 3 34 51 12 2 31 52 13 3 34 49 12 3 37 46 12 3 44 40 11 4 31 52 14 2 35 48 13 3 36 47 12 4 27 56 13 4 41 41 11 6 37 45 14 3 28 53 12 3 47 33 8 7 27 54 12 6 32 49 17 2 36 43 15 5 22 57 18 3 28 50 16 4 29 49 17 3 26 52 17 3 44 33 10 12 25 52 17 4 25 52 16 7 24 51 20 3 24 50 18 4 35 40 16 7 23 51 16 9 37 37 16 10 22 48 23 5 20 48 24 7 39 30 10 15 22 45 22 9 17 50 21 10 17 49 16 15 14 50 27 6 23 39 26 9 29 33 16 18 12 48 31 8 18 41 32 6 10 48 32 10 16 39 32 13 11 43 31 12 9 45 32 13 13 40 35 12 15 33 28 24 15 28 24 25 6 34 37 23 8 30 29 32 7 28 38 25 9 23 29 38 4 19 26 50 0

32 31

100

Analytical report

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

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%).

page 55

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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

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 Neamţ (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)

Rather satisfied

Rather unsatisfied

DK/NA

3 11 5 11 46 44 7 14 46 42 5 3 4 56 32 6 0 6 37 49 9 24 51 34 4 1 10 49 36 6 2 6 32 53 6 2 7 41 43 8 1 7 36 47 9 1 7 39 44 6 1 10 39 44 9 1 7 35 47 10 2 6 29 53 8 2 8 29 53 10 2 7 40 41 11 1 8 36 45 13 2 4 28 52 7 1 11 37 43 11 5 5 40 40 9 2 10 40 40 10 4 6 32 48 11 4 6 27 52 14 2 4 21 58 9 5 7 37 42 14 3 4 26 52 13 3 5 32 46 13 3 5 34 43 15 3 5 20 58 11 5 6 33 43 14 3 7 34 43 12 2 10 36 40 15 6 3 36 40 12 5 8 34 40 13 6 7 32 42 18 2 6 44 30 8 7 11 23 50 17 3 8 30 43 16 4 8 22 50 20 5 4 23 49 15 4 9 36 36 12 6 10 25 46 12 9 8 26 44 19 3 7 20 51 21 6 3 21 48 21 6 4 33 35 15 9 7 26 42 16 4 12 33 32 9 13 13 18 47 12 6 18 28 36 16 8 12 18 45 25 9 3 17 45 21 5 12 14 48 23 8 8 16 45 15 5 18 12 49 20 3 15 20 40 27 5 9 11 48 24 10 7 8 51 26 10 6 28 30 18 11 13 13 44 25 14 4 14 43 27 13 3 30 25 12 20 13 13 39 27 10 11 15 36 22 15 12 25 25 17 17 16 14 31 28 12 16 17 27 18 34 5 16 26 23 12 23 12 31 23 29 6 15 26 24 25 10 4 30 32 31 3 5 24 31 37 3 7 21 24 26 22 6 17 21 48 8 56

Not at all satisfied 37

100

Analytical report

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

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. For example, in 2006, just 26% of respondents in Bialystok reported being satisfied with their city’s sports facilities, this proportion increased to 46% in 2009 (+20 percentage points). The opposite trend (i.e. a decrease in satisfaction about this type of facilities) was observed in fewer cities; for example, in Liege (-16 percentage points), Brussels and Riga (both -13). For more details on the latter, see the chart on page 88.

page 57

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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

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 Neamţ (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)

Rather satisfied

Rather unsatisfied

45 40

Not at all satisfied

DK/NA

5 03 6 14 52 36 31 7 36 43 8 1 12 35 43 5 2 16 32 44 8 1 15 37 39 8 2 15 34 42 6 3 16 38 37 7 1 16 23 51 8 1 17 38 36 5 3 19 21 52 8 1 19 30 42 13 7 9 25 46 7 2 21 31 38 10 6 15 12 57 13 3 15 29 40 6 1 24 33 36 7 5 19 24 44 14 4 14 27 41 11 2 18 18 50 14 3 15 22 45 15 2 17 29 38 13 2 18 28 38 9 9 16 15 51 10 3 21 25 41 7 3 25 30 34 13 6 17 22 43 13 3 19 16 48 10 1 25 17 46 20 3 14 17 46 13 2 22 22 41 17 2 19 14 48 17 5 15 13 50 17 5 15 21 41 10 2 26 25 36 5 2 32 13 47 23 7 10 25 35 20 9 12 13 47 19 7 15 18 41 18 1 21 20 39 10 3 28 13 45 8 3 32 17 40 14 6 22 22 34 17 13 14 14 40 15 10 20 19 36 16 13 16 19 34 17 6 25 16 37 18 6 23 14 39 22 5 20 13 39 17 7 25 13 38 20 4 25 15 35 26 7 18 10 39 21 9 21 16 33 15 12 24 14 34 11 3 38 11 37 23 6 24 10 38 17 6 30 11 36 22 12 20 9 37 24 7 23 9 37 25 9 21 12 30 21 18 19 15 27 23 12 23 16 25 11 15 33 15 26 11 12 36 18 23 9 10 40 9 32 10 6 44 11 29 27 10 23 8 31 16 10 35 11 27 19 10 33 12 20 10 21 37 3 29 29 22 18 11 20 21 17 31 7 23 19 25 26 10 20 16 10 44 3 25 29 24 20 0

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

General satisfaction with a city’s facilities The following table shows that, primarily, high correlations were measured between the proportions of respondents who were satisfied with the various facilities provided in their city: correlation coefficients between .562 and .918 at the city level. The last section of this chapter presents a summary of city dwellers’ satisfaction with the various facilities provided in their city: cultural and sports amenities, outdoor recreational opportunities, public spaces, parks and gardens, and the perceived beauty of streets and buildings. Correlation table – satisfaction with a city’s facilities and amenities Beauty of Cultural Public Green streets and facilities spaces spaces buildings Cultural facilities

Outdoor recreation

Sports facilities

Public spaces

0.697

Beauty of streets and buildings

0.716

0.918

Green spaces

0.677

0.838

0.827

Outdoor recreation

0.722

0.846

0.807

0.808

Sports facilities

0.628

0.701

0.562

0.755

In Groningen, a large majority (64%) of respondents expressed their satisfaction with each one of the facilities listed in the survey. In Cardiff, Munich, Helsinki, Luxembourg, Newcastle and Oulu, the corresponding proportions were between 50% and 56%. Furthermore, in each of the above-mentioned cities, very few respondents were satisfied with just one, or none, of the types of facilities listed in the survey (not more than 2%). A very different distribution of responses was observed at the lower end of this city ranking. In Sofia, Naples, Bucharest and Athens, less than 5% of respondents expressed their satisfaction with each one of the items listed in the survey, while a majority of respondents were satisfied with a maximum of three aspects. The largest proportions of dissatisfied respondents (i.e. satisfied with none – or maximum one – of the types of facilities) were found in Naples (42%), Athens (37%) and Palermo (33%). 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.

page 59

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

General satisfaction with a city’s facilities and amenities % satisfied with:

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

6 domains

4-5 domains 55

2-3 domains

0-1 domains

50 50 55 38 5 2 56 38 6 1 53 40 6 1 50 42 7 1 50 42 8 1 47 45 8 1 41 50 8 1 43 47 9 1 41 47 11 1 45 43 11 1 42 46 11 1 44 44 11 1 46 41 11 1 42 46 12 1 32 55 11 2 43 44 12 1 42 44 12 2 35 51 13 2 39 45 13 3 39 44 14 2 34 49 13 4 32 51 15 3 33 49 15 2 39 43 15 3 38 43 16 3 38 43 17 2 29 51 17 3 33 47 15 4 30 50 15 5 25 55 16 4 29 49 18 4 21 57 19 3 35 43 17 5 34 43 19 4 30 47 19 4 34 42 20 4 27 49 19 5 27 49 21 4 21 54 20 5 24 50 23 3 27 46 23 4 26 47 19 8 25 47 23 5 26 44 22 7 23 46 24 7 21 46 29 4 18 49 25 8 17 50 27 7 19 45 28 8 24 40 27 9 19 43 26 11 20 41 32 7 27 34 30 9 12 49 30 10 13 47 30 10 14 45 34 8 10 47 31 11 12 42 32 14 18 36 30 16 11 43 36 11 11 42 34 13 7 43 38 12 6 42 44 8 11 35 31 23 9 36 41 14 8 28 35 29 4 30 46 21 7 26 38 30 8 25 41 26 3 28 47 23 6 23 38 33 3 21 34 42 4 16 43 37 0

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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”

% agreeing that the city spends resources in a responsible way

100 90 80 70 60

50 40 30

Correlation coefficient: rxy = .609

20 10 0 0

100

% satisfied with all six facilities and amenities

page 61

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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.

page 62

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Frequency of using public transport Every day

At least once a week

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) Gdaosk (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 Neamţ (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)

At least once a month

Less than once a month

Never

59 27 6 6 2 44 34 11 6 5 49 28 12 8 4 39 37 14 5 5 49 26 9 8 8 43 30 11 12 3 35 38 13 8 6 42 31 13 7 7 41 32 12 9 6 41 29 13 12 5 48 23 8 10 10 46 24 14 9 6 42 28 16 10 5 47 22 7 11 13 45 24 6 13 11 40 29 9 13 9 45 24 9 11 10 41 27 11 11 10 43 23 11 14 9 37 27 12 9 14 40 24 10 15 11 33 30 12 8 16 29 34 20 12 5 30 32 15 16 7 34 29 12 15 11 37 26 13 15 10 36 26 11 13 14 26 34 13 16 12 27 33 19 11 11 30 28 16 14 13 25 32 17 14 13 24 32 18 14 11 27 29 20 12 11 20 36 16 12 16 29 24 10 18 18 29 24 22 19 7 23 30 23 13 11 21 31 21 17 10 21 30 23 14 11 18 33 14 20 15 20 30 22 19 9 23 27 20 19 11 22 27 13 22 17 17 31 31 15 6 18 30 22 15 14 23 23 16 14 24 13 33 19 20 15 24 21 19 23 12 21 24 16 11 28 28 17 15 21 19 20 24 21 20 15 19 25 15 25 17 15 29 25 20 12 13 30 21 21 15 18 24 9 18 31 20 22 19 21 18 20 21 14 13 32 18 22 15 20 23 14 26 18 16 25 22 17 17 22 22 16 23 24 24 13 19 20 13 24 24 12 27 21 21 20 21 16 17 25 20 17 20 13 13 38 19 18 13 21 29 13 18 12 16 40 12 15 13 21 39 9 17 19 27 27 11 15 12 20 42 5 19 22 29 24 14 10 9 20 47 8 13 13 14 53 4 11 20 48 17 4 4 2 6 84 0

DK/NA

100

Q4C. How often do you use public transport in [CITY NAME]? Base: all respondents, % by city page 63

Flash EB No 277 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

5.2 Means of commuting and commuting time Means of transport for commuting5 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 Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capitals were found among cities with the highest proportions of respondents who used public transport to commute â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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 66.

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). page 64

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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

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) Gdaosk (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 Neamţ (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)

Biking/Walking

Car/Motorbike

Other

DK/NA

67 17 13 66 6 27 60 6 34 60 15 24 60 19 19 59 12 27 59 9 30 56 13 31 55 14 31 54 16 29 54 16 28 54 10 33 54 8 38 53 22 20 53 13 34 52 6 39 52 10 38 52 12 33 50 19 24 50 22 26 49 19 29 49 16 34 48 35 15 48 11 41 46 13 39 44 16 40 44 12 43 43 23 33 42 20 38 40 24 34 40 36 20 36 21 41 36 12 51 34 13 51 34 16 50 33 26 34 32 22 46 32 22 44 32 8 58 31 14 53 31 17 50 30 15 51 29 26 44 29 18 52 29 12 59 29 8 62 29 19 52 28 14 56 27 14 59 27 38 34 27 34 37 27 12 58 26 27 43 25 32 37 25 14 60 24 16 57 24 31 41 24 12 62 23 16 60 23 48 29 22 45 30 22 48 26 18 19 59 18 24 57 18 13 63 18 32 48 17 17 65 15 65 18 15 14 71 14 16 68 11 25 63 11 41 46 9 63 27 7 48 45 4 5 91 0

3 2 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 5 0 2 6

2 2 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 4 2 0 2 1 7 0 2 2 2 2 5 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 5 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 3 4 1 6 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

100

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 65

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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%).

page 66

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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

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) Gdaosk (PL) Rotterdam (NL) Piatra Neamţ (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)

Motorbike

89 52 19 71 54 14 68 55 11 65 62 1 63 63 0 63 61 1 62 52 10 62 60 0 60 59 0 60 59 0 59 58 1 59 57 1 59 50 8 58 58 0 58 49 9 57 57 1 57 53 4 56 46 7 53 51 1 52 43 9 52 51 0 51 49 1 51 50 1 51 46 4 50 48 2 50 46 2 48 46 1 46 45 1 46 44 1 45 44 0 44 43 1 44 42 2 43 41 2 43 41 0 41 41 0 41 40 1 41 39 0 40 39 1 39 39 0 39 38 1 38 38 0 38 37 1 38 33 4 37 35 1 37 34 0 34 33 2 34 34 1 34 34 0 34 33 1 34 32 2 34 33 0 33 29 4 33 32 1 33 31 0 31 31 0 31 30 0 30 30 0 30 29 0 29 29 0 29 28 1 29 15 13 28 27 1 27 25 2 27 26 0 27 24 3 26 26 0 26 24 0 24 21 3 24 20 0 20 20 0 20 17 2 19 18 0 18 14 0 15 11 3 13

Biking

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 Neamţ (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) Gdaosk (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)

2 91

Walking 60 60

48 48 46 3 48 38 10 48 37 8 45 37 4 41 28 10 38 0 36 36 19 16 35 21 14 34 1 31 32 29 3 32 1 30 31 25 2 27 15 11 26 0 26 26 0 25 25 1 23 24 17 7 24 17 6 23 18 4 22 10 12 22 13 9 22 0 22 22 8 13 21 14 6 20 0 19 19 1 18 19 9 10 19 4 15 19 7 12 19 5 14 18 5 12 17 8 9 17 9 8 17 1 16 16 2 15 16 0 16 16 0 16 16 1 15 16 6 11 16 5 11 16 3 12 16 1 15 15 2 13 15 3 11 14 2 12 14 1 13 14 2 12 14 6 8 14 2 11 14 0 13 13 3 10 13 4 9 13 4 9 13 1 11 13 1 12 12 0 12 12 4 9 12 6 6 12 5 7 12 3 9 12 1 11 12 1 10 11 1 10 10 1 9 10 1 8 9 17 8 26 8 35 8 16 6 15 6 15 6 05 5

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 67

5 65 3 63

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Length of time to commute6 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.

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

page 68

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Minutes per day spent to go to work or training place Less than 10 minutes Between 30-45 minutes

Irakleio (EL) Oviedo (ES) Oulu (FI) Braga (PT) Luxembourg (LU) Verona (IT) Burgas (BG) Białystok (PL) Piatra Neamţ (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) Gdaosk (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)

Between 10-20 minutes Between 45-60 minutes

6 33 9 31 7 2 3 36 37 8 5 2 26 40 9 4 2 26 39 7 6 3 25 39 12 2 1 18 40 25 10 5 2 25 38 18 8 5 5 22 35 25 9 6 3 24 40 18 6 5 6 19 37 24 13 5 1 16 46 18 11 5 4 20 38 22 7 9 3 27 32 20 13 4 4 17 35 27 11 6 4 23 36 20 11 4 6 23 31 24 16 5 2 32 33 13 10 7 5 19 31 26 13 4 7 16 40 20 14 5 6 14 29 31 13 8 5 14 28 31 15 8 4 16 36 20 17 6 4 19 27 27 14 6 8 14 34 25 15 6 7 10 33 29 15 10 4 15 27 30 13 7 8 19 38 14 12 10 7 14 35 22 15 7 7 18 30 23 12 7 10 10 34 26 12 11 7 12 32 26 17 7 7 14 33 22 14 5 12 15 31 23 17 6 8 17 30 22 13 9 10 15 31 22 17 10 5 17 27 24 19 10 4 12 26 29 15 10 8 16 30 21 19 6 8 11 29 27 15 10 8 14 26 26 15 10 9 11 23 32 20 10 4 14 31 21 20 9 5 14 24 27 21 8 5 12 29 24 18 10 8 13 29 21 17 11 9 11 24 27 21 11 6 11 22 28 18 13 8 16 20 25 13 15 11 12 29 20 15 12 12 15 24 22 15 12 13 19 26 15 15 13 10 13 26 22 15 15 9 10 23 27 20 11 9 10 22 27 19 11 11 13 23 23 18 11 12 15 26 18 13 13 15 11 23 23 16 12 14 13 24 19 17 14 13 12 18 25 25 12 8 15 21 19 23 13 9 10 25 19 15 17 14 13 19 21 18 17 12 12 17 23 18 15 15 10 21 21 15 15 18 9 22 21 24 16 8 6 18 25 25 13 12 12 19 18 20 19 12 8 18 22 17 17 17 7 20 18 21 18 17 7 16 21 22 19 15 7 13 17 23 20 19 10 9 16 15 19 32 7 13 15 17 25 23 27 26

Between 20-30 minutes More than 60 minutes

39 41

18 22 19 13 20 19 21

100

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 69

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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). For more details on the latter, see the chart on page 89.

page 70

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Satisfaction with public transport Very satisfied

Rather satisfied

Rather unsatisfied

Not at all satisfied

DK/NA

Helsinki (FI) 42 51 4 11 Wien (AT) 53 37 5 22 Strasbourg (FR) 36 53 51 5 Rennes (FR) 43 45 42 6 Stockholm (SE) 37 50 7 2 4 Hamburg (DE) 39 47 7 2 4 Rostock (DE) 47 40 6 1 7 München (DE) 42 44 9 23 Bordeaux (FR) 33 52 5 3 8 Newcastle (UK) 43 41 6 4 7 Groningen (NL) 34 49 5 2 11 Paris (FR) 22 61 11 4 2 København (DK) 27 55 11 3 4 Rotterdam (NL) 30 52 5 3 10 Luxembourg (LU) 35 47 10 3 5 Leipzig (DE) 38 44 7 2 8 Amsterdam (NL) 27 55 9 3 7 Praha (CZ) 29 53 9 5 4 Oviedo (ES) 18 64 6 2 10 Antwerpen (BE) 38 43 8 3 8 Malmö (SE) 18 63 8 2 9 Dortmund (DE) 34 45 6 2 13 Madrid (ES) 22 56 14 4 4 Belfast (UK) 34 44 10 4 8 Białystok (PL) 16 61 7 3 14 Glasgow (UK) 31 46 8 6 10 Cardiff (UK) 28 49 9 6 9 Lille (FR) 29 48 6 4 14 Kraków (PL) 17 59 9 3 11 Zagreb (HR) 39 37 11 6 7 London (UK) 28 48 12 7 6 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 21 55 10 4 10 Graz (AT) 28 47 15 5 5 Aalborg (DK) 27 48 8 3 14 Barcelona (ES) 14 60 16 6 4 Ostrava (CZ) 24 48 10 4 14 Tallinn (EE) 23 49 12 4 13 Málaga (ES) 14 56 15 6 8 Dublin (IE) 24 46 16 10 4 Berlin (DE) 25 43 18 8 6 Ljubljana (SI) 13 55 11 9 11 Diyarbakir (TR) 24 44 9 13 11 Warszawa (PL) 14 54 16 6 10 Gdaosk (PL) 17 51 11 6 15 Marseille (FR) 20 47 15 11 6 Bologna (IT) 16 51 14 6 13 Lisboa (PT) 12 54 15 6 13 Liège (BE) 17 49 13 4 18 Essen (DE) 20 45 17 5 12 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 18 47 16 10 9 Oulu (FI) 14 51 22 6 7 Riga (LV) 21 44 17 6 12 Manchester (UK) 20 44 14 9 13 Ankara (TR) 20 42 13 17 8 İstanbul (TR) 14 46 13 16 10 Athinia (EL) 19 42 17 10 12 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 15 45 10 5 26 Burgas (BG) 19 39 11 5 26 Bratislava (SK) 12 45 20 7 15 Kosice (SK) 12 44 21 6 17 Miskolc (HU) 12 43 22 11 12 Torino (IT) 9 45 21 7 18 Antalya (TR) 19 34 10 14 24 Vilnius (LT) 14 36 17 6 28 Valletta (MT) 21 29 12 14 24 Irakleio (EL) 14 34 13 15 24 Braga (PT) 12 37 7 5 39 Budapest (HU) 6 42 30 14 8 Bucureşti (RO) 7 39 26 17 10 Verona (IT) 9 37 21 8 25 Sofia (BG) 9 34 28 15 14 Roma (IT) 3 32 30 20 15 Napoli (IT) 2 26 33 25 14 Lefkosia (CY) 4 13 12 55 16 Palermo (IT) 1 11 36 38 14 0

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) Gdaosk (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 Neamţ (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)

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

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%).

page 72

Analytical report

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Not easy to access either from Reasons for not using public transport: where respondents’ live or Not frequent enough Not adapted to required itinerary need to go to Lefkosia (CY) Helsinki (FI) 20 Rennes (FR) 31 Palermo (IT) Aalborg (DK) 22 19 Bologna (IT) 28 Manchester (UK) Dublin (IE) 19 17 Ljubljana (SI) 27 Madrid (ES) Berlin (DE) 17 17 Irakleio (EL) 27 Wien (AT) Stockholm (SE) 17 17 Helsinki (FI) 26 Roma (IT) 16 Ljubljana (SI) 17 Lefkosia (CY) 26 Valletta (MT) 15 Cardiff (UK) 16 Graz (AT) 25 Ostrava (CZ) 15 Lefkosia (CY) 16 Luxembourg (LU) 24 Napoli (IT) 14 Wien (AT) 16 Bratislava (SK) 24 Dortmund (DE) 13 Belfast (UK) 15 Newcastle (UK) 23 Luxembourg (LU) 12 Manchester (UK) 15 Athinia (EL) 23 Antalya (TR) 12 Antwerpen (BE) 15 Lisboa (PT) 23 Miskolc (HU) 12 Oulu (FI) 14 Madrid (ES) 22 Praha (CZ) 12 København (DK) 14 Tallinn (EE) 22 Zagreb (HR) 12 Athinia (EL) 13 Barcelona (ES) 22 Rennes (FR) 12 Diyarbakir (TR) 13 Torino (IT) 21 Stockholm (SE) 12 Dortmund (DE) 12 Sofia (BG) 21 Diyarbakir (TR) 11 Napoli (IT) 12 London (UK) 20 Leipzig (DE) 11 Irakleio (EL) 11 Oulu (FI) 20 København (DK) 11 Vilnius (LT) 11 Verona (IT) 20 Verona (IT) 11 11 Burgas (BG) 20 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) Bologna (IT) 10 Marseille (FR) 11 Aalborg (DK) 19 Bordeaux (FR) 10 Glasgow (UK) 10 Napoli (IT) 19 Liège (BE) 10 Luxembourg (LU) 10 Roma (IT) 19 Oulu (FI) 10 Rostock (DE) 10 München (DE) 19 Irakleio (EL) 10 Newcastle (UK) 10 Praha (CZ) 18 Glasgow (UK) 9 Oviedo (ES) 10 Zagreb (HR) 18 Dublin (IE) 9 Lille (FR) 10 Braga (PT) 16 Marseille (FR) 9 Palermo (IT) 10 Liège (BE) 16 Lille (FR) 9 Barcelona (ES) 10 Málaga (ES) 16 Ankara (TR) 9 Valletta (MT) 9 Manchester (UK) 16 Berlin (DE) 9 Tallinn (EE) 9 Rostock (DE) 16 Bratislava (SK) 8 Roma (IT) 9 Dortmund (DE) 15 Graz (AT) 8 Warszawa (PL) 9 Ankara (TR) 15 Málaga (ES) 8 Málaga (ES) 9 Palermo (IT) 15 Torino (IT) 8 Bordeaux (FR) 9 Marseille (FR) 15 Tallinn (EE) 8 Graz (AT) 9 Stockholm (SE) 15 Aalborg (DK) 8 Leipzig (DE) 8 Strasbourg (FR) 14 Groningen (NL) 8 Essen (DE) 8 Cardiff (UK) 13 Hamburg (DE) 7 Antalya (TR) 8 Lille (FR) 13 Barcelona (ES) 7 Sofia (BG) 8 Malmö (SE) 12 Helsinki (FI) 7 Groningen (NL) 7 Bucureşti (RO) 12 İstanbul (TR) 7 Lisboa (PT) 7 Riga (LV) 12 Rostock (DE) 7 Burgas (BG) 7 Antwerpen (BE) 11 Ljubljana (SI) 7 Verona (IT) 7 Valletta (MT) 11 Antwerpen (BE) 6 Paris (FR) 7 Groningen (NL) 10 Kosice (SK) 6 Liège (BE) 7 Oviedo (ES) 10 Lisboa (PT) 5 Zagreb (HR) 7 Rotterdam (NL) 10 Newcastle (UK) 5 Ostrava (CZ) 6 Vilnius (LT) 10 Essen (DE) 5 Gdaosk (PL) 6 Hamburg (DE) 10 Amsterdam (NL) 5 Madrid (ES) 6 Essen (DE) 10 Budapest (HU) 5 Rotterdam (NL) 5 Kosice (SK) 10 Athinia (EL) 5 Budapest (HU) 5 Glasgow (UK) 9 London (UK) 5 Kraków (PL) 5 Belfast (UK) 9 München (DE) 5 München (DE) 5 Berlin (DE) 8 Malmö (SE) 5 Rennes (FR) 5 Leipzig (DE) 8 Rotterdam (NL) 4 Torino (IT) 5 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 8 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 4 Ankara (TR) 4 Miskolc (HU) 8 Belfast (UK) 4 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 4 Ostrava (CZ) 8 Cardiff (UK) 4 Strasbourg (FR) 4 Warszawa (PL) 8 Kraków (PL) 4 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 4 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 7 Burgas (BG) 3 Hamburg (DE) 4 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 7 Oviedo (ES) 3 London (UK) 4 København (DK) 7 Warszawa (PL) 3 Bratislava (SK) 3 Gdaosk (PL) 6 Białystok (PL) 2 Amsterdam (NL) 3 Kraków (PL) 5 Braga (PT) 2 Malmö (SE) 3 İstanbul (TR) 4 Gdaosk (PL) 2 Bologna (IT) 3 Antalya (TR) 4 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 1 Braga (PT) 3 Bordeaux (FR) 4 Sofia (BG) 1 Białystok (PL) 2 Amsterdam (NL) 4 Vilnius (LT) 1 Bucureşti (RO) 2 Diyarbakir (TR) 3 Bucureşti (RO) 0 İstanbul (TR) 1 Wien (AT) 3 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 0 Miskolc (HU) 1 Budapest (HU) 2 Paris (FR) 0 Kosice (SK) 0 Dublin (IE) 2 Riga (LV) 0 Praha (CZ) 0 Białystok (PL) 0 Strasbourg (FR) 0 Riga (LV) 0 Paris (FR) 0 Q4D. Why don’t you use public transport? Base: those who never use public transport in the city, % by city page 73

Flash EB No 277 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

6. A comparison with the results of the 2006 perception survey In this last chapter, 15 charts are shown that summarize the results of the current survey in comparison with those of the previous perception survey (conducted in 2006). Some results of these comparisons were already discussed in previous chapters. For example, in section 1.1 it was noted that 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). In chapter 3, 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. For example, it was noted in section 1.2 that this city had seen a considerable decrease in the proportion of respondents who never or rarely have difficulties in paying monthly bills (between -10 percentage points).

page 74

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

It is easy to find a good job (% agree) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Stockholm (SE) 61 Malmö (SE) 38 Hamburg (DE) 48 Gdaosk (PL) 39 Leipzig (DE) 20 Warszawa (PL) 52 Antalya (TR) 34 München (DE) 54 Groningen (NL) 36 Essen (DE) 25 Białystok (PL) 17 Berlin (DE) 17 Graz (AT) 34 Amsterdam (NL) 53 Dortmund (DE) 17 Rotterdam (NL) 49 Wien (AT) 37 Luxembourg (LU) 48 Sofia (BG) 45 Ostrava (CZ) 19 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 15 Diyarbakir (TR) 8 Napoli (IT) 3 Palermo (IT) 3 Marseille (FR) 21 Ankara (TR) 13 Lefkosia (CY) 51 Kraków (PL) 37 Kosice (SK) 10 Lille (FR) 28 Athinia (EL) 26 Bordeaux (FR) 24 Roma (IT) 13 Bucureşti (RO) 31 İstanbul (TR) 16 Miskolc (HU) 7 Budapest (HU) 16 Ljubljana (SI) 40 Lisboa (PT) 14 Helsinki (FI) 48 Newcastle (UK) 33 Paris (FR) 38 Strasbourg (FR) 32 Irakleio (EL) 37 Oviedo (ES) 13 København (DK) 57 Antwerpen (BE) 36 Rennes (FR) 30 Valletta (MT) 18 Torino (IT) 11 London (UK) 42 Zagreb (HR) 16 Burgas (BG) 31 Belfast (UK) 28 Braga (PT) 12 Oulu (FI) 29 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 23 Manchester (UK) 37 Praha (CZ) 56 Madrid (ES) 21 Bratislava (SK) 41 Bologna (IT) 27 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 23 Barcelona (ES) 17 Málaga (ES) 9 Aalborg (DK) 34 Liège (BE) 14 Glasgow (UK) 27 Vilnius (LT) 13 Cardiff (UK) 30 Verona (IT) 26 Tallinn (EE) 13 Riga (LV) 8 Dublin (IE) 16 0

Diff: 18 17 15 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -4 -4 -4 -5 -5 -6 -6 -6 -7 -7 -7 -8 -9 -9 -9 -10 -10 -11 -11 -12 -12 -12 -12 -14 -15 -15 -15 -16 -17 -18 -18 -20 -20 -21 -21 -24 -28 -50

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price (% agree) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Diff: Riga (LV) 42 32 Vilnius (LT) 44 28 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 33 25 Valletta (MT) 40 25 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 45 25 Tallinn (EE) 40 23 Dublin (IE) 28 23 Málaga (ES) 53 18 Cardiff (UK) 46 17 Antalya (TR) 46 17 Belfast (UK) 47 16 Burgas (BG) 35 15 Bordeaux (FR) 27 15 Ankara (TR) 41 14 Malmö (SE) 34 14 İstanbul (TR) 25 13 Sofia (BG) 32 13 Oulu (FI) 63 13 Rotterdam (NL) 33 12 Praha (CZ) 27 12 Bucureşti (RO) 18 11 Rennes (FR) 22 11 Miskolc (HU) 47 11 Lille (FR) 25 11 Bratislava (SK) 16 9 Marseille (FR) 17 8 Madrid (ES) 33 8 Diyarbakir (TR) 52 8 Kraków (PL) 23 7 Zagreb (HR) 16 7 Oviedo (ES) 55 7 Groningen (NL) 49 7 Gdaosk (PL) 30 7 Stockholm (SE) 15 6 Lefkosia (CY) 20 6 Kosice (SK) 22 5 København (DK) 17 5 Strasbourg (FR) 19 5 Napoli (IT) 21 5 Lisboa (PT) 5 10 Warszawa (PL) 4 17 Irakleio (EL) 4 38 Barcelona (ES) 4 25 Newcastle (UK) 4 54 Budapest (HU) 4 26 Athinia (EL) 4 29 Dortmund (DE) 4 59 Antwerpen (BE) 4 22 Helsinki (FI) 3 12 Manchester (UK) 3 45 London (UK) 3 14 Essen (DE) 3 50 Braga (PT) 2 66 Glasgow (UK) 1 39 Torino (IT) 1 20 Palermo (IT) 1 37 Graz (AT) 1 23 Bologna (IT) 0 10 Paris (FR) 0 3 Aalborg (DK) 0 68 Leipzig (DE) -1 72 Białystok (PL) -1 46 Berlin (DE) -2 51 Luxembourg (LU) -2 10 München (DE) -2 6 -3 Verona (IT) 19 -3 Roma (IT) 6 -3 Wien (AT) 20 -4 Amsterdam (NL) 8 -5 Ljubljana (SI) 10 -5 Hamburg (DE) 16 -5 Ostrava (CZ) 38 -6 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 17 -8 Liège (BE) 32 0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Difficulties in paying bills at the end of the month (% never) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Diff: Helsinki (FI) 67 18 Gdaosk (PL) 61 18 Oulu (FI) 63 17 Bratislava (SK) 68 15 Kraków (PL) 59 14 Warszawa (PL) 61 12 Palermo (IT) 40 12 Verona (IT) 53 12 Lisboa (PT) 51 12 Oviedo (ES) 67 11 Rennes (FR) 60 10 Kosice (SK) 66 10 Braga (PT) 53 9 Torino (IT) 47 9 Madrid (ES) 57 8 Málaga (ES) 55 8 Vilnius (LT) 60 8 Antwerpen (BE) 70 8 Paris (FR) 56 7 Graz (AT) 78 6 Newcastle (UK) 65 6 Białystok (PL) 56 6 Barcelona (ES) 60 6 Liège (BE) 58 6 Cardiff (UK) 56 5 Bologna (IT) 54 5 Roma (IT) 41 5 Napoli (IT) 28 4 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 52 4 Strasbourg (FR) 57 4 Aalborg (DK) 83 4 Berlin (DE) 63 3 Stockholm (SE) 79 3 København (DK) 76 3 Dortmund (DE) 70 3 Luxembourg (LU) 76 3 Essen (DE) 68 3 London (UK) 48 2 Lefkosia (CY) 45 2 Malmö (SE) 2 77 Manchester (UK) 2 50 Burgas (BG) 1 43 Glasgow (UK) 1 56 Hamburg (DE) 1 67 Ostrava (CZ) -1 68 Belfast (UK) -1 50 Amsterdam (NL) -1 56 Piatra Neamţ (RO) -1 60 Budapest (HU) -1 44 Zagreb (HR) -1 53 Marseille (FR) -2 49 Cluj-Napoca (RO) -2 61 Sofia (BG) -2 40 Wien (AT) -2 72 Rotterdam (NL) -2 62 Lille (FR) -2 52 Dublin (IE) -3 54 Miskolc (HU) -3 40 Valletta (MT) -3 26 München (DE) -4 66 Tallinn (EE) -4 56 Groningen (NL) -5 62 Leipzig (DE) -5 61 Praha (CZ) -5 65 Bordeaux (FR) -7 50 -9 Ljubljana (SI) 53 -9 Athinia (EL) 32 -9 Antalya (TR) 34 -10 Ankara (TR) 33 -10 Bucureşti (RO) 58 -10 Irakleio (EL) 29 -10 Diyarbakir (TR) 25 -15 Riga (LV) 33 -16 İstanbul (TR) 23 0

100

Q3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? Base: all respondents, % of ”Never” by city page 77

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Foreigners are well integrated (% agree) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Stockholm (SE) 38 Malmö (SE) 35 Verona (IT) 56 Bratislava (SK) 64 Lille (FR) 63 Kosice (SK) 65 Groningen (NL) 66 Rotterdam (NL) 43 Bordeaux (FR) 63 Warszawa (PL) 45 London (UK) 58 Braga (PT) 65 Strasbourg (FR) 60 Torino (IT) 43 Paris (FR) 50 Ostrava (CZ) 46 Lisboa (PT) 60 Hamburg (DE) 40 Aalborg (DK) 51 Gdaosk (PL) 44 Praha (CZ) 52 København (DK) 48 Ljubljana (SI) 63 Amsterdam (NL) 51 Bucureşti (RO) 56 Diyarbakir (TR) 55 München (DE) 50 Berlin (DE) 29 Dublin (IE) 59 Luxembourg (LU) 65 Białystok (PL) 40 Miskolc (HU) 49 Marseille (FR) 57 Leipzig (DE) 39 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 66 Kraków (PL) 52 Palermo (IT) 59 Dortmund (DE) 32 Budapest (HU) 61 Essen (DE) 34 Bologna (IT) 49 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 59 Rennes (FR) 62 Helsinki (FI) 36 Wien (AT) 26 İstanbul (TR) 56 Antwerpen (BE) 36 Tallinn (EE) 38 Roma (IT) 47 Vilnius (LT) 43 Graz (AT) 29 Burgas (BG) 48 Belfast (UK) 47 Málaga (ES) 61 Napoli (IT) 43 Oviedo (ES) 52 Newcastle (UK) 58 Cardiff (UK) 65 Zagreb (HR) 55 Glasgow (UK) 58 Ankara (TR) 50 Manchester (UK) 58 Riga (LV) 39 Lefkosia (CY) 30 Valletta (MT) 49 Madrid (ES) 37 Antalya (TR) 66 Barcelona (ES) 36 Liège (BE) 41 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 39 Sofia (BG) 45 Oulu (FI) 47 Athinia (EL) 20 Irakleio (EL) 48 0

Diff: 26 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

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Respondents feel safe in the city (% always) 2009 2006 2006-2009 Napoli (IT) 36 Bordeaux (FR) 69 Gdaosk (PL) 49 Verona (IT) 61 Malmö (SE) 49 Stockholm (SE) 64 Bologna (IT) 45 Lille (FR) 51 Warszawa (PL) 42 Marseille (FR) 44 Kraków (PL) 47 Tallinn (EE) 42 Berlin (DE) 51 Zagreb (HR) 61 Palermo (IT) 53 London (UK) 32 Białystok (PL) 58 Cardiff (UK) 51 Bratislava (SK) 39 Dortmund (DE) 59 Belfast (UK) 52 Antalya (TR) 50 Rennes (FR) 56 Torino (IT) 41 Helsinki (FI) 67 Strasbourg (FR) 53 Newcastle (UK) 56 Hamburg (DE) 60 Groningen (NL) 79 Oulu (FI) 77 Madrid (ES) 47 Ljubljana (SI) 63 Rotterdam (NL) 54 Manchester (UK) 35 Vilnius (LT) 34 Antwerpen (BE) 48 Dublin (IE) 41 Kosice (SK) 44 Luxembourg (LU) 73 Leipzig (DE) 59 Essen (DE) 60 Lisboa (PT) 34 Diyarbakir (TR) 48 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 73 Glasgow (UK) 41 Praha (CZ) 30 Roma (IT) 41 München (DE) 76 Amsterdam (NL) 65 Wien (AT) 63 København (DK) 67 Ostrava (CZ) 31 İstanbul (TR) 20 Lefkosia (CY) 47 Sofia (BG) 20 Oviedo (ES) 84 Graz (AT) 61 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 33 Paris (FR) 52 Riga (LV) 33 Liège (BE) 30 Valletta (MT) 55 Málaga (ES) 59 Aalborg (DK) 78 Burgas (BG) 32 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 60 Barcelona (ES) 47 Bucureşti (RO) 25 Braga (PT) 57 Athinia (EL) 14 Ankara (TR) 45 Budapest (HU) 32 Irakleio (EL) 36 Miskolc (HU) 34 0

Diff: 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

100

Q3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? Base: all respondents, % of ”Always” by city page 79

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Respondents feel safe in their neighbourhood (% always) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Napoli (IT) 52 Berlin (DE) 87 Hamburg (DE) 88 Leipzig (DE) 90 Gdaosk (PL) 68 Essen (DE) 89 Dublin (IE) 76 Manchester (UK) 55 Dortmund (DE) 88 Białystok (PL) 76 Kraków (PL) 63 Warszawa (PL) 67 Cardiff (UK) 66 London (UK) 53 Verona (IT) 71 Stockholm (SE) 82 Glasgow (UK) 70 Ljubljana (SI) 79 Belfast (UK) 74 München (DE) 91 Luxembourg (LU) 87 Bordeaux (FR) 84 Liège (BE) 64 Rotterdam (NL) 77 Tallinn (EE) 60 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 83 Bologna (IT) 59 Palermo (IT) 67 Wien (AT) 82 Lille (FR) 75 Newcastle (UK) 70 København (DK) 83 Madrid (ES) 61 Malmö (SE) 72 Marseille (FR) 66 Oviedo (ES) 89 Roma (IT) 56 Antwerpen (BE) 71 Oulu (FI) 87 Málaga (ES) 74 Helsinki (FI) 80 Torino (IT) 54 Zagreb (HR) 79 Groningen (NL) 88 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 76 Aalborg (DK) 91 Rennes (FR) 74 Sofia (BG) 33 Strasbourg (FR) 73 Graz (AT) 84 Antalya (TR) 74 Lefkosia (CY) 67 Barcelona (ES) 62 Braga (PT) 75 Paris (FR) 69 Amsterdam (NL) 78 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 58 Riga (LV) 46 Lisboa (PT) 53 Bratislava (SK) 63 Diyarbakir (TR) 70 Budapest (HU) 60 Valletta (MT) 60 Kosice (SK) 65 Ankara (TR) 67 Burgas (BG) 38 Miskolc (HU) 59 Athinia (EL) 38 Ostrava (CZ) 49 Bucureşti (RO) 44 Praha (CZ) 46 Irakleio (EL) 50 İstanbul (TR) 48 Vilnius (LT) 46 0

Diff: 21 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

100

Q3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? Base: all respondents, % of ”Always” by city page 80

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Air pollution is a major problem (% “disagree”) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Helsinki (FI) 56 Valletta (MT) 23 Bratislava (SK) 41 Berlin (DE) 47 Dublin (IE) 54 Dortmund (DE) 60 Newcastle (UK) 67 Kosice (SK) 47 Manchester (UK) 41 Bordeaux (FR) 55 Málaga (ES) 50 Luxembourg (LU) 61 Rennes (FR) 68 Leipzig (DE) 66 Zagreb (HR) 32 Cardiff (UK) 58 Belfast (UK) 52 Antalya (TR) 50 München (DE) 48 Amsterdam (NL) 32 Wien (AT) 57 Lille (FR) 35 Praha (CZ) 25 Essen (DE) 52 Gdaosk (PL) 35 Verona (IT) 16 Oulu (FI) 62 Paris (FR) 20 Oviedo (ES) 69 Vilnius (LT) 20 Torino (IT) 17 Glasgow (UK) 38 Riga (LV) 31 Bologna (IT) 16 Hamburg (DE) 61 Graz (AT) 25 Braga (PT) 46 Ljubljana (SI) 29 Rotterdam (NL) 23 London (UK) 19 Barcelona (ES) 23 Lefkosia (CY) 20 Diyarbakir (TR) 44 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 21 Tallinn (EE) 33 København (DK) 28 Marseille (FR) 24 Strasbourg (FR) 20 Madrid (ES) 15 Miskolc (HU) 36 Roma (IT) 10 Groningen (NL) 75 Burgas (BG) 9 Białystok (PL) 75 Lisboa (PT) 14 Liège (BE) 23 Warszawa (PL) 19 Kraków (PL) 21 Cluj-Napoc (RO) 23 Napoli (IT) 12 Aalborg (DK) 65 İstanbul (TR) 27 Ankara (TR) 46 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 66 Antwerpen (BE) 20 Sofia (BG) 7 Athinia (EL) 4 Palermo (IT) 17 Bucureşti (RO) 6 Irakleio (EL) 30 Budapest (HU) 6 Ostrava (CZ) 23 Malmö (SE) 34 Stockholm (SE) 27 0

Diff: 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

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Noise is a major problem (% “disagree”) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Valletta (MT) 36 Dublin (IE) 55 Manchester (UK) 54 Bordeaux (FR) 56 Belfast (UK) 62 Lille (FR) 42 İstanbul (TR) 19 Zagreb (HR) 34 Vilnius (LT) 37 Amsterdam (NL) 50 København (DK) 42 Białystok (PL) 67 Helsinki (FI) 51 Praha (CZ) 24 Tallinn (EE) 40 Málaga (ES) 35 Strasbourg (FR) 47 Wien (AT) 47 London (UK) 26 Glasgow (UK) 45 Cardiff (UK) 63 Paris (FR) 28 Newcastle (UK) 64 Ljubljana (SI) 36 Oulu (FI) 76 Bratislava (SK) 35 Hamburg (DE) 53 Riga (LV) 42 Rotterdam (NL) 45 Barcelona (ES) 20 Oviedo (ES) 59 Marseille (FR) 29 Liège (BE) 41 Lefkosia (CY) 21 Madrid (ES) 15 Miskolc (HU) 43 Luxembourg (LU) 62 Berlin (DE) 39 Lisboa (PT) 19 Antalya (TR) 37 Braga (PT) 47 Gdaosk (PL) 37 Napoli (IT) 17 Leipzig (DE) 57 Rennes (FR) 56 Groningen (NL) 79 Graz (AT) 42 Verona (IT) 40 Palermo (IT) 21 Aalborg (DK) 64 Roma (IT) 16 Cluj-Napoc (RO) 29 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 65 München (DE) 48 Dortmund (DE) 50 Bologna (IT) 29 Kosice (SK) 46 Athinia (EL) 4 Torino (IT) 29 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 33 Budapest (HU) 12 Essen (DE) 45 Diyarbakir (TR) 35 Warszawa (PL) 16 Burgas (BG) 24 Irakleio (EL) 15 Kraków (PL) 18 Antwerpen (BE) 43 Ankara (TR) 33 Bucureşti (RO) 11 Sofia (BG) 11 Stockholm (SE) 33 Ostrava (CZ) 32 Malmö (SE) 40 0

Diff: 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

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

The city is clean (% agree) 2006-2009 2009 Stockholm (SE) 76 Malmö (SE) 69 Napoli (IT) 27 Valletta (MT) 46 Marseille (FR) 26 Dublin (IE) 48 Bordeaux (FR) 71 Bratislava (SK) 40 Białystok (PL) 88 Diyarbakir (TR) 69 Lille (FR) 72 Warszawa (PL) 42 Belfast (UK) 61 Kraków (PL) 56 Cardiff (UK) 73 Newcastle (UK) 83 Ljubljana (SI) 77 Hamburg (DE) 83 Rotterdam (NL) 48 Antalya (TR) 78 Glasgow (UK) 54 Manchester (UK) 58 Wien (AT) 84 Burgas (BG) 42 Gdaosk (PL) 64 München (DE) 93 Verona (IT) 81 Praha (CZ) 42 Torino (IT) 63 Madrid (ES) 55 Tallinn (EE) 65 Kosice (SK) 62 Oulu (FI) 76 Sofia (BG) 15 Helsinki (FI) 72 Graz (AT) 76 Amsterdam (NL) 50 Bucureşti (RO) 24 Luxembourg (LU) 96 London (UK) 43 Paris (FR) 44 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 96 København (DK) 43 Oviedo (ES) 97 Berlin (DE) 32 İstanbul (TR) 38 Miskolc (HU) 44 Groningen (NL) 84 Ankara (TR) 69 Aalborg (DK) 73 Antwerpen (BE) 46 Ostrava (CZ) 49 Strasbourg (FR) 72 Leipzig (DE) 71 Roma (IT) 27 Rennes (FR) 76 Braga (PT) 83 Essen (DE) 56 Liège (BE) 29 Zagreb (HR) 63 Budapest (HU) 15 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 84 Málaga (ES) 34 Dortmund (DE) 68 Barcelona (ES) 40 Lisboa (PT) 33 Riga (LV) 67 Bologna (IT) 54 Irakleio (EL) 35 Vilnius (LT) 56 Lefkosia (CY) 50 Palermo (IT) 13 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 26 Athinia (EL) 16 0

2006

Diff: 23 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

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

The city spends its resources in a responsible way (% agree) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Diff: Białystok (PL) 58 31 Stockholm (SE) 61 26 Malmö (SE) 58 21 Luxembourg (LU) 69 20 Ljubljana (SI) 41 16 Burgas (BG) 36 14 Warszawa (PL) 33 13 Kosice (SK) 31 13 Bordeaux (FR) 66 13 Antalya (TR) 54 11 Lille (FR) 57 10 Marseille (FR) 39 10 Lisboa (PT) 42 9 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 65 9 Groningen (NL) 63 8 Praha (CZ) 40 8 Ostrava (CZ) 44 8 Valletta (MT) 49 8 Verona (IT) 55 7 Oviedo (ES) 58 7 Bratislava (SK) 26 7 İstanbul (TR) 39 6 Belfast (UK) 52 6 London (UK) 43 5 Sofia (BG) 21 5 München (DE) 57 5 Bologna (IT) 49 4 Newcastle (UK) 63 4 Graz (AT) 36 4 Helsinki (FI) 54 3 Leipzig (DE) 29 3 Rennes (FR) 56 3 Diyarbakir (TR) 45 3 Bucureşti (RO) 20 3 Ankara (TR) 43 2 Rotterdam (NL) 52 1 Napoli (IT) 19 1 Aalborg (DK) 56 0 Málaga (ES) 44 0 Braga (PT) 0 61 Cardiff (UK) 0 56 Strasbourg (FR) 0 52 Torino (IT) -1 47 Tallinn (EE) -1 26 Paris (FR) -1 41 Cluj-Napoca (RO) -1 57 Antwerpen (BE) -1 50 Dublin (IE) -2 35 Berlin (DE) -2 18 Kraków (PL) -3 46 Glasgow (UK) -3 50 Hamburg (DE) -4 34 Gdaosk (PL) -4 44 Riga (LV) -6 14 Lefkosia (CY) -6 29 Essen (DE) -6 25 Manchester (UK) -6 50 Vilnius (LT) -7 13 Barcelona (ES) -7 34 Palermo (IT) -8 15 Athinia (EL) -8 15 Irakleio (EL) -8 54 Liège (BE) -9 31 Wien (AT) -10 49 København (DK) -11 44 -12 Madrid (ES) 35 -14 Amsterdam (NL) 35 -14 Roma (IT) 26 -17 Miskolc (HU) 33 -17 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 27 -17 Budapest (HU) 9 -19 Zagreb (HR) 27 -19 Oulu (FI) 44 -22 Dortmund (DE) 16 0

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Administrative services help efficiently (% agree) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Stockholm (SE) 51 Malmö (SE) 53 Bratislava (SK) 43 Praha (CZ) 56 Lille (FR) 68 Bordeaux (FR) 68 Ljubljana (SI) 60 Kraków (PL) 55 Marseille (FR) 55 Warszawa (PL) 50 Białystok (PL) 58 Gdaosk (PL) 55 Lisboa (PT) 57 Bucureşti (RO) 35 Antwerpen (BE) 78 Ostrava (CZ) 60 Antalya (TR) 57 Groningen (NL) 72 Helsinki (FI) 50 Diyarbakir (TR) 48 Luxembourg (LU) 68 Málaga (ES) 53 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 53 Rotterdam (NL) 67 Zagreb (HR) 39 Kosice (SK) 42 Valletta (MT) 57 London (UK) 55 Belfast (UK) 67 Rennes (FR) 62 Hamburg (DE) 46 Budapest (HU) 51 München (DE) 40 Sofia (BG) 37 Aalborg (DK) 69 Oulu (FI) 55 Madrid (ES) 56 Vilnius (LT) 40 Dublin (IE) 61 Burgas (BG) 44 Amsterdam (NL) 57 Essen (DE) 46 İstanbul (TR) 41 Napoli (IT) 33 Braga (PT) 65 København (DK) 59 Newcastle (UK) 70 Verona (IT) 60 Oviedo (ES) 65 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 52 Paris (FR) 49 Ankara (TR) 47 Strasbourg (FR) 64 Glasgow (UK) 61 Berlin (DE) 27 Bologna (IT) 66 Cardiff (UK) 68 Torino (IT) 53 Lefkosia (CY) 48 Barcelona (ES) 50 Palermo (IT) 25 Leipzig (DE) 34 Wien (AT) 35 Manchester (UK) 60 Liège (BE) 61 Tallinn (EE) 32 Graz (AT) 36 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 56 Roma (IT) 44 Athinia (EL) 31 Irakleio (EL) 46 Dortmund (DE) 47 Riga (LV) 26 Miskolc (HU) 31 0

Diff: 20 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

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Satisfaction with cultural facilities (% satisfied) 2006-2009 2009 2006 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) Gdaosk (PL) Malmö (SE) Oviedo (ES) Piatra Neamţ (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)

77 92 90 59 82 82 83 86 82 80 91 91 85 87 78 52 91 88 67 93 57 67 52 94 85 96 91 67 82 89 80 73 92 80 93 72 86 67 92 52 79 86 95 94 95 94 84 72 92 86 96 78 94 91 90 77 94 41 87 73 93 87 82 77 80 49 90 76 71 68 59 54 41 35 0

Diff: 20 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

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Satisfaction with green spaces (% satisfied) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Burgas (BG) 82 Bratislava (SK) 60 Sofia (BG) 48 Antwerpen (BE) 78 Tallinn (EE) 81 Bucureşti (RO) 66 Kosice (SK) 71 Belfast (UK) 86 Madrid (ES) 79 Verona (IT) 69 Rotterdam (NL) 83 Riga (LV) 87 Marseille (FR) 74 Newcastle (UK) 89 Praha (CZ) 75 Ljubljana (SI) 77 Bordeaux (FR) 91 Lille (FR) 81 Braga (PT) 55 Dublin (IE) 86 Napoli (IT) 36 Luxembourg (LU) 91 Groningen (NL) 93 Ostrava (CZ) 75 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 88 Kraków (PL) 83 Warszawa (PL) 85 Glasgow (UK) 90 Torino (IT) 85 Budapest (HU) 54 Paris (FR) 82 Strasbourg (FR) 84 Gdaosk (PL) 79 Oviedo (ES) 89 Diyarbakir (TR) 69 Leipzig (DE) 93 Hamburg (DE) 92 Cardiff (UK) 92 Zagreb (HR) 74 Amsterdam (NL) 83 Lisboa (PT) 54 Bologna (IT) 78 Málaga (ES) 53 Rennes (FR) 88 Essen (DE) 80 İstanbul (TR) 61 Białystok (PL) 91 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 68 Berlin (DE) 83 London (UK) 86 Helsinki (FI) 89 Ankara (TR) 77 Liège (BE) 64 Graz (AT) 78 Antalya (TR) 81 Wien (AT) 83 København (DK) 88 München (DE) 94 Barcelona (ES) 58 Miskolc (HU) 59 Stockholm (SE) 91 Malmö (SE) 94 Vilnius (LT) 62 Dortmund (DE) 85 Manchester (UK) 75 Oulu (FI) 88 Aalborg (DK) 82 Palermo (IT) 39 Roma (IT) 67 Valletta (MT) 43 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 76 Athinia (EL) 23 Irakleio (EL) 32 Lefkosia (CY) 38 0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

Diff: 26 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

80.0

100.0

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Satisfaction with sport facilities (% satisfied) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Warszawa (PL) 51 Białystok (PL) 46 Bratislava (SK) 47 Dublin (IE) 71 Gdaosk (PL) 46 Ljubljana (SI) 59 Kraków (PL) 47 Luxembourg (LU) 79 Kosice (SK) 53 Madrid (ES) 63 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 66 Lille (FR) 74 Marseille (FR) 55 München (DE) 76 Burgas (BG) 42 Barcelona (ES) 63 Antwerpen (BE) 61 Groningen (NL) 89 Málaga (ES) 60 Tallinn (EE) 65 Zagreb (HR) 60 Dortmund (DE) 68 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 53 Sofia (BG) 31 Leipzig (DE) 67 Braga (PT) 68 Manchester (UK) 69 Budapest (HU) 39 Helsinki (FI) 92 Bordeaux (FR) 71 Praha (CZ) 65 Ostrava (CZ) 68 Graz (AT) 59 Lisboa (PT) 47 Rennes (FR) 73 Cardiff (UK) 78 Paris (FR) 51 Hamburg (DE) 67 Vilnius (LT) 38 Amsterdam (NL) 76 Berlin (DE) 63 London (UK) 57 Malmö (SE) 69 Rotterdam (NL) 76 Verona (IT) 66 Newcastle (UK) 73 Wien (AT) 62 Oulu (FI) 89 Lefkosia (CY) 55 Strasbourg (FR) 63 İstanbul (TR) 42 Essen (DE) 50 Torino (IT) 58 Oviedo (ES) 69 Belfast (UK) 65 Valletta (MT) 49 Stockholm (SE) 58 Bologna (IT) 64 Ankara (TR) 41 Glasgow (UK) 70 Miskolc (HU) 40 Diyarbakir (TR) 32 Bucureşti (RO) 30 Roma (IT) 49 Antalya (TR) 41 København (DK) 53 Aalborg (DK) 76 Napoli (IT) 28 Irakleio (EL) 56 Palermo (IT) 32 Athinia (EL) 42 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 48 Riga (LV) 30 Liège (BE) 40 0

Diff: 21 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

100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Analytical report

Satisfaction with public transport (% satisfied) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Bratislava (SK) 58 Sofia (BG) 43 Tallinn (EE) 72 København (DK) 82 Marseille (FR) 68 Graz (AT) 75 Kraków (PL) 76 İstanbul (TR) 60 Madrid (ES) 79 Diyarbakir (TR) 68 Stockholm (SE) 87 Zagreb (HR) 76 Białystok (PL) 77 Belfast (UK) 78 Groningen (NL) 83 Lisboa (PT) 66 Strasbourg (FR) 90 Praha (CZ) 82 Barcelona (ES) 74 Burgas (BG) 58 Oviedo (ES) 82 Luxembourg (LU) 82 Bordeaux (FR) 84 Valletta (MT) 50 Aalborg (DK) 75 Paris (FR) 83 Cluj-Napoca (RO) 76 London (UK) 76 Bucureşti (RO) 47 Malmö (SE) 80 Ljubljana (SI) 68 Málaga (ES) 70 Newcastle (UK) 84 Gdaosk (PL) 68 Cardiff (UK) 76 Dublin (IE) 70 Rotterdam (NL) 82 Glasgow (UK) 77 Antwerpen (BE) 81 Ostrava (CZ) 72 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 65 Kosice (SK) 56 Rennes (FR) 89 Riga (LV) 65 Budapest (HU) 48 Warszawa (PL) 68 Lefkosia (CY) 17 Torino (IT) 54 Amsterdam (NL) 82 Helsinki (FI) 93 Lille (FR) 76 Leipzig (DE) 82 Wien (AT) 91 Hamburg (DE) 87 Verona (IT) 46 Bologna (IT) 67 Liège (BE) 66 München (DE) 86 Oulu (FI) 65 Roma (IT) 35 Ankara (TR) 62 Piatra Neamţ (RO) 60 Braga (PT) 49 Dortmund (DE) 79 Irakleio (EL) 49 Essen (DE) 66 Antalya (TR) 53 Manchester (UK) 65 Napoli (IT) 28 Vilnius (LT) 50 Athinia (EL) 60 Palermo (IT) 12 Berlin (DE) 68 Miskolc (HU) 55 0

Diff: 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

100

Flash EB Series #277

Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex tables and survey details THE GALLUP ORGANISATION

Annex

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

I. Annex tables Table 1. Satisfaction with public transport – by city ............................................................................. 92 Table 2. Satisfaction with health care services offered by doctors and hospitals – by city ................... 94 Table 3. Satisfaction with sports facilities such as sport fields and indoor sport halls – by city .................................................................................................................................................... 96 Table 4. Satisfaction with cultural facilities such as concert halls, theatres, museums and libraries – by city .............................................................................................................................. 98 Table 5. Satisfaction with the beauty of streets and buildings – by city .............................................. 100 Table 6. Satisfaction with public spaces such as markets, squares, pedestrian areas – by city .................................................................................................................................................. 102 Table 7. Satisfaction with green spaces such as parks and gardens – by city ...................................... 104 Table 8. Satisfaction with outdoor recreation such as walking, cycling or picnicking – by city .................................................................................................................................................. 106 Table 9. In this city, it is easy to find a good job – by city .................................................................. 108 Table 10. The presence of foreigners is good for this city – by city.................................................... 110 Table 11. Foreigners who live in this city are well integrated – by city .............................................. 112 Table 12. In this city, it is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price – by city.......................... 114 Table 13. Generally speaking, most people in this city can be trusted – by city ................................. 116 Table 14. In this city, poverty is a problem – by city .......................................................................... 118 Table 15. Administrative services of this city help efficiently – by city ............................................. 120 Table 16. In this city, air pollution is a big problem – by city ............................................................. 122 Table 17. In this city, noise is a big problem – by city ........................................................................ 124 Table 18. This city is clean – by city ................................................................................................... 126 Table 19. This city spends its resources in a responsible way – by city .............................................. 128 Table 20. This city is committed to the fight climate change – by city ............................................... 130 Table 21. This city is a healthy place to live – by city......................................................................... 132 Table 22. You have difficulties paying bills at the end of the month – by city ................................... 134 Table 23. You feel safe in this city – by city ....................................................................................... 136 Table 24. You feel safe in your neighbourhood – by city ................................................................... 138 Table 25. Minutes per day spent to go to work or training place – by city.......................................... 140 Table 26. Means of transport used to go to work or training place – by city ...................................... 142 Table 27. Frequency of using public transport – by city ..................................................................... 144 Table 28. Reasons for not using public transport – by city.................................................................. 146 Table 29. Most important problems for this city – by city .................................................................. 148 page 91

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 1. Satisfaction with public transport – by city QUESTION: Q1_A. 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: - Public transport in [CITY NAME], for example the bus, tram or metro

Total N

% Very satisfied

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

38.3

42.9

7.5

3.4

7.9

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

17.8

47.2

16.4

9.7

8.8

Liège

502

16.9

48.8

3.6

17.7

Burgas

500

39.2

10.9

25.9

Sofia

500

8.8

27.5

15.4

14.3

Ostrava

501

23.9

48.5

9.7

3.7

14.2

Praha

500

28.8

52.9

9.1

4.9

4.3

Aalborg

500

26.6

48.2

8.3

13.9

København

503

27.1

55.1

10.6

3.2

Berlin

501

25.5

42.9

17.5

7.7

6.4

Dortmund

505

45.3

6.1

2.1

12.5

Essen

501

20.2

45.3

5.4

12.1

Hamburg

501

39.4

47.5

6.8

2.2

4.1

Leipzig

500

38.1

43.9

7.2

2.4

8.4

München

502

41.7

44.5

8.5

2.5

2.8

Rostock

502

47.1

39.5

6.2

0.7

6.5

Tallinn

500

22.6

49.2

11.5

3.7

12.9

Athinia

506

18.5

41.9

17.1

10.3

12.2

Irakleio

507

14.3

34.3

12.6

14.6

24.1

Barcelona

501

14.1

59.7

16.3

5.5

4.3

Madrid

501

22.4

56.3

13.7

3.8

Málaga

500

13.8

56.2

15.4

6.4

8.2

Oviedo

502

17.9

63.7

6.3

2.5

9.6

Bordeaux

502

32.8

51.5

4.7

3.4

7.7

Lille

503

28.7

47.6

4.1

13.6

Marseille

501

20.3

47.2

15.3

11.3

5.9

Paris

500

21.7

60.8

11.2

2.3

Rennes

506

43.4

45.1

3.8

1.7

5.9

Strasbourg

505

36.2

53.4

4.6

1.1

4.7

Dublin

500

24.2

45.6

16.3

10.4

3.5

Bologna

505

15.7

51.5

14.1

5.9

12.8

Napoli

500

2.3

25.8

32.9

25.2

13.8

Palermo

501

1.2

10.7

35.9

38.3

Roma

503

3.3

31.9

19.9

Torino

501

8.9

45.3

20.8

7.3

17.6

Verona

501

8.9

37.1

21.4

7.5

25.1

CITY

page 92

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

(continued) CITY

Total N

% Very satisfied

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Lefkosia

500

4.4

12.9

54.5

16.2

Riga

505

21.1

43.6

17.2

6.2

11.9

Vilnius

502

13.7

36.4

16.7

5.5

27.6

Luxembourg

503

34.5

47.4

10.3

2.8

4.9

Budapest

500

6.4

41.7

13.8

8.2

Miskolc

502

12.2

42.9

10.6

12.3

Valletta

500

21.2

28.6

14.4

23.8

Amsterdam

500

54.8

2.6

6.6

Groningen

500

34.2

48.5

4.5

2.2

10.6

Rotterdam

500

30.1

51.9

4.6

3.2

10.2

Wien

500

53.1

37.5

4.7

2.3

2.4

Graz

503

28.2

15.4

4.9

4.6

Białystok

501

15.8

60.8

6.6

3.1

13.7

Gdańsk

500

16.8

50.9

11.2

5.9

15.2

Kraków

501

17.4

58.9

9.3

3.2

11.2

Warszawa

501

13.9

54.2

15.6

6.1

10.2

Braga

502

11.7

36.9

7.5

4.9

Lisboa

503

11.7

54.2

14.5

6.4

13.1

Bucureşti

503

7.5

39.3

10.2

Cluj-Napoca

503

20.7

54.8

10.2

Piatra Neamţ

501

14.9

9.7

4.7

25.6

Ljubljana

508

13.3

11.2

9.4

11.2

Bratislava

501

12.1

45.4

20.4

7.3

14.9

Kosice

501

12.3

43.6

6.3

16.8

Helsinki

507

41.8

51.4

4.1

1.4

1.3

Oulu

505

13.6

51.3

22.4

5.5

7.2

Malmö

500

17.7

62.6

8.4

2.2

9.1

Stockholm

500

37.4

49.9

6.5

1.8

4.3

Belfast

500

33.6

43.9

10.2

4.4

Cardiff

500

27.6

48.7

8.8

5.8

Glasgow

500

30.5

5.7

9.7

London

500

27.6

12.3

6.5

5.5

Manchester

500

20.5

13.5

8.7

13.3

Newcastle

500

40.7

5.5

3.6

7.1

Zagreb

501

38.9

37.3

11.2

5.9

6.7

Ankara

502

19.9

41.8

12.6

17.5

8.2

Antalya

502

18.9

34.2

9.6

13.6

23.7

Diyarbakir

501

24.2

43.9

8.5

12.7

10.7

İstanbul

504

14.5

45.9

13.5

15.8

10.3

page 93

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 2. Satisfaction with health care services offered by doctors and hospitals – by city QUESTION: Q1_B. 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: - Health care services offered by doctors and hospitals in [CITY NAME]

Total N

% Very satisfied

Antwerpen

500

52.1

40.3

2.1

0.6

4.9

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

36.5

49.5

6.7

3.2

4.1

Liège

502

37.5

54.6

2.9

2.1

2.9

Burgas

500

9.5

23.6

28.6

28.2

10.1

Sofia

500

11.1

31.7

25.3

20.8

11.2

Ostrava

501

33.5

47.5

11.8

2.9

4.4

Praha

500

25.9

51.5

13.4

4.9

4.3

Aalborg

500

38.9

47.1

1.8

8.2

København

503

28.2

51.5

10.4

2.2

7.8

Berlin

501

35.9

47.5

11.8

2.2

2.6

Dortmund

505

44.2

44.4

1.3

3.2

Essen

501

39.7

8.9

2.4

Hamburg

501

44.6

41.9

9.5

2.1

Leipzig

500

33.2

51.7

9.8

4.3

München

502

53.9

35.8

4.8

1.7

3.8

Rostock

502

31.9

53.5

11.3

1.3

1.9

Tallinn

500

20.8

15.1

11.1

Athinia

506

8.6

29.6

25.7

32.1

4.1

Irakleio

507

12.7

38.7

23.9

21.5

3.1

Barcelona

501

14.2

57.9

18.3

6.8

2.8

Madrid

501

18.8

49.7

21.4

6.9

3.2

Málaga

500

16.3

51.2

23.2

7.4

1.9

Oviedo

502

23.3

63.4

9.7

2.3

1.3

Bordeaux

502

35.3

56.5

2.1

1.7

4.4

Lille

503

38.9

51.7

3.4

1.7

4.3

Marseille

501

34.1

56.4

5.8

2.3

1.5

Paris

500

21.8

56.6

10.7

7.9

Rennes

506

31.3

54.7

4.9

0.7

8.4

CITY

page 94

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Strasbourg

505

31.3

54.6

6.5

1.9

5.8

Dublin

500

16.3

40.9

24.7

14.6

3.5

Bologna

505

24.2

12.9

4.4

3.6

Napoli

500

3.6

37.5

32.3

23.4

3.1

Palermo

501

32.5

24.6

2.8

Roma

503

6.1

48.1

30.2

12.4

3.3

Torino

501

12.6

59.5

18.3

4.9

4.6

Verona

501

21.9

58.4

11.2

4.2

4.3

Lefkosia

500

20.9

34.7

16.6

18.3

9.5

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

(continued) CITY

Total N

% Very satisfied

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Riga

505

9.4

34.8

21.9

19.1

14.8

Vilnius

502

13.2

30.7

23.9

21.2

Luxembourg

503

44.7

46.1

5.3

2.2

1.7

Budapest

500

12.4

37.6

25.9

13.8

10.3

Miskolc

502

14.5

44.4

12.2

9.1

Valletta

500

22.8

36.7

10.5

Amsterdam

500

41.8

45.6

1.8

3.8

Groningen

500

53.5

40.9

1.9

0.6

Rotterdam

500

42.8

47.8

1.3

Wien

500

55.2

36.7

5.4

0.7

1.9

Graz

503

58.3

35.8

3.6

0.7

1.7

Białystok

501

12.3

48.7

21.3

12.7

Gdańsk

500

10.4

41.7

25.1

14.8

Kraków

501

9.3

42.3

26.2

15.4

6.8

Warszawa

501

7.1

33.7

30.5

22.4

6.2

Braga

502

18.7

17.4

9.5

2.3

Lisboa

503

11.1

52.3

18.5

11.7

6.3

Bucureşti

503

7.4

30.4

26.3

7.8

Cluj-Napoca

503

14.3

35.8

26.4

8.6

Piatra Neamţ

501

33.2

24.4

21.7

9.8

Ljubljana

508

14.4

54.9

18.3

7.2

5.1

Bratislava

501

47.8

24.2

7.6

6.4

Kosice

501

19.7

53.8

18.8

3.2

4.5

Helsinki

507

19.3

51.8

4.2

5.7

Oulu

505

19.9

56.3

15.3

4.3

Malmö

500

21.1

52.3

4.2

6.3

Stockholm

500

36.1

49.7

6.4

1.5

6.3

Belfast

500

44.3

41.5

8.1

3.5

2.5

Cardiff

500

39.3

45.1

9.5

2.9

3.2

Glasgow

500

45.3

38.4

6.2

4.7

5.4

London

500

32.1

46.4

9.9

7.4

4.2

Manchester

500

43.8

7.7

3.9

2.7

Newcastle

500

61.8

32.1

1.6

1.9

2.5

Zagreb

501

24.7

21.8

13.2

2.3

Ankara

502

30.7

41.7

12.9

11.6

3.1

Antalya

502

37.1

39.3

6.6

11.3

5.7

Diyarbakir

501

26.4

40.2

15.2

15.6

2.6

İstanbul

504

24.5

14.8

14.3

2.4

page 95

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 3. Satisfaction with sports facilities such as sport fields and indoor sport halls – by city QUESTION: Q1_C. 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: - Sports facilities in [CITY NAME] such as sport fields and indoor sport halls

Total N

% Very satisfied

Antwerpen

500

24.5

36.1

5.1

2.2

32.1

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

14.3

33.5

10.5

3.4

38.3

Liège

502

8.7

31.6

9.7

6.2

43.9

Burgas

500

14.6

27.3

23.4

11.6

23.1

Sofia

500

10.6

20.4

17.4

30.5

Ostrava

501

26.7

41.3

11.3

2.4

18.4

Praha

500

21.6

43.1

13.2

2.9

19.2

Aalborg

500

37.4

38.6

7.6

1.6

14.8

København

503

34.3

16.7

5.5

24.5

Berlin

501

22.2

40.6

16.5

2.1

18.6

Dortmund

505

24.2

43.7

14.4

4.2

13.5

Essen

501

14.8

34.9

25.6

6.7

17.9

Hamburg

501

37.6

13.2

1.9

18.3

Leipzig

500

21.8

45.4

14.6

1.6

16.6

München

502

38.3

37.3

6.9

1.3

16.1

Rostock

502

17.4

46.2

19.6

2.7

Tallinn

500

24.5

40.8

7.4

2.7

24.6

Athinia

506

11.9

30.2

21.2

17.5

19.2

Irakleio

507

21.9

33.9

16.6

13.4

14.2

Barcelona

501

12.9

49.8

17.3

4.9

15.1

Madrid

501

14.4

48.3

17.1

5.3

14.9

Málaga

500

13.4

46.9

22.5

7.4

9.9

Oviedo

502

12.2

56.9

12.7

3.4

14.9

Bordeaux

502

24.5

46.1

6.9

1.6

20.9

Lille

503

23.1

7.5

1.3

17.2

Marseille

501

14.4

40.3

15.4

9.6

20.3

Paris

500

12.8

38.2

20.1

3.8

25.1

Rennes

506

20.7

51.8

0.8

18.6

CITY

page 96

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Strasbourg

505

16.6

46.4

12.6

2.3

22.1

Dublin

500

29.5

41.6

7.2

8.7

Bologna

505

16.1

47.8

1.3

24.7

Napoli

500

3.3

24.5

28.8

23.7

19.7

Palermo

501

3.1

28.5

28.7

21.9

17.8

Roma

503

10.2

39.2

20.7

8.9

21.1

Torino

501

12.8

44.9

7.5

2.8

Verona

501

14.7

51.1

10.2

2.7

21.3

Lefkosia

500

18.5

13.1

16.3

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

(continued) CITY

Total N

% Very satisfied

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Riga

505

9.8

9.9

44.4

Vilnius

502

11.1

27.2

19.3

9.6

32.7

Luxembourg

503

36.3

7.5

1.2

Budapest

500

7.8

31.2

16.2

9.9

34.9

Miskolc

502

10.7

29.1

27.1

9.7

23.4

Valletta

500

16.3

32.8

15.1

12.3

23.5

Amsterdam

500

32.3

43.9

8.4

0.8

14.6

Groningen

500

52.3

36.3

3.4

0.7

7.3

Rotterdam

500

41.8

5.8

2.5

15.9

Wien

500

20.8

40.9

9.9

2.1

26.3

Graz

503

18.3

40.8

18.2

1.4

21.3

Białystok

501

9.1

37.2

7.2

22.5

Gdańsk

500

9.2

36.9

24.5

8.5

Kraków

501

10.5

36.2

21.6

11.5

20.2

Warszawa

501

12.5

38.9

17.1

6.8

24.7

Braga

502

17.9

49.6

14.1

3.4

Lisboa

503

9.5

37.7

17.3

5.9

29.6

Bucureşti

503

6.7

23.2

18.6

25.2

26.3

Cluj-Napoca

503

16.3

36.7

18.3

6.1

22.6

Piatra Neamţ

501

28.2

38.1

8.5

8.8

16.4

Ljubljana

508

12.7

46.7

18.7

7.1

14.8

Bratislava

501

10.7

36.7

22.7

6.4

23.5

Kosice

501

14.4

38.5

22.3

4.7

20.2

Helsinki

507

45.2

46.8

4.7

0.2

3.1

Oulu

505

40.3

6.3

0.9

3.5

Malmö

500

28.7

40.1

6.3

1.2

23.7

Stockholm

500

19.5

38.8

10.3

3.4

27.9

Belfast

500

30.4

34.4

12.5

6.2

16.5

Cardiff

500

34.9

42.6

5.1

15.5

Glasgow

500

31.1

38.4

9.9

5.5

15.2

London

500

16.9

40.3

6.4

22.4

Manchester

500

33.1

35.5

7.3

5.2

Newcastle

500

37.7

35.7

5.4

2.6

18.7

Zagreb

501

25.1

19.7

8.5

11.8

Ankara

502

15.1

25.8

11.1

12.1

35.9

Antalya

502

17.8

23.1

8.8

10.4

39.9

Diyarbakir

501

20.1

9.8

21.1

37.1

İstanbul

504

16.2

25.4

10.5

14.5

33.3

page 97

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 4. Satisfaction with cultural facilities such as concert halls, theatres, museums and libraries – by city QUESTION: Q1_D. 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: - Cultural facilities in [CITY NAME] such as concert halls, theatres, museums and libraries

Total N

% Very satisfied

Antwerpen

500

47.1

37.2

2.4

0.8

12.4

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

31.3

48.6

5.2

2.4

12.5

Liège

502

26.1

51.6

6.9

1.5

13.8

Burgas

500

18.7

17.8

7.3

23.2

Sofia

500

21.4

37.7

14.9

7.4

18.6

Ostrava

501

28.7

50.6

2.1

9.6

Praha

500

40.1

4.7

1.5

7.7

Aalborg

500

49.8

42.1

3.6

0.4

København

503

59.6

34.7

2.6

0.8

2.3

Berlin

501

1.9

1.1

3.1

Dortmund

505

45.8

41.5

6.3

0.6

5.9

Essen

501

53.2

37.3

4.9

0.4

4.2

Hamburg

501

63.1

3.9

0.6

4.5

Leipzig

500

63.8

28.8

2.2

0.3

4.9

München

502

71.3

22.6

0.4

0.2

5.5

Rostock

502

25.9

53.4

15.6

1.8

3.3

Tallinn

500

41.1

45.3

6.2

0.7

6.8

Athinia

506

23.7

42.9

13.5

10.5

9.4

Irakleio

507

17.9

30.9

22.8

21.9

6.6

Barcelona

501

20.4

62.4

10.7

1.1

5.4

Madrid

501

55.7

9.2

2.6

6.4

Málaga

500

14.2

52.3

18.7

7.7

7.1

Oviedo

502

26.7

53.4

12.6

3.3

Bordeaux

502

54.4

11.2

3.1

5.3

Lille

503

30.4

51.9

7.2

2.3

8.2

Marseille

501

19.1

53.1

14.5

6.3

Paris

500

54.9

38.1

3.1

0.8

3.1

Rennes

506

48.7

7.5

2.3

4.5

Strasbourg

505

42.3

48.1

4.7

0.6

4.3

Dublin

500

60.1

32.6

3.4

1.7

2.1

Bologna

505

25.6

51.7

1.6

Napoli

500

6.8

33.8

26.2

13.1

Palermo

501

51.3

9.8

10.9

Roma

503

20.5

47.4

14.5

10.6

Torino

501

23.7

56.6

5.6

0.4

13.7

Verona

501

19.2

53.7

12.1

3.5

11.4

Lefkosia

500

16.6

37.6

22.4

16.5

CITY

page 98

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

(continued) CITY

Total N

% Very satisfied

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Riga

505

30.1

41.1

5.1

2.7

Vilnius

502

32.8

44.6

9.2

2.7

10.7

Luxembourg

503

53.3

38.3

0.8

2.5

Budapest

500

38.5

48.1

3.7

8.7

Miskolc

502

6.3

0.3

8.4

Valletta

500

12.8

22.3

19.6

21.7

23.7

Amsterdam

500

66.4

27.6

1.4

0.2

4.4

Groningen

500

61.9

30.4

2.2

0.4

5.2

Rotterdam

500

47.4

3.6

1.7

7.3

Wien

500

74.1

20.7

1.1

0.2

3.9

Graz

503

52.8

37.6

5.2

0.6

3.9

Białystok

501

23.8

52.7

11.9

3.4

8.2

Gdańsk

500

31.9

50.4

9.9

1.4

6.4

Kraków

501

43.4

41.6

6.4

2.1

6.5

Warszawa

501

53.2

4.9

1.4

7.5

Braga

502

19.3

47.8

18.6

6.6

7.6

Lisboa

503

17.1

54.5

9.6

2.6

16.2

Bucureşti

503

17.5

49.8

9.9

8.7

14.1

Cluj-Napoca

503

29.1

49.3

4.2

10.4

Piatra Neamţ

501

32.7

40.6

10.3

4.5

11.8

Ljubljana

508

28.3

59.4

5.8

1.6

4.9

Bratislava

501

26.8

54.7

1.1

9.4

Kosice

501

29.7

52.2

7.6

0.7

9.8

Helsinki

507

61.4

34.5

1.6

0.4

2.1

Oulu

505

34.8

55.2

5.6

0.6

3.8

Malmö

500

45.5

43.7

3.1

0.6

7.1

Stockholm

500

59.7

32.7

2.4

0.8

4.4

Belfast

500

52.9

38.6

3.9

2.5

2.1

Cardiff

500

71.1

1.3

0.8

1.8

Glasgow

500

63.6

30.9

1.5

1.2

2.9

London

500

62.9

28.1

2.8

1.4

4.8

Manchester

500

60.8

30.4

1.4

0.9

6.6

Newcastle

500

68.4

25.3

0.8

1.6

3.9

Zagreb

501

34.3

41.9

13.2

3.6

Ankara

502

21.9

30.4

7.6

9.8

30.3

Antalya

502

26.3

25.9

8.5

8.4

30.9

Diyarbakir

501

17.6

22.9

9.6

15.3

34.5

İstanbul

504

24.5

32.4

7.8

26.2

page 99

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 5. Satisfaction with the beauty of streets and buildings – by city QUESTION: Q1_E. 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: - The beauty of streets and buildings in your neighbourhood

Total N

% Very satisfied

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

43.1

24.2

10.3

1.4

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

16.6

44.3

26.7

11.3

1.1

Liège

502

15.6

48.6

26.8

8.2

0.8

Burgas

500

17.2

35.3

23.2

22.8

1.5

Sofia

500

7.9

18.3

33.1

40.1

0.6

Ostrava

501

47.4

6.6

Praha

500

22.3

45.8

6.3

1.5

Aalborg

500

28.9

50.5

15.6

4.2

0.8

København

503

26.5

50.1

17.3

4.8

1.3

Berlin

501

27.3

22.2

4.3

0.2

Dortmund

505

21.2

39.9

29.6

8.7

0.6

Essen

501

22.7

41.4

28.9

6.4

0.6

Hamburg

501

38.9

17.4

3.2

0.6

Leipzig

500

28.5

22.6

2.3

0.6

München

502

38.8

44.2

14.4

2.4

0.2

Rostock

502

37.2

49.9

10.7

1.8

0.4

Tallinn

500

17.3

47.2

23.8

10.1

1.6

Athinia

506

10.2

20.8

20.9

47.9

0.2

Irakleio

507

13.9

21.4

23.3

41.3

0.2

Barcelona

501

13.5

22.4

10.5

0.6

Madrid

501

16.4

25.5

9.7

0.5

Málaga

500

10.6

41.9

34.9

12.1

0.5

Oviedo

502

48.9

46.9

3.1

0.6

0.4

Bordeaux

502

39.2

46.1

8.6

5.5

0.5

Lille

503

23.8

15.5

5.8

Marseille

501

20.1

38.8

20.4

0.7

Paris

500

23.8

48.3

20.2

6.7

0.9

Rennes

506

20.6

59.2

16.3

3.5

0.4

Strasbourg

505

27.4

16.9

5.2

0.5

Dublin

500

24.7

47.5

16.5

10.3

Bologna

505

15.5

46.7

27.9

9.1

0.7

Napoli

500

5.3

33.1

33.9

26.9

0.7

Palermo

501

8.8

30.5

36.3

23.8

0.6

Roma

503

10.5

35.5

33.7

19.4

0.8

Torino

501

16.6

48.6

26.5

7.6

0.7

Verona

501

12.9

51.5

26.8

7.7

1.1

Lefkosia

500

14.6

30.7

21.6

32.3

0.8

CITY

page 100

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

(continued) CITY

Total N

% Very satisfied

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Riga

505

36.4

16.3

1.2

Vilnius

502

17.2

36.4

26.3

18.1

Luxembourg

503

32.4

50.1

14.4

2.4

0.8

Budapest

500

17.3

45.7

12.7

0.2

Miskolc

502

18.7

45.2

25.3

10.7

0.2

Valletta

500

15.5

31.1

25.9

26.2

1.3

Amsterdam

500

35.3

45.8

14.7

3.8

0.4

Groningen

500

37.4

50.2

11.2

0.9

0.4

Rotterdam

500

27.4

51.3

17.7

2.8

0.8

Wien

500

36.5

43.6

2.5

0.4

Graz

503

44.7

15.5

3.4

1.5

Białystok

501

30.5

48.4

17.7

3.5

Gdańsk

500

21.4

45.8

23.6

8.3

Kraków

501

21.7

49.9

22.1

4.8

1.4

Warszawa

501

16.9

46.9

28.1

7.7

0.4

Braga

502

21.7

47.3

21.2

8.9

0.8

Lisboa

503

10.4

37.4

33.3

0.9

Bucureşti

503

10.9

33.5

22.5

31.1

Cluj-Napoca

503

22.8

44.9

19.8

11.6

0.9

Piatra Neamţ

501

38.6

38.2

14.5

7.9

0.8

Ljubljana

508

18.5

54.8

18.7

0.9

Bratislava

501

11.1

45.4

35.2

7.4

0.8

Kosice

501

20.6

49.7

24.1

4.5

1.1

Helsinki

507

26.1

52.3

19.3

1.7

0.6

Oulu

505

21.7

54.5

21.6

0.2

Malmö

500

26.6

57.6

11.3

2.9

1.5

Stockholm

500

45.5

44.9

6.7

0.9

Belfast

500

50.1

17.8

8.7

0.4

Cardiff

500

29.2

50.9

12.6

6.4

0.9

Glasgow

500

29.2

42.8

16.2

10.4

1.4

London

500

23.5

44.3

19.4

11.2

1.5

Manchester

500

20.7

44.9

19.7

12.7

Newcastle

500

33.1

8.9

6.1

0.9

Zagreb

501

27.8

35.6

21.1

15.2

0.3

Ankara

502

24.7

36.5

18.3

0.6

Antalya

502

30.9

13.2

15.9

Diyarbakir

501

25.6

29.6

13.9

29.5

1.4

İstanbul

504

22.8

29.5

13.7

33.3

0.8

page 101

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 6. Satisfaction with public spaces such as markets, squares, pedestrian areas – by city QUESTION: Q1_F. 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: - Public spaces in [CITY NAME] such as markets, squares, pedestrian areas

Total N

% Very satisfied

Antwerpen

500

21.6

57.3

13.2

3.9

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

14.9

55.9

20.1

5.7

3.4

Liège

502

10.7

58.1

24.5

3.1

3.6

Burgas

500

26.6

42.7

15.2

12.9

2.6

Sofia

500

9.3

29.7

24.9

1.1

Ostrava

501

22.3

58.1

13.1

2.4

4.1

Praha

500

21.1

55.8

17.5

3.2

2.4

Aalborg

500

34.3

53.6

9.7

1.8

0.6

København

503

28.9

52.1

15.6

2.1

1.2

Berlin

501

19.2

58.7

2.5

1.6

Dortmund

505

24.1

57.3

15.3

1.6

1.8

Essen

501

17.5

55.6

3.2

1.7

Hamburg

501

35.9

11.3

1.9

0.8

Leipzig

500

30.7

57.1

8.8

0.8

2.6

München

502

47.2

46.5

4.9

0.2

1.2

Rostock

502

30.3

54.8

12.8

1.7

0.5

Tallinn

500

14.6

53.3

18.9

8.5

4.7

Athinia

506

5.7

28.5

27.8

36.9

1.1

Irakleio

507

41.6

17.8

0.5

Barcelona

501

12.7

61.5

19.1

5.8

0.9

Madrid

501

17.2

61.7

15.8

4.7

0.6

Málaga

500

13.8

52.4

26.5

6.8

0.5

Oviedo

502

42.8

52.6

3.3

1.1

0.3

Bordeaux

502

33.8

54.2

6.8

2.6

Lille

503

24.7

62.3

7.2

4.2

1.5

Marseille

501

18.3

50.8

17.7

11.9

1.3

Paris

500

20.3

63.1

12.5

2.8

1.2

Rennes

506

32.5

57.5

8.3

1.3

0.4

Strasbourg

505

24.8

60.4

12.1

2.3

0.3

Dublin

500

51.2

14.6

6.4

1.7

Bologna

505

16.6

57.4

21.5

2.3

2.2

Napoli

500

6.2

36.4

19.8

1.2

Palermo

501

7.8

41.1

31.7

18.5

0.9

Roma

503

11.8

49.9

26.9

10.1

1.2

Torino

501

23.7

60.6

13.7

1.7

0.3

Verona

501

16.2

56.6

21.4

4.5

1.3

Lefkosia

500

8.7

31.7

26.9

29.9

2.7

CITY

page 102

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

(continued) CITY

Total N

% Very satisfied

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Riga

505

14.6

44.3

25.9

11.7

3.4

Vilnius

502

20.9

44.7

23.1

7.2

4.2

Luxembourg

503

54.2

7.5

1.4

0.9

Budapest

500

12.4

54.5

20.6

10.4

2.1

Miskolc

502

21.7

50.8

20.6

4.4

2.5

Valletta

500

15.3

36.8

24.7

15.6

7.5

Amsterdam

500

28.3

14.1

2.4

1.2

Groningen

500

43.5

50.1

4.9

0.8

0.7

Rotterdam

500

24.1

57.3

2.6

Wien

500

27.5

53.5

12.8

2.4

3.7

Graz

503

52.6

15.7

2.1

2.6

Białystok

501

29.4

52.3

13.1

3.7

1.5

Gdańsk

500

21.4

53.7

17.9

4.1

Kraków

501

36.9

49.4

9.6

2.1

Warszawa

501

12.9

52.8

23.8

7.8

2.8

Braga

502

20.2

55.2

18.1

5.6

Lisboa

503

10.4

56.2

21.8

9.3

2.3

Bucureşti

503

7.6

37.7

30.6

3.1

Cluj-Napoca

503

19.5

57.3

17.4

4.6

1.3

Piatra Neamţ

501

45.6

43.8

5.4

3.6

1.6

Ljubljana

508

19.5

56.3

16.5

5.6

2.1

Bratislava

501

15.5

57.1

21.3

3.8

2.4

Kosice

501

34.8

7.8

2.3

1.1

Helsinki

507

17.9

65.2

15.2

1.4

0.4

Oulu

505

19.5

61.5

16.9

1.9

0.2

Malmö

500

57.5

5.6

0.6

1.3

Stockholm

500

27.6

59.6

10.3

1.5

Belfast

500

51.9

12.4

5.5

2.2

Cardiff

500

41.4

5.6

1.7

1.3

Glasgow

500

33.7

8.6

4.5

2.2

London

500

32.6

49.5

11.6

4.3

1.9

Manchester

500

49.1

10.3

5.6

Newcastle

500

48.1

41.8

6.7

2.3

1.1

Zagreb

501

35.3

42.7

14.8

6.6

0.6

Ankara

502

32.5

41.2

10.7

14.2

1.4

Antalya

502

40.1

8.3

8.7

2.9

Diyarbakir

501

25.9

36.8

13.4

3.9

İstanbul

504

23.5

40.9

14.9

20.1

0.6

page 103

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 7. Satisfaction with green spaces such as parks and gardens – by city QUESTION: Q1_G. 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: - Green spaces such as parks and gardens inside [CITY NAME]

Total N

% Very satisfied

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

27.9

50.4

15.5

4.1

2.1

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

24.6

51.5

15.8

6.6

1.5

Liège

502

13.6

50.2

26.5

6.1

3.7

Burgas

500

41.3

40.9

10.7

6.2

0.9

Sofia

500

14.7

27.9

23.7

0.8

Ostrava

501

24.4

50.3

17.8

4.2

3.3

Praha

500

51.2

19.7

3.3

1.8

Aalborg

500

37.3

44.6

3.2

0.8

København

503

42.2

45.6

10.4

1.7

0.2

Berlin

501

35.6

12.1

4.4

Dortmund

505

44.8

40.6

11.5

1.2

1.9

Essen

501

31.6

48.7

17.1

1.6

Hamburg

501

57.9

34.5

6.2

0.3

Leipzig

500

42.1

5.3

0.5

1.1

München

502

62.7

30.9

5.1

0.2

1.2

Rostock

502

31.2

51.7

14.2

2.1

0.8

Tallinn

500

28.3

53.1

12.3

3.3

2.9

Athinia

506

4.2

18.5

25.7

50.4

1.1

Irakleio

507

9.1

29.1

0.8

Barcelona

501

9.9

47.9

31.9

0.3

Madrid

501

21.6

57.3

17.7

3.2

0.3

Málaga

500

13.1

39.8

34.8

11.6

0.8

Oviedo

502

37.7

51.6

9.3

0.8

0.6

Bordeaux

502

36.6

54.1

7.3

1.6

0.4

Lille

503

26.6

53.9

12.3

5.8

1.4

Marseille

501

51.2

15.5

8.9

1.4

Paris

500

26.6

55.6

12.7

1.1

Rennes

506

39.3

48.7

9.9

1.2

0.9

Strasbourg

505

31.3

52.3

12.9

2.5

0.9

Dublin

500

46.4

39.5

9.7

0.3

Bologna

505

26.1

52.1

17.4

1.5

Napoli

500

7.2

28.3

37.9

25.2

1.4

Palermo

501

5.7

33.5

36.6

23.3

0.9

Roma

503

21.4

10.4

1.3

Torino

501

33.6

50.9

12.3

1.8

1.3

Verona

501

20.4

48.2

24.1

6.7

0.6

Lefkosia

500

7.8

29.9

28.5

32.2

1.6

CITY

page 104

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

(continued) CITY

Total N

% Very satisfied

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Riga

505

44.5

8.3

2.5

2.6

Vilnius

502

23.1

38.5

25.6

8.6

4.2

Luxembourg

503

49.5

41.7

7.4

0.4

Budapest

500

11.3

43.1

30.6

12.2

2.8

Miskolc

502

17.8

41.4

32.4

6.3

Valletta

500

14.9

28.4

24.4

24.5

7.8

Amsterdam

500

47.8

13.4

0.8

Groningen

500

45.7

0.9

0.4

Rotterdam

500

36.8

46.4

12.4

3.1

1.3

Wien

500

43.7

39.5

11.4

3.7

1.7

Graz

503

29.1

49.2

16.8

3.2

1.7

Białystok

501

54.5

7.1

1.7

0.7

Gdańsk

500

43.1

14.6

4.8

1.5

Kraków

501

34.2

49.2

12.4

2.5

1.7

Warszawa

501

31.6

53.5

11.2

2.6

1.2

Braga

502

15.9

39.1

31.8

12.6

0.5

Lisboa

503

8.7

45.2

31.6

12.9

1.6

Bucureşti

503

16.8

49.3

16.4

14.5

2.9

Cluj-Napoca

503

22.4

45.3

21.8

8.8

1.7

Piatra Neamţ

501

50.1

38.2

5.9

4.5

1.4

Ljubljana

508

51.9

16.5

2.6

Bratislava

501

11.9

47.8

31.1

7.6

1.6

Kosice

501

22.3

48.3

22.9

5.2

1.2

Helsinki

507

33.2

55.5

9.5

0.6

1.2

Oulu

505

31.9

56.2

11.1

0.2

0.7

Malmö

500

62.3

32.1

3.7

Stockholm

500

48.6

7.8

1.1

0.6

Belfast

500

39.5

46.3

7.2

5.1

1.9

Cardiff

500

57.9

34.3

4.2

2.7

0.9

Glasgow

500

39.9

5.5

3.8

0.8

London

500

51.6

34.6

8.1

5.3

0.5

Manchester

500

34.6

39.9

15.6

6.7

3.2

Newcastle

500

47.4

42.1

6.7

1.9

Zagreb

501

37.2

15.9

9.6

0.2

Ankara

502

44.1

33.1

9.5

11.6

1.7

Antalya

502

47.4

33.2

8.1

6.9

4.4

Diyarbakir

501

38.9

29.6

9.8

15.4

6.4

İstanbul

504

28.5

32.9

16.2

18.3

4.1

page 105

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 8. Satisfaction with outdoor recreation such as walking, cycling or picnicking – by city QUESTION: Q1_H. 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: - Outdoor recreation outside / around [CITY NAME], such as walking, cycling or picnicking

Total N

% Very satisfied

Antwerpen

500

57.5

11.4

6.2

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

17.5

46.5

12.2

17.7

Liège

502

15.9

45.2

15.2

5.4

18.4

Burgas

500

30.2

18.4

10.7

12.7

Sofia

500

27.9

16.3

7.5

12.3

Ostrava

501

26.4

52.1

3.3

5.1

Praha

500

28.8

52.9

10.1

1.6

6.6

Aalborg

500

39.1

43.7

8.6

1.4

7.2

København

503

36.3

47.4

9.2

0.7

6.5

Berlin

501

33.9

42.5

11.8

1.7

10.1

Dortmund

505

33.4

43.2

14.4

2.5

6.5

Essen

501

34.4

43.3

2.6

4.7

Hamburg

501

39.8

41.4

10.7

0.7

7.5

Leipzig

500

40.6

43.4

8.2

1.3

6.6

München

502

55.8

32.1

5.8

0.2

6.1

Rostock

502

31.6

42.3

17.8

2.1

6.2

Tallinn

500

26.1

41.9

15.7

4.4

11.9

Athinia

506

6.1

21.3

47.6

Irakleio

507

17.1

26.7

17.8

33.5

4.9

Barcelona

501

50.5

9.6

5.9

Madrid

501

13.8

22.9

7.7

7.6

Málaga

500

13.9

43.1

27.3

12.6

3.1

Oviedo

502

20.7

47.7

21.1

6.3

4.2

Bordeaux

502

31.9

53.2

5.8

2.2

6.8

Lille

503

57.9

4.9

7.2

Marseille

501

25.1

45.8

8.9

8.2

Paris

500

12.4

48.6

20.4

3.4

15.2

Rennes

506

28.3

52.2

7.1

1.3

CITY

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Strasbourg

505

53.3

1.7

7.9

Dublin

500

35.6

40.4

6.3

2.7

Bologna

505

21.8

19.6

4.6

Napoli

500

5.4

24.1

30.5

36.7

3.3

Palermo

501

4.3

29.8

32.3

30.7

2.9

Roma

503

13.3

44.1

24.8

13.7

4.1

Torino

501

27.4

51.9

14.3

2.3

4.1

Verona

501

19.8

50.6

20.5

5.8

3.4

Lefkosia

500

11.5

31.1

28.6

5.9

page 106

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

(continued) CITY

Total N

% Very satisfied

% Rather satisfied

% Rather unsatisfied

% Not at all satisfied

% DK/NA

Riga

505

16.4

26.2

23.1

11.5

22.8

Vilnius

502

30.7

27.7

12.2

15.5

Luxembourg

503

35.4

46.9

9.9

1.6

6.2

Budapest

500

12.5

39.4

26.7

10.2

11.2

Miskolc

502

19.5

39.8

26.9

5.1

8.8

Valletta

500

14.7

26.1

24.4

25.1

9.7

Amsterdam

500

35.6

45.1

12.9

4.4

Groningen

500

45.6

43.8

6.6

0.5

3.5

Rotterdam

500

37.3

48.5

8.6

1.5

4.1

Wien

500

40.1

39.8

8.6

1.8

9.7

Graz

503

31.7

47.7

10.7

3.6

6.3

Białystok

501

29.8

42.6

15.6

Gdańsk

500

36.6

42.1

13.5

3.4

4.4

Kraków

501

26.3

44.4

3.1

7.2

Warszawa

501

17.1

44.9

20.9

Braga

502

17.7

45.4

24.8

8.9

3.3

Lisboa

503

11.3

47.8

24.2

9.9

6.8

Bucureşti

503

7.4

20.8

23.9

25.6

22.3

Cluj-Napoca

503

15.1

35.7

22.4

14.6

12.2

Piatra Neamţ

501

35.6

12.3

6.2

9.9

Ljubljana

508

31.7

46.4

13.4

3.2

5.3

Bratislava

501

22.8

15.3

3.6

9.2

Kosice

501

22.8

50.3

16.6

2.6

7.6

Helsinki

507

55.7

36.6

5.3

1.2

1.3

Oulu

505

67.8

3.1

1.2

0.9

Malmö

500

39.4

43.5

6.2

0.8

10.1

Stockholm

500

51.2

34.4

3.6

0.8

9.9

Belfast

500

36.7

43.2

10.5

4.6

Cardiff

500

45.9

42.4

4.9

2.7

4.1

Glasgow

500

39.8

10.3

4.4

5.8

London

500

35.6

40.2

11.7

4.6

7.8

Manchester

500

33.8

40.2

13.2

5.7

7.1

Newcastle

500

36.4

6.2

6.3

Zagreb

501

33.4

15.4

8.8

7.4

Ankara

502

33.4

31.5

9.3

13.3

12.6

Antalya

502

43.5

29.9

8.1

7.4

11.1

Diyarbakir

501

29.7

25.4

11.9

19.8

13.2

İstanbul

504

25.2

24.9

16.7

16.2

page 107

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 9. In this city, it is easy to find a good job – by city QUESTION: Q2_A. 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? - In [CITY NAME], it is easy to find a good job

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

4.7

31.1

11.7

43.5

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

4.2

18.6

18.1

28.2

Liège

502

1.9

12.3

32.8

Burgas

500

9.5

21.1

25.8

31.3

12.3

Sofia

500

13.3

32.1

21.5

20.3

12.8

Ostrava

501

3.5

15.8

33.8

35.9

11.1

Praha

500

16.2

40.2

20.7

10.4

12.5

Aalborg

500

6.4

31.7

13.4

20.5

København

503

13.5

43.1

17.7

16.7

Berlin

501

0.8

16.3

50.2

18.2

14.6

Dortmund

505

2.2

14.5

19.9

18.4

Essen

501

3.9

20.8

12.3

Hamburg

501

4.9

42.7

28.5

6.9

17.1

Leipzig

500

1.2

18.4

48.8

16.9

14.8

München

502

13.1

40.7

23.5

8.2

14.5

Rostock

502

0.6

13.4

47.4

12.6

Tallinn

500

1.4

11.9

28.3

48.3

10.1

Athinia

506

5.1

21.3

28.5

41.7

3.4

Irakleio

507

6.6

30.4

28.2

29.7

Barcelona

501

1.8

14.7

44.3

34.1

5.1

Madrid

501

2.1

18.5

45.6

28.5

5.3

Málaga

500

1.2

8.2

43.9

4.7

Oviedo

502

1.1

12.1

46.7

30.1

10.1

Bordeaux

502

3.2

20.9

32.3

22.9

20.8

Lille

503

3.7

24.6

31.6

25.3

14.8

Marseille

501

3.6

17.3

39.5

10.6

Paris

500

3.5

34.6

29.2

18.7

Rennes

506

1.6

28.7

35.5

9.9

24.3

Strasbourg

505

2.9

28.6

28.3

16.3

23.9

Dublin

500

12.1

30.3

48.3

5.4

Bologna

505

3.3

23.6

33.7

22.8

16.6

Napoli

500

0.4

2.8

69.7

Palermo

501

0.4

2.6

19.9

74.8

2.4

Roma

503

1.1

11.5

35.4

43.8

8.3

Torino

501

0.4

10.7

32.9

43.7

12.2

Verona

501

2.7

23.5

32.2

14.7

CITY

page 108

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Lefkosia

500

14.1

36.4

16.1

12.4

Riga

505

0.8

6.7

11.5

71.3

9.6

Vilnius

502

2.3

10.9

22.4

51.7

12.7

Luxembourg

503

7.6

40.2

31.8

9.6

10.8

Budapest

500

2.1

13.7

22.3

47.3

14.6

Miskolc

502

1.3

5.2

15.4

70.7

7.4

Valletta

500

2.3

23.4

37.7

20.6

Amsterdam

500

10.8

42.1

22.6

6.2

18.2

Groningen

500

7.8

28.6

33.3

8.8

21.4

Rotterdam

500

11.5

37.8

17.5

5.9

27.3

Wien

500

7.8

29.3

27.6

10.8

24.5

Graz

503

3.4

30.6

31.7

10.5

23.7

Białystok

501

1.3

15.4

31.7

41.4

10.2

Gdańsk

500

5.5

33.1

23.6

24.7

13.1

Kraków

501

30.6

28.3

22.6

12.5

Warszawa

501

13.7

38.4

22.6

17.4

Braga

502

10.4

29.5

45.6

12.6

Lisboa

503

1.1

13.3

22.1

54.6

8.9

Bucureşti

503

8.9

21.6

19.9

39.7

9.8

Cluj-Napoca

503

4.8

17.7

28.9

34.2

14.4

Piatra Neamţ

501

2.3

12.6

27.4

47.2

10.5

Ljubljana

508

33.1

26.4

24.8

8.7

Bratislava

501

3.8

37.1

29.3

13.8

Kosice

501

1.6

8.6

33.4

45.4

Helsinki

507

10.8

37.5

29.9

8.9

Oulu

505

4.3

24.8

39.2

24.9

6.8

Malmö

500

9.6

28.1

23.8

15.1

23.4

Stockholm

500

22.9

38.2

7.6

17.4

Belfast

500

4.6

23.2

29.3

30.4

12.6

Cardiff

500

4.8

25.1

28.5

19.5

Glasgow

500

5.2

21.3

25.9

31.5

London

500

9.9

31.7

24.1

21.7

12.5

Manchester

500

8.4

28.9

24.2

19.5

Newcastle

500

9.2

24.1

23.8

16.9

Zagreb

501

4.5

11.7

15.8

61.9

Ankara

502

3.2

10.2

31.8

49.7

5.2

Antalya

502

12.6

21.1

26.8

34.1

5.5

Diyarbakir

501

3.4

4.4

20.1

69.1

İstanbul

504

5.9

10.2

26.9

54.4

2.5

(continued) CITY

page 109

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 10. The presence of foreigners is good for this city – by city QUESTION: Q2_B. 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? - The presence of foreigners is good for [CITY NAME]

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

8.4

39.2

22.8

19.5

10.2

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

39.8

19.4

17.1

9.7

Liège

502

7.5

32.6

28.8

18.5

12.6

Burgas

500

47.6

34.1

5.5

4.8

7.9

Sofia

500

32.9

32.6

10.2

8.3

Ostrava

501

10.1

37.5

23.3

8.5

20.7

Praha

500

43.2

23.2

9.4

7.2

Aalborg

500

24.4

48.6

6.9

6.2

København

503

33.6

50.1

7.8

5.2

3.3

Berlin

501

49.7

19.4

Dortmund

505

12.6

41.5

8.3

10.6

Essen

501

13.5

45.3

23.2

6.7

11.2

Hamburg

501

21.8

49.1

17.8

4.3

Leipzig

500

42.1

26.2

7.9

8.9

München

502

20.9

46.8

19.4

4.2

8.8

Rostock

502

16.5

49.1

19.8

4.7

9.8

Tallinn

500

39.5

40.4

9.9

3.3

6.8

Athinia

506

9.1

30.8

24.1

Irakleio

507

27.4

35.5

13.4

19.7

Barcelona

501

47.2

29.1

10.1

4.6

Madrid

501

8.6

44.3

33.2

9.3

4.6

Málaga

500

18.4

5.9

2.3

Oviedo

502

10.6

47.6

26.5

9.4

5.9

Bordeaux

502

23.2

52.2

8.6

Lille

503

19.4

50.4

9.7

6.7

13.8

Marseille

501

20.1

43.3

14.8

10.7

Paris

500

26.9

8.2

4.3

6.6

Rennes

506

19.2

49.5

9.7

5.9

15.7

Strasbourg

505

24.1

49.3

13.1

6.5

Dublin

500

42.5

33.5

9.7

10.3

3.9

Bologna

505

8.3

45.9

25.7

5.1

Napoli

500

40.5

26.2

17.9

6.3

Palermo

501

14.5

53.5

15.3

11.1

5.6

Roma

503

47.3

22.9

11.4

6.4

Torino

501

7.9

43.8

17.7

4.6

Verona

501

13.2

46.4

23.7

12.1

4.5

Lefkosia

500

6.9

24.3

23.5

41.3

4.1

CITY

page 110

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Riga

505

31.7

29.2

12.1

16.5

10.4

Vilnius

502

34.4

41.9

7.7

Luxembourg

503

47.7

5.5

1.6

1.3

Budapest

500

27.8

43.4

12.2

7.4

9.3

Miskolc

502

22.1

39.3

14.1

7.1

17.4

Valletta

500

19.4

33.5

16.1

16.2

14.7

Amsterdam

500

31.1

49.1

12.4

4.4

Groningen

500

27.7

51.6

11.2

1.6

7.8

Rotterdam

500

15.9

44.5

23.1

7.1

9.5

Wien

500

15.8

41.6

25.1

9.8

7.7

Graz

503

11.8

40.9

25.1

14.4

7.8

Białystok

501

6.1

5.5

10.5

Gdańsk

500

48.4

33.2

4.5

Kraków

501

45.4

38.4

6.3

Warszawa

501

41.3

36.3

7.7

9.7

Braga

502

36.5

13.4

5.2

Lisboa

503

27.9

47.7

12.4

6.9

5.1

Bucureşti

503

38.8

37.7

7.4

6.8

9.4

Cluj-Napoca

503

44.4

35.7

4.5

2.6

12.9

Piatra Neamţ

501

50.4

33.4

5.6

4.8

5.8

Ljubljana

508

34.9

44.3

10.2

6.4

4.2

Bratislava

501

25.1

51.2

8.5

2.2

Kosice

501

20.7

53.8

1.3

14.3

Helsinki

507

27.1

44.7

18.2

8.2

1.8

Oulu

505

19.5

47.2

20.1

9.2

3.9

Malmö

500

30.2

41.8

Stockholm

500

55.3

4.1

2.7

4.9

Belfast

500

38.7

36.3

11.2

7.8

6.1

Cardiff

500

28.3

41.1

11.2

10.7

8.7

Glasgow

500

28.2

39.5

12.1

13.5

6.6

London

500

40.3

34.6

9.7

9.8

5.6

Manchester

500

28.3

12.2

12.8

10.7

Newcastle

500

25.8

38.6

12.8

14.2

8.6

Zagreb

501

39.8

25.1

13.7

15.8

5.7

Ankara

502

16.1

31.8

19.2

19.7

13.2

Antalya

502

38.6

33.3

10.1

10.4

7.7

(continued) CITY

Diyarbakir

501

31.1

33.5

11.5

12.1

11.9

İstanbul

504

27.7

34.8

15.3

14.8

7.5

page 111

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 11. Foreigners who live in this city are well integrated – by city QUESTION: Q2_C. 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? - Foreigners who live in [CITY NAME] are well integrated

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

2.2

33.6

28.7

24.6

10.8

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

30.5

22.7

9.7

Liège

502

6.8

34.3

25.4

23.4

10.1

Burgas

500

27.2

6.6

4.2

Sofia

500

21.7

23.7

10.3

8.8

35.5

Ostrava

501

11.7

34.7

19.8

6.6

27.2

Praha

500

10.8

40.7

25.8

6.7

16.1

Aalborg

500

7.6

43.3

25.3

7.5

16.3

København

503

3.7

43.9

32.9

10.3

9.2

Berlin

501

3.9

25.2

52.7

6.2

Dortmund

505

4.4

27.8

42.4

13.5

Essen

501

30.4

40.8

10.2

14.6

Hamburg

501

5.2

34.8

41.3

10.7

Leipzig

500

6.1

33.3

32.7

5.2

22.8

München

502

9.2

40.7

30.7

5.5

13.9

Rostock

502

7.8

44.3

26.1

1.6

20.2

Tallinn

500

9.1

28.7

26.6

10.7

Athinia

506

5.6

14.1

25.4

51.8

3.2

Irakleio

507

16.6

31.3

20.3

7.7

Barcelona

501

4.9

31.3

43.7

14.1

5.9

Madrid

501

4.5

32.6

46.9

5.9

Málaga

500

13.3

48.1

26.4

5.4

6.9

Oviedo

502

7.5

44.9

31.8

6.8

8.9

Bordeaux

502

13.4

49.4

15.2

3.8

18.2

Lille

503

12.9

50.2

17.3

15.6

Marseille

501

17.6

39.4

21.9

13.5

7.6

Paris

500

8.3

41.8

32.2

7.3

10.4

Rennes

506

13.2

49.2

4.2

17.4

Strasbourg

505

9.9

49.9

5.8

10.4

Dublin

500

40.5

18.4

14.8

8.2

Bologna

505

4.9

44.5

28.3

13.7

8.5

Napoli

500

5.9

36.7

32.4

14.2

10.7

Palermo

501

8.8

49.7

22.1

10.8

8.5

Roma

503

42.4

13.3

8.2

Torino

501

39.9

13.2

8.9

Verona

501

46.9

26.5

10.5

7.1

Lefkosia

500

9.6

30.6

34.2

5.7

CITY

page 112

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Riga

505

16.6

22.2

15.2

12.8

33.1

Vilnius

502

12.7

30.1

35.2

Luxembourg

503

14.8

49.8

27.6

4.5

3.2

Budapest

500

14.8

46.2

11.4

5.2

22.4

Miskolc

502

14.3

34.2

7.8

3.4

40.3

Valletta

500

15.7

33.2

11.9

10.1

29.1

Amsterdam

500

8.4

6.2

7.4

Groningen

500

14.1

52.2

16.4

1.3

16.1

Rotterdam

500

7.1

35.6

39.2

9.5

8.7

Wien

500

2.7

22.8

50.4

14.1

Graz

503

4.7

43.9

15.7

11.7

Białystok

501

12.1

27.8

18.8

8.3

Gdańsk

500

14.3

29.3

8.9

3.3

44.1

Kraków

501

15.9

35.8

12.1

2.1

Warszawa

501

13.2

31.5

17.2

6.2

31.9

Braga

502

21.6

43.5

12.7

7.3

Lisboa

503

9.2

50.4

23.9

7.9

8.6

Bucureşti

503

14.6

4.5

24.9

Cluj-Napoca

503

27.3

38.4

2.3

Piatra Neamţ

501

31.2

27.4

5.5

2.8

33.2

Ljubljana

508

17.1

46.3

7.5

14.2

Bratislava

501

17.4

46.3

11.4

1.5

23.3

Kosice

501

14.1

51.1

11.1

1.1

22.7

Helsinki

507

2.8

46.5

12.1

5.5

Oulu

505

4.7

41.8

32.5

Malmö

500

3.7

31.3

37.1

22.6

5.2

Stockholm

500

7.4

30.9

38.9

12.1

10.7

Belfast

500

11.8

34.7

26.9

14.7

11.9

Cardiff

500

20.6

44.8

10.2

8.4

Glasgow

500

16.8

40.7

16.3

14.3

11.9

London

500

20.1

38.1

22.5

12.6

6.8

Manchester

500

19.6

38.1

16.5

14.5

11.4

Newcastle

500

19.4

38.8

18.6

12.8

10.3

Zagreb

501

27.8

27.2

16.1

15.3

13.6

Ankara

502

17.4

32.8

19.9

13.4

16.5

Antalya

502

30.8

35.5

13.3

9.1

11.2

Diyarbakir

501

22.3

33.1

15.2

12.1

17.3

İstanbul

504

21.8

34.1

18.5

13.8

11.8

(continued) CITY

page 113

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 12. In this city, it is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price – by city QUESTION: Q2_D. 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? - In [CITY NAME], it is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

1.5

20.6

29.2

23.2

25.5

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

2.7

14.4

32.5

38.3

12.1

Liège

502

3.5

28.1

29.8

21.4

17.3

Burgas

500

18.5

21.2

29.1

15.2

Sofia

500

21.1

21.7

26.9

19.4

Ostrava

501

8.1

30.3

26.9

20.6

14.2

Praha

500

5.3

21.3

28.9

36.8

7.7

Aalborg

500

23.3

44.2

16.3

4.9

11.2

København

503

3.5

13.1

37.2

41.3

4.9

Berlin

501

14.2

36.8

31.5

8.5

Dortmund

505

16.7

19.5

5.8

16.1

Essen

501

12.1

38.2

30.1

11.6

Hamburg

501

2.8

12.8

48.4

25.6

10.3

Leipzig

500

29.3

42.3

17.1

3.1

8.2

München

502

0.6

5.3

41.4

47.8

4.9

Rostock

502

13.3

34.7

32.7

11.6

7.6

Tallinn

500

27.6

26.5

17.3

16.6

Athinia

506

7.2

22.1

26.6

34.7

9.3

Irakleio

507

13.1

25.1

23.7

33.8

4.3

Barcelona

501

2.9

22.2

35.3

28.2

11.4

Madrid

501

5.8

27.1

30.6

15.6

20.9

Málaga

500

7.8

44.7

24.2

14.3

Oviedo

502

11.5

43.7

22.3

5.8

16.8

Bordeaux

502

23.7

37.1

29.7

6.5

Lille

503

4.8

20.4

35.6

33.5

5.7

Marseille

501

4.3

12.3

31.1

7.4

Paris

500

0.4

2.3

19.3

76.6

1.4

Rennes

506

4.6

17.1

42.6

25.3

10.3

Strasbourg

505

3.3

15.2

43.8

30.3

7.4

Dublin

500

10.5

17.8

19.2

47.7

4.7

Bologna

505

8.7

27.5

54.7

8.1

Napoli

500

4.2

16.7

26.4

46.5

6.2

Palermo

501

7.9

28.8

20.8

8.6

Roma

503

5.7

22.5

64.5

7.3

Torino

501

1.7

18.1

25.7

40.7

13.7

Verona

501

1.2

17.4

27.5

35.9

Lefkosia

500

3.3

16.3

22.4

CITY

page 114

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Riga

505

18.2

23.3

14.1

22.3

22.2

Vilnius

502

17.4

26.1

20.1

18.1

18.3

Luxembourg

503

1.2

8.3

34.6

53.4

2.5

Budapest

500

5.1

21.1

25.8

31.1

16.9

Miskolc

502

32.6

17.7

18.3

17.4

Valletta

500

11.2

28.7

21.5

26.9

11.6

Amsterdam

500

1.6

6.2

41.4

43.9

6.9

Groningen

500

11.3

37.4

26.1

9.1

16.1

Rotterdam

500

8.2

34.4

17.8

14.6

Wien

500

2.3

17.2

34.4

32.1

13.9

Graz

503

4.1

18.5

37.1

16.3

Białystok

501

14.3

22.9

18.8

Gdańsk

500

21.9

31.5

24.7

13.9

Kraków

501

6.1

16.8

33.7

12.3

Warszawa

501

6.9

10.1

27.2

45.7

Braga

502

21.5

15.6

7.8

11.2

Lisboa

503

1.8

7.7

20.3

64.2

5.9

Bucureşti

503

5.8

11.9

20.3

55.5

6.6

Cluj-Napoca

503

11.7

21.5

21.3

36.8

8.6

Piatra Neamţ

501

16.8

27.7

17.4

26.5

11.5

Ljubljana

508

1.3

8.7

22.2

63.7

4.1

Bratislava

501

14.2

35.5

12.8

Kosice

501

2.4

19.8

36.7

23.9

17.3

Helsinki

507

3.4

8.8

31.7

53.7

2.5

Oulu

505

15.7

47.6

27.4

6.9

2.5

Malmö

500

8.1

25.9

23.2

10.8

Stockholm

500

3.1

11.4

34.7

45.2

5.6

Belfast

500

16.4

30.1

20.1

23.1

10.3

Cardiff

500

11.5

21.6

10.9

Glasgow

500

9.9

28.7

22.7

26.1

12.6

London

500

3.8

10.3

21.3

60.4

4.2

Manchester

500

11.9

32.7

21.3

19.2

14.9

Newcastle

500

21.1

14.9

Zagreb

501

12.2

11.5

67.1

5.3

Ankara

502

12.1

28.5

27.6

28.7

3.1

Antalya

502

15.5

30.5

23.4

24.7

5.9

Diyarbakir

501

21.1

30.4

21.2

23.3

İstanbul

504

8.2

17.1

29.7

42.4

2.6

(continued) CITY

page 115

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 13. Generally speaking, most people in this city can be trusted – by city QUESTION: Q2_E. 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? - Generally speaking, most people in [CITY NAME] can be trusted

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

7.9

57.1

14.9

15.1

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

44.1

22.9

Liège

502

4.9

14.4

8.6

Burgas

500

15.6

29.5

24.8

9.1

Sofia

500

15.5

23.3

48.3

7.9

Ostrava

501

5.8

32.2

30.3

19.9

11.8

Praha

500

4.6

30.4

36.3

18.5

10.1

Aalborg

500

33.9

55.8

4.4

1.8

4.2

København

503

19.7

58.7

10.9

4.2

6.5

Berlin

501

59.7

18.7

3.7

4.9

Dortmund

505

20.4

54.3

14.9

3.5

6.9

Essen

501

25.7

53.7

12.7

1.6

6.3

Hamburg

501

26.4

54.7

10.2

2.4

6.2

Leipzig

500

30.7

55.6

8.4

1.2

München

502

21.1

62.7

7.4

2.9

5.9

Rostock

502

26.2

61.6

6.9

1.5

3.9

Tallinn

500

10.8

36.3

26.9

12.9

Athinia

506

18.8

25.4

50.4

2.4

Irakleio

507

30.8

23.3

27.7

1.1

Barcelona

501

7.3

24.2

7.5

Madrid

501

11.6

57.5

23.6

4.6

2.7

Málaga

500

14.7

55.7

4.4

4.1

Oviedo

502

23.7

63.8

8.5

1.1

2.9

Bordeaux

502

10.8

53.9

15.1

9.7

10.6

Lille

503

10.2

49.3

19.6

12.7

8.1

Marseille

501

10.4

41.8

20.5

20.9

6.4

Paris

500

4.6

40.6

28.9

20.1

5.9

Rennes

506

12.2

53.3

19.4

6.7

8.4

Strasbourg

505

55.5

21.7

9.1

7.6

Dublin

500

27.1

16.4

15.7

4.8

Bologna

505

11.1

50.3

23.7

11.6

3.4

Napoli

500

7.1

34.6

28.6

25.2

4.5

Palermo

501

13.7

42.6

24.8

14.4

4.5

Roma

503

8.1

40.3

31.8

15.2

4.6

Torino

501

6.2

38.8

29.5

18.2

7.4

Verona

501

17.1

50.5

16.6

10.3

5.5

Lefkosia

500

11.8

35.2

25.1

25.3

2.4

CITY

page 116

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Riga

505

6.5

24.4

21.5

40.7

6.9

Vilnius

502

8.9

32.1

27.5

21.3

10.2

Luxembourg

503

21.6

9.1

2.6

1.8

Budapest

500

3.4

24.2

29.2

37.1

6.2

Miskolc

502

29.3

31.9

7.8

Valletta

500

17.4

41.9

16.1

13.6

Amsterdam

500

13.4

58.1

16.7

2.8

Groningen

500

26.7

60.9

4.8

0.4

7.2

Rotterdam

500

10.9

53.8

18.3

5.9

11.1

Wien

500

16.8

56.9

17.8

4.8

3.8

Graz

503

24.1

55.8

12.4

4.6

Białystok

501

20.3

46.2

19.5

7.5

6.5

Gdańsk

500

14.7

43.4

19.5

9.9

12.5

Kraków

501

13.1

44.9

20.2

10.7

10.9

Warszawa

501

7.6

32.6

28.3

23.4

8.1

Braga

502

26.6

54.8

12.2

2.7

3.8

Lisboa

503

5.6

26.8

14.6

Bucureşti

503

5.6

19.5

22.4

47.8

4.7

Cluj-Napoca

503

20.1

36.4

21.2

14.4

7.9

Piatra Neamţ

501

25.3

38.2

14.9

15.8

5.8

Ljubljana

508

46.9

22.2

15.3

5.5

Bratislava

501

3.7

32.1

38.2

12.2

13.8

Kosice

501

4.5

38.6

31.7

10.5

14.6

Helsinki

507

17.6

58.9

18.5

3.2

1.8

Oulu

505

23.7

62.1

8.3

3.1

2.9

Malmö

500

14.8

55.5

8.3

6.4

Stockholm

500

31.2

52.4

9.6

2.3

4.4

Belfast

500

30.2

10.3

8.3

6.1

Cardiff

500

55.7

12.5

8.1

5.8

Glasgow

500

43.9

11.4

3.3

London

500

9.7

39.9

24.2

19.2

6.9

Manchester

500

18.2

41.7

17.2

13.9

Newcastle

500

35.3

42.7

9.2

7.5

5.2

Zagreb

501

15.1

21.9

35.4

3.6

Ankara

502

13.8

28.5

28.6

2.2

Antalya

502

15.1

27.9

25.7

26.6

4.7

Diyarbakir

501

22.5

30.7

21.5

3.8

İstanbul

504

3.5

10.1

25.6

59.2

1.6

(continued) CITY

page 117

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 14. In this city, poverty is a problem – by city QUESTION: Q2_F. 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? - In [CITY NAME], poverty is a problem

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

18.9

49.4

14.6

3.5

13.6

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

40.6

10.3

3.3

3.8

Liège

502

31.7

53.1

9.6

2.6

Burgas

500

31.3

28.2

21.2

12.8

6.6

Sofia

500

43.8

25.7

15.9

11.6

Ostrava

501

13.8

43.2

29.5

5.8

7.8

Praha

500

9.2

26.7

46.9

3.2

Aalborg

500

4.5

15.6

42.1

27.2

10.6

København

503

10.9

33.3

39.2

9.9

6.6

Berlin

501

40.8

40.5

12.1

2.8

3.7

Dortmund

505

30.6

48.3

13.5

1.5

Essen

501

19.9

44.8

20.6

3.6

11.2

Hamburg

501

19.9

46.1

22.3

3.8

7.9

Leipzig

500

46.7

23.6

3.5

7.2

München

502

35.8

35.3

8.2

8.7

Rostock

502

19.6

42.9

24.4

4.7

8.5

Tallinn

500

39.4

34.7

16.8

4.3

4.9

Athinia

506

60.9

24.3

9.5

3.7

1.5

Irakleio

507

28.3

32.4

29.1

8.7

1.5

Barcelona

501

21.9

52.1

20.7

1.3

Madrid

501

16.7

51.3

22.9

6.3

2.8

Málaga

500

17.8

26.1

4.8

2.4

Oviedo

502

6.4

30.6

49.4

10.2

3.5

Bordeaux

502

21.1

42.9

24.2

5.7

6.2

Lille

503

29.9

49.2

13.7

4.2

2.9

Marseille

501

36.6

4.7

3.6

Paris

500

33.5

48.5

11.2

2.7

Rennes

506

10.3

36.8

33.4

9.5

Strasbourg

505

46.6

22.8

7.4

5.3

Dublin

500

37.3

38.2

13.6

7.5

3.5

Bologna

505

21.5

33.6

30.6

9.2

Napoli

500

45.3

14.9

5.8

Palermo

501

47.1

34.4

14.7

2.2

1.6

Roma

503

33.1

18.6

6.2

3.1

Torino

501

36.4

41.3

14.7

2.7

4.9

Verona

501

23.6

31.8

29.3

10.5

4.7

CITY

page 118

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Lefkosia

500

29.6

30.3

16.2

3.9

Riga

505

70.3

17.3

4.4

3.7

4.3

Vilnius

502

42.1

29.4

16.8

6.7

5.1

Luxembourg

503

9.4

36.8

37.5

12.1

4.2

Budapest

500

20.8

7.3

2.8

Miskolc

502

3.3

1.4

2.3

Valletta

500

9.7

27.9

29.5

9.9

Amsterdam

500

12.2

45.6

27.8

7.3

7.2

Groningen

500

6.7

34.6

36.6

10.8

11.3

Rotterdam

500

17.3

45.3

19.7

10.8

Wien

500

20.2

39.1

6.2

6.5

Graz

503

46.1

27.1

6.2

5.6

Białystok

501

25.2

23.8

10.3

4.6

Gdańsk

500

18.6

30.8

12.3

5.1

Kraków

501

16.1

31.6

11.2

6.1

Warszawa

501

18.4

31.5

32.3

12.2

5.6

Braga

502

28.1

43.2

17.8

8.6

2.3

Lisboa

503

49.8

38.6

3.4

1.3

Bucureşti

503

26.6

14.1

7.8

3.6

Cluj-Napoca

503

25.5

27.6

29.3

11.6

5.9

Piatra Neamţ

501

32.3

19.4

8.6

5.7

Ljubljana

508

35.9

29.3

9.5

4.3

Bratislava

501

10.1

34.2

38.8

11.5

5.4

Kosice

501

18.3

26.3

5.3

6.1

Helsinki

507

44.4

33.8

7.8

2.9

Oulu

505

27.2

48.1

14.2

4.5

Malmö

500

14.2

42.1

7.2

12.5

Stockholm

500

8.1

30.8

14.2

7.9

Belfast

500

23.4

38.4

11.8

7.6

Cardiff

500

13.8

35.5

31.7

11.1

Glasgow

500

44.7

31.7

8.2

4.4

London

500

35.2

36.2

17.5

6.5

4.5

Manchester

500

27.2

33.6

22.1

9.7

7.5

Newcastle

500

19.7

33.6

11.3

7.4

Zagreb

501

52.7

12.9

10.8

1.6

Ankara

502

42.7

31.7

15.4

8.6

1.6

Antalya

502

29.5

25.9

15.2

3.4

Diyarbakir

501

64.3

23.2

6.7

4.9

0.9

İstanbul

504

57.7

24.7

8.6

7.9

1.1

(continued) CITY

page 119

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 15. Administrative services of this city help efficiently – by city QUESTION: Q2_G. 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? - When you contact administrative services of [CITY NAME], they help you efficiently

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

31.3

46.6

7.1

2.8

12.1

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

13.6

24.6

11.1

8.7

Liège

502

49.5

25.2

6.3

8.1

Burgas

500

14.9

28.7

22.4

12.1

Sofia

500

10.9

25.7

26.5

6.9

Ostrava

501

12.2

48.1

5.6

15.1

Praha

500

46.7

23.3

10.3

10.6

Aalborg

500

21.9

46.8

13.5

7.2

10.6

København

503

14.9

44.2

19.3

8.4

13.2

Berlin

501

22.9

35.5

12.7

24.9

Dortmund

505

13.3

33.5

23.7

9.3

20.1

Essen

501

33.7

26.5

7.5

20.2

Hamburg

501

11.5

34.9

22.2

24.5

Leipzig

500

6.3

27.3

26.4

5.2

34.8

München

502

8.5

31.2

19.1

7.5

33.8

Rostock

502

6.8

27.2

27.3

6.3

32.4

Tallinn

500

10.4

21.1

15.2

11.8

41.6

Athinia

506

6.7

24.5

25.8

39.6

3.5

Irakleio

507

11.8

25.5

24.6

4.1

Barcelona

501

39.8

31.3

6.9

Madrid

501

11.1

44.9

10.5

4.5

Málaga

500

11.1

41.5

29.2

12.9

5.4

Oviedo

502

13.5

51.2

25.3

6.2

3.8

Bordeaux

502

20.9

47.2

15.9

7.4

8.6

Lille

503

45.4

14.9

8.7

Marseille

501

18.8

36.5

20.7

18.2

5.7

Paris

500

8.5

40.7

24.1

12.3

14.4

Rennes

506

12.5

49.9

18.9

4.2

14.6

Strasbourg

505

13.9

50.2

17.9

7.4

10.6

Dublin

500

23.8

15.6

14.3

9.3

Bologna

505

14.9

50.8

16.8

7.4

10.1

Napoli

500

5.3

27.3

28.9

29.7

8.8

Palermo

501

4.9

19.7

28.9

34.9

11.6

Roma

503

7.3

36.4

24.1

21.1

11.2

Torino

501

9.8

42.8

21.6

11.4

14.3

Verona

501

15.6

44.2

16.6

9.7

Lefkosia

500

13.1

34.6

29.7

5.6

CITY

page 120

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Riga

505

7.1

18.7

13.3

29.1

31.8

Vilnius

502

23.7

23.1

21.2

Luxembourg

503

24.1

43.6

21.4

4.4

6.5

Budapest

500

19.6

31.7

29.6

Miskolc

502

13.3

17.9

12.2

46.6

Valletta

500

21.7

35.1

15.8

11.7

15.6

Amsterdam

500

12.8

44.1

23.2

10.9

Groningen

500

21.2

50.6

11.3

4.8

Rotterdam

500

22.7

44.6

17.9

4.7

10.2

Wien

500

6.2

28.5

9.9

34.5

Graz

503

8.2

27.6

10.4

32.8

Białystok

501

19.6

38.6

8.9

16.9

Gdańsk

500

17.1

38.1

17.2

9.5

18.1

Kraków

501

16.1

17.7

8.9

18.2

Warszawa

501

13.1

37.1

21.2

13.3

15.3

Braga

502

19.2

46.1

16.7

7.3

10.7

Lisboa

503

11.7

45.3

20.7

13.8

8.5

Bucureşti

503

12.2

22.5

20.8

34.1

10.4

Cluj-Napoca

503

20.1

31.6

19.3

16.4

12.6

Piatra Neamţ

501

20.4

32.1

16.2

15.4

Ljubljana

508

15.6

44.3

18.5

10.7

10.9

Bratislava

501

7.3

35.9

23.3

8.4

25.1

Kosice

501

9.4

32.7

7.4

29.5

Helsinki

507

8.4

41.3

27.1

8.2

Oulu

505

9.9

44.9

24.3

5.5

15.5

Malmö

500

15.3

37.8

7.2

4.8

34.8

Stockholm

500

16.5

34.1

13.2

3.4

32.8

Belfast

500

25.6

41.3

13.9

7.5

11.8

Cardiff

500

25.4

13.1

6.1

12.4

Glasgow

500

21.6

39.9

12.1

14.5

London

500

15.7

38.9

16.5

12.1

16.7

Manchester

500

22.5

37.6

10.7

18.3

Newcastle

500

27.6

42.4

9.8

6.5

13.6

Zagreb

501

16.1

23.2

32.2

5.4

Ankara

502

15.4

31.5

22.6

21.4

9.1

Antalya

502

22.1

15.4

15.3

12.2

Diyarbakir

501

19.8

28.6

21.8

18.7

11.1

İstanbul

504

14.2

26.8

25.9

24.4

8.8

(continued) CITY

page 121

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 16. In this city, air pollution is a big problem – by city QUESTION: Q2_H. 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? - In [CITY NAME], air pollution is a big problem

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

28.2

5.8

7.9

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

29.9

46.1

16.9

4.5

2.5

Liège

502

24.4

47.6

4.2

4.9

Burgas

500

70.9

17.8

5.2

4.1

Sofia

500

18.1

3.2

3.5

1.3

Ostrava

501

42.6

33.9

19.1

3.6

0.8

Praha

500

30.5

43.2

21.3

3.4

1.8

Aalborg

500

20.9

44.3

20.2

6.6

København

503

33.7

34.3

23.1

5.3

3.6

Berlin

501

17.4

31.8

8.7

4.1

Dortmund

505

11.2

26.8

41.8

2.2

Essen

501

14.8

31.6

39.7

11.8

Hamburg

501

8.8

24.5

46.5

14.9

5.4

Leipzig

500

6.2

23.9

54.9

11.1

München

502

33.7

37.8

10.2

4.3

Rostock

502

12.7

46.4

34.9

Tallinn

500

33.1

27.4

22.8

6.7

Athinia

506

87.8

8.4

1.4

2.3

Irakleio

507

46.1

22.7

23.2

6.6

1.3

Barcelona

501

30.7

45.3

18.4

4.7

0.9

Madrid

501

39.2

45.6

11.9

2.7

0.6

Málaga

500

13.8

32.9

36.4

13.2

3.6

Oviedo

502

5.6

50.4

18.8

1.2

Bordeaux

502

13.6

34.4

20.3

1.8

Lille

503

25.7

12.5

2.8

Marseille

501

40.7

15.1

8.5

1.7

Paris

500

41.3

36.3

4.8

2.6

Rennes

506

7.3

41.4

26.6

3.7

Strasbourg

505

38.4

13.1

6.9

1.5

Dublin

500

21.3

23.1

26.3

27.4

1.8

Bologna

505

41.7

41.5

12.1

3.8

0.9

Napoli

500

51.4

35.1

9.1

3.3

Palermo

501

46.4

36.2

13.2

3.4

0.7

Roma

503

58.3

31.3

6.6

3.2

0.6

Torino

501

48.6

33.7

13.2

3.4

1.1

Verona

501

42.1

40.2

11.2

5.1

1.5

Lefkosia

500

49.7

28.9

15.1

4.9

1.5

CITY

page 122

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Riga

505

39.8

26.5

15.6

15.1

Vilnius

502

47.1

27.1

14.8

5.6

5.4

Luxembourg

503

9.2

25.6

41.2

20.1

3.8

Budapest

500

73.2

19.1

4.4

1.5

1.8

Miskolc

502

29.9

30.9

26.6

9.8

2.7

Valletta

500

49.4

25.3

9.9

2.4

Amsterdam

500

20.7

41.8

24.3

7.2

Groningen

500

3.3

17.6

47.2

28.1

3.8

Rotterdam

500

27.2

45.7

17.9

5.5

3.7

Wien

500

13.9

26.8

42.5

14.8

Graz

503

40.7

31.6

18.1

2.6

Białystok

501

7.8

14.7

38.7

35.8

3.1

Gdańsk

500

35.3

24.7

23.4

11.9

4.7

Kraków

501

48.5

29.3

14.8

6.5

Warszawa

501

46.6

30.3

14.3

3.8

Braga

502

17.4

33.7

29.1

17.3

2.5

Lisboa

503

49.2

35.6

3.2

1.1

Bucureşti

503

83.3

8.7

2.6

3.5

1.9

Cluj-Napoca

503

48.9

25.1

13.7

9.1

3.2

Piatra Neamţ

501

14.7

17.3

30.5

35.9

1.7

Ljubljana

508

36.4

20.9

8.1

2.6

Bratislava

501

18.4

39.6

36.4

4.5

1.1

Kosice

501

15.9

34.4

41.5

5.2

2.9

Helsinki

507

10.1

32.2

43.1

12.7

Oulu

505

6.9

30.9

44.1

17.6

0.5

Malmö

500

23.4

35.3

23.7

10.3

7.2

Stockholm

500

25.8

44.5

18.3

8.2

3.2

Belfast

500

17.1

24.1

33.4

18.3

7.2

Cardiff

500

14.1

19.7

20.8

8.4

Glasgow

500

28.8

27.5

12.5

6.1

London

500

41.7

35.3

5.2

3.8

Manchester

500

23.1

26.5

28.9

12.5

8.9

Newcastle

500

10.6

15.5

39.3

27.9

6.7

Zagreb

501

38.6

28.1

17.7

14.2

1.4

Ankara

502

26.7

24.8

20.9

0.5

Antalya

502

26.1

22.1

22.2

28.1

1.6

Diyarbakir

501

26.6

28.2

23.3

20.3

1.7

İstanbul

504

45.9

19.8

7.4

0.9

(continued) CITY

page 123

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 17. In this city, noise is a big problem – by city QUESTION: Q2_I. 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? - In [CITY NAME], noise is a big problem

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

19.2

33.2

30.3

12.4

4.9

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

22.7

42.6

23.2

9.4

2.1

Liège

502

15.9

41.4

31.1

9.5

Burgas

500

51.2

22.8

9.3

1.7

Sofia

500

64.6

23.2

5.8

5.2

1.2

Ostrava

501

34.3

32.3

25.7

1.7

Praha

500

33.8

41.7

18.5

5.4

0.6

Aalborg

500

24.2

44.9

4.9

København

503

22.3

33.8

34.7

7.7

1.4

Berlin

501

31.5

7.9

1.5

Dortmund

505

16.1

31.4

39.3

10.3

2.8

Essen

501

16.3

36.2

37.1

7.7

2.7

Hamburg

501

11.5

32.8

41.7

3.1

Leipzig

500

9.3

32.1

47.1

9.6

1.9

München

502

17.4

32.5

39.4

8.1

2.6

Rostock

502

51.1

17.8

2.2

Tallinn

500

32.1

24.5

26.3

13.3

3.7

Athinia

506

81.7

13.1

1.5

2.5

1.2

Irakleio

507

59.6

24.2

11.1

4.2

0.9

Barcelona

501

33.6

45.8

14.8

5.1

0.7

Madrid

501

42.3

41.7

12.6

2.6

0.8

Málaga

500

25.2

39.4

28.9

6.2

0.3

Oviedo

502

10.1

30.1

14.8

Bordeaux

502

15.7

27.8

33.4

22.4

0.7

Lille

503

22.5

33.6

27.9

14.4

1.6

Marseille

501

39.1

31.2

17.9

10.6

1.2

Paris

500

38.5

33.3

20.6

0.6

Rennes

506

14.2

28.4

21.6

1.8

Strasbourg

505

23.4

27.9

31.7

15.7

1.3

Dublin

500

18.5

23.5

29.9

25.4

2.7

Bologna

505

34.3

35.2

22.1

7.2

1.2

Napoli

500

48.6

33.5

10.8

6.2

Palermo

501

44.9

33.5

16.4

4.7

0.6

Roma

503

51.7

31.6

10.7

4.8

1.2

Torino

501

33.1

36.2

23.6

5.5

1.7

Verona

501

25.5

33.4

30.6

8.9

1.7

CITY

page 124

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Lefkosia

500

53.8

14.5

6.5

1.2

Riga

505

33.3

22.5

21.6

2.6

Vilnius

502

32.5

24.9

12.5

5.2

Luxembourg

503

12.4

38.2

24.1

1.3

Budapest

500

60.6

24.4

8.9

3.5

2.5

Miskolc

502

22.7

35.4

7.6

2.4

Valletta

500

27.3

20.2

1.5

Amsterdam

500

15.1

40.3

1.6

Groningen

500

5.3

13.9

52.2

26.4

2.3

Rotterdam

500

15.8

35.2

37.4

3.6

Wien

500

18.6

33.1

34.9

1.5

Graz

503

21.6

33.2

31.7

10.7

2.7

Białystok

501

11.5

19.4

39.5

27.1

2.5

Gdańsk

500

30.7

30.2

25.1

11.7

2.4

Kraków

501

51.9

28.3

13.5

4.9

1.4

Warszawa

501

55.3

27.6

10.4

5.5

1.2

Braga

502

18.2

33.7

30.9

16.5

0.7

Lisboa

503

44.2

35.3

15.6

3.6

1.3

Bucureşti

503

72.7

15.5

5.8

0.9

Cluj-Napoca

503

26.1

15.4

13.3

1.1

Piatra Neamţ

501

16.6

18.1

28.9

35.9

0.5

Ljubljana

508

32.6

30.2

25.8

9.8

1.6

Bratislava

501

25.6

30.8

4.3

0.3

Kosice

501

14.6

37.9

41.3

4.3

Helsinki

507

13.9

33.8

37.5

13.9

0.9

Oulu

505

2.4

19.9

53.1

23.3

1.3

Malmö

500

28.9

10.9

3.2

Stockholm

500

22.8

42.3

22.4

1.5

Belfast

500

16.4

19.6

43.2

18.3

2.4

Cardiff

500

14.1

19.7

42.5

20.8

2.9

Glasgow

500

29.2

30.7

14.2

London

500

40.1

18.2

1.6

Manchester

500

19.1

22.3

4.7

Newcastle

500

10.3

22.3

39.4

24.3

3.7

Zagreb

501

37.1

28.8

16.3

17.6

0.1

Ankara

502

30.7

34.8

20.8

1.6

Antalya

502

32.4

29.6

17.1

19.9

Diyarbakir

501

30.6

31.9

19.8

15.5

2.2

İstanbul

504

54.6

26.6

14.7

3.9

0.2

(continued) CITY

page 125

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 18. This city is clean – by city QUESTION: Q2_J. 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? - [CITY NAME] is a clean city

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

29.4

22.3

2.4

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

3.2

22.8

34.1

38.2

1.8

Liège

502

2.1

33.8

35.5

1.5

Burgas

500

13.4

28.6

27.4

29.1

1.4

Sofia

500

5.4

9.7

24.7

59.1

Ostrava

501

9.4

39.7

34.9

Praha

500

7.3

34.5

40.2

16.2

1.7

Aalborg

500

16.2

57.1

18.8

6.9

København

503

5.9

37.3

38.3

17.7

0.8

Berlin

501

4.7

27.2

17.3

0.8

Dortmund

505

14.3

53.4

27.1

4.1

1.1

Essen

501

10.1

45.9

37.9

1.1

Hamburg

501

20.2

62.5

13.4

2.8

1.1

Leipzig

500

13.5

57.6

25.7

1.4

1.7

München

502

38.1

54.6

5.5

1.2

0.5

Rostock

502

25.3

52.5

19.1

2.1

0.9

Tallinn

500

20.9

44.1

19.2

12.7

3.1

Athinia

506

2.7

13.7

24.2

58.8

0.6

Irakleio

507

7.7

26.8

27.3

37.4

0.8

Barcelona

501

6.4

33.7

42.3

16.5

1.1

Madrid

501

9.5

45.2

35.3

9.5

0.5

Málaga

500

8.5

25.5

41.8

23.4

0.8

Oviedo

502

66.6

29.9

2.3

1.2

Bordeaux

502

20.9

49.8

18.4

9.8

1.2

Lille

503

20.6

51.2

18.1

8.9

1.2

Marseille

501

5.8

20.4

29.6

43.7

0.5

Paris

500

6.1

37.6

35.4

20.6

0.3

Rennes

506

55.8

16.2

6.8

1.2

Strasbourg

505

54.1

20.2

6.9

0.8

Dublin

500

15.2

32.5

27.5

23.6

1.1

Bologna

505

13.5

40.9

29.8

0.9

Napoli

500

3.3

24.1

34.5

Palermo

501

1.7

28.5

58.2

0.5

Roma

503

3.3

23.5

38.7

33.4

1.1

Torino

501

13.2

49.4

25.8

0.7

Verona

501

21.4

59.3

14.1

4.9

0.3

CITY

page 126

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Lefkosia

500

8.7

41.3

23.5

25.6

0.9

Riga

505

22.8

44.3

20.7

11.7

0.3

Vilnius

502

17.1

30.6

10.2

3.1

Luxembourg

503

50.2

45.5

2.9

1.2

0.2

Budapest

500

1.6

13.3

34.2

50.1

0.9

Miskolc

502

5.9

37.8

33.8

1.4

Valletta

500

34.2

29.3

1.6

Amsterdam

500

8.4

41.1

37.3

11.7

1.4

Groningen

500

25.8

58.3

12.8

1.1

Rotterdam

500

7.7

40.2

11.2

0.6

Wien

500

35.3

10.7

4.1

Graz

503

23.3

53.1

17.1

5.8

0.6

Białystok

501

37.2

50.5

7.8

0.5

Gdańsk

500

11.9

52.3

25.9

9.4

0.6

Kraków

501

9.9

46.5

28.9

14.1

0.5

Warszawa

501

6.4

35.4

33.2

23.8

1.2

Braga

502

35.9

46.9

12.9

0.3

Lisboa

503

5.7

37.4

28.9

Bucureşti

503

3.3

20.2

25.3

49.9

1.2

Cluj-Napoca

503

33.7

49.8

10.9

4.8

0.8

Piatra Neamţ

501

2.5

1.4

Ljubljana

508

21.6

55.3

15.6

6.6

0.9

Bratislava

501

2.7

37.1

44.2

14.9

1.1

Kosice

501

52.8

31.4

5.2

1.5

Helsinki

507

16.9

55.1

22.6

4.4

1.1

Oulu

505

15.8

59.8

19.2

4.9

0.4

Malmö

500

52.8

21.4

8.3

1.6

Stockholm

500

55.3

16.2

6.9

0.6

Belfast

500

17.8

43.3

23.5

14.6

0.8

Cardiff

500

24.2

48.2

15.3

10.9

1.3

Glasgow

500

13.8

40.5

23.7

20.8

1.2

London

500

8.8

34.3

29.7

25.5

1.7

Manchester

500

16.6

22.2

18.1

Newcastle

500

33.8

49.5

11.1

5.1

0.5

Zagreb

501

22.9

39.7

21.3

16.1

Ankara

502

25.2

43.7

10.3

0.7

Antalya

502

42.7

35.5

14.6

6.5

0.7

Diyarbakir

501

36.5

18.5

11.5

1.5

İstanbul

504

9.7

28.5

29.7

31.3

0.8

(continued) CITY

page 127

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 19. This city spends its resources in a responsible way – by city QUESTION: Q2_K. 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? - [CITY NAME] spends its resources in a responsible way

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

4.7

44.8

17.4

7.3

25.8

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

3.2

23.9

25.9

14.8

32.2

Liège

502

3.6

27.6

31.9

14.7

22.1

Burgas

500

13.5

22.9

12.1

16.3

35.3

Sofia

500

4.8

16.6

18.5

29.9

30.2

Ostrava

501

7.1

37.1

24.9

6.1

24.7

Praha

500

6.1

33.9

13.2

21.8

Aalborg

500

44.6

24.6

8.8

København

503

39.5

29.5

10.8

16.2

Berlin

501

1.9

16.2

48.4

19.2

14.3

Dortmund

505

2.7

13.5

42.2

31.4

10.3

Essen

501

2.4

22.5

44.7

15.2

Hamburg

501

3.7

30.1

40.6

11.6

Leipzig

500

2.4

26.1

40.1

12.4

München

502

12.9

43.7

17.3

3.6

22.5

Rostock

502

3.1

25.5

39.9

13.2

18.3

Tallinn

500

8.4

17.8

24.7

24.2

Athinia

506

4.1

10.7

24.8

45.3

15.1

Irakleio

507

17.8

35.7

16.8

12.2

17.5

Barcelona

501

4.4

29.6

37.4

18.6

Madrid

501

6.7

28.3

36.8

17.2

Málaga

500

5.8

38.1

28.2

13.2

14.7

Oviedo

502

14.7

43.5

19.9

11.9

10.1

Bordeaux

502

14.7

51.5

8.1

5.9

19.8

Lille

503

10.5

46.1

12.6

5.7

25.1

Marseille

501

6.8

32.3

20.2

18.7

Paris

500

36.9

24.9

12.1

22.1

Rennes

506

8.2

14.4

6.2

23.2

Strasbourg

505

7.5

44.3

20.2

4.9

23.1

Dublin

500

10.9

23.7

6.4

Bologna

505

12.6

21.8

11.2

18.4

Napoli

500

5.4

13.5

36.3

19.9

Palermo

501

3.9

11.2

18.6

54.3

Roma

503

7.8

17.9

27.9

22.3

Torino

501

9.6

37.8

22.1

10.9

19.6

Verona

501

13.1

42.3

17.1

7.6

19.9

Lefkosia

500

7.2

21.8

28.7

21.2

CITY

page 128

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Riga

505

1.9

11.8

17.8

47.7

20.9

Vilnius

502

3.3

9.9

36.3

22.6

Luxembourg

503

16.9

16.4

2.8

Budapest

500

1.8

7.4

19.1

51.6

20.2

Miskolc

502

9.4

15.9

33.8

Valletta

500

12.3

36.6

19.9

8.5

22.7

Amsterdam

500

7.1

34.4

15.5

Groningen

500

11.7

50.9

13.6

7.3

16.4

Rotterdam

500

10.5

41.3

23.5

4.1

20.6

Wien

500

10.6

38.4

21.2

9.1

20.7

Graz

503

8.1

27.8

33.1

16.7

14.3

Białystok

501

35.3

13.7

6.3

21.6

Gdańsk

500

10.6

33.5

13.8

21.2

Kraków

501

11.3

34.5

21.5

9.5

23.1

Warszawa

501

5.1

27.3

20.6

Braga

502

18.4

42.6

17.4

8.9

12.6

Lisboa

503

7.5

34.4

23.2

16.9

Bucureşti

503

4.7

14.9

17.5

15.9

Cluj-Napoca

503

22.1

35.3

13.8

7.1

21.6

Piatra Neamţ

501

35.4

29.9

10.1

4.8

19.7

Ljubljana

508

32.8

18.6

20.6

Bratislava

501

2.5

23.3

28.7

32.4

Kosice

501

4.4

26.5

28.2

5.7

35.2

Helsinki

507

6.9

47.1

29.4

7.1

9.6

Oulu

505

6.1

38.3

33.9

10.1

11.6

Malmö

500

13.1

44.8

14.2

Stockholm

500

48.3

3.4

20.2

Belfast

500

12.6

39.2

22.3

15.7

10.3

Cardiff

500

12.6

43.4

19.6

13.1

11.4

Glasgow

500

11.2

38.6

17.4

20.5

12.2

London

500

8.7

33.8

23.9

20.2

13.4

Manchester

500

13.6

36.8

17.5

16.2

15.9

Newcastle

500

17.7

44.7

13.7

9.1

14.7

Zagreb

501

8.7

18.5

16.1

49.1

7.6

Ankara

502

13.9

29.5

27.6

18.5

10.5

Antalya

502

31.6

20.2

11.4

14.8

Diyarbakir

501

16.4

28.8

21.4

16.8

16.6

İstanbul

504

8.4

30.5

25.8

9.5

(continued) CITY

page 129

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 20. This city is committed to the fight climate change – by city QUESTION: Q2_L. 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? - [CITY NAME] is committed to the fight against climate change (e.g. reducing energy consumption in housing or promoting alternatives to transport by car)

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

36.4

18.5

6.4

32.7

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

7.5

37.4

23.1

13.3

18.6

Liège

502

4.6

29.3

30.9

13.4

21.9

Burgas

500

7.1

12.9

16.6

27.9

35.5

Sofia

500

12.2

21.3

38.4

26.1

Ostrava

501

8.1

33.5

22.6

6.6

29.3

Praha

500

6.4

22.8

8.1

26.7

Aalborg

500

9.4

37.2

20.9

4.2

28.2

København

503

44.9

20.5

5.5

11.1

Berlin

501

11.3

43.9

28.6

5.5

10.8

Dortmund

505

7.4

37.2

4.4

Essen

501

9.3

31.3

5.7

14.7

Hamburg

501

14.2

47.1

24.3

3.9

10.6

Leipzig

500

10.2

47.4

24.5

3.2

14.7

München

502

18.1

51.5

16.9

1.9

11.6

Rostock

502

10.2

18.8

Tallinn

500

10.6

25.8

18.7

31.9

Athinia

506

9.7

38.3

Irakleio

507

13.7

24.9

22.2

25.9

13.3

Barcelona

501

9.4

46.6

25.3

11.1

7.5

Madrid

501

7.6

40.3

30.5

11.9

9.7

Málaga

500

10.9

42.5

27.5

9.6

9.5

Oviedo

502

10.3

44.6

22.4

8.6

14.1

Bordeaux

502

18.2

50.1

10.1

4.2

17.4

Lille

503

15.8

42.4

10.3

6.4

Marseille

501

38.9

17.6

15.3

15.2

Paris

500

9.4

39.2

21.7

10.1

19.5

Rennes

506

14.7

46.4

10.5

5.1

23.2

Strasbourg

505

16.8

44.9

16.2

5.8

16.3

Dublin

500

26.8

36.9

19.7

13.5

3.2

Bologna

505

32.4

22.3

12.9

19.4

Napoli

500

8.4

21.3

23.6

21.6

Palermo

501

6.1

23.1

32.8

Roma

503

7.7

21.4

31.3

24.1

15.4

Torino

501

13.6

36.6

21.4

7.8

20.5

Verona

501

15.2

30.5

17.3

15.7

21.3

Lefkosia

500

11.5

24.2

24.4

28.8

11.2

CITY

page 130

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Riga

505

20.2

16.2

30.5

Vilnius

502

9.9

18.8

18.1

20.9

32.3

Luxembourg

503

22.7

52.6

14.4

3.6

6.8

Budapest

500

8.3

25.6

26.1

24.7

15.2

Miskolc

502

17.6

14.9

8.1

19.3

Valletta

500

10.4

31.2

18.8

25.6

Amsterdam

500

10.6

44.3

23.8

8.4

Groningen

500

17.2

43.9

13.6

3.7

21.6

Rotterdam

500

11.6

43.2

18.6

6.4

20.1

Wien

500

44.9

24.2

2.9

12.1

Graz

503

37.8

28.9

9.4

9.9

Białystok

501

8.8

27.1

27.6

15.8

20.7

Gdańsk

500

9.9

26.7

14.9

21.8

Kraków

501

13.7

31.1

24.3

14.6

16.3

Warszawa

501

5.7

25.5

28.3

22.9

17.6

Braga

502

18.7

37.1

13.2

15.9

15.1

Lisboa

503

35.8

24.1

16.6

15.4

Bucureşti

503

8.2

20.7

38.5

16.6

Cluj-Napoca

503

20.7

13.3

Piatra Neamţ

501

22.5

25.1

11.2

9.6

31.6

Ljubljana

508

10.3

37.4

24.9

16.6

10.8

Bratislava

501

6.4

31.3

7.8

27.4

Kosice

501

9.8

29.6

23.1

4.6

Helsinki

507

6.1

45.4

5.8

10.6

Oulu

505

5.4

33.6

6.1

18.9

Malmö

500

16.8

13.9

4.1

20.2

Stockholm

500

14.9

45.9

17.8

5.3

16.1

Belfast

500

22.6

39.5

20.6

8.8

8.5

Cardiff

500

16.5

45.1

15.8

7.7

14.9

Glasgow

500

20.9

37.3

17.6

11.2

London

500

20.4

42.1

17.6

12.5

7.5

Manchester

500

42.6

15.8

8.2

12.4

Newcastle

500

23.7

45.5

11.4

5.9

13.5

Zagreb

501

10.3

19.6

20.7

38.6

10.9

Ankara

502

12.6

25.8

24.5

18.3

18.9

Antalya

502

18.7

25.4

17.8

23.1

(continued) CITY

Diyarbakir

501

22.1

19.9

19.2

26.9

İstanbul

504

10.6

26.4

page 131

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 21. This city is a healthy place to live – by city QUESTION: Q2_M. 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? - [CITY NAME] is a healthy city to live in

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

39.7

27.8

14.1

10.4

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

15.9

50.1

17.3

11.1

5.6

Liège

502

24.3

51.9

12.8

5.3

5.6

Burgas

500

11.9

18.3

31.1

35.7

Sofia

500

2.4

10.5

29.6

55.8

1.7

Ostrava

501

8.8

29.5

37.4

21.3

Praha

500

7.8

37.3

39.1

13.2

2.7

Aalborg

500

22.8

63.1

8.5

2.2

3.4

København

503

9.4

9.3

5.3

Berlin

501

18.8

49.2

25.6

4.1

2.2

Dortmund

505

19.8

57.4

17.7

3.2

Essen

501

18.7

55.7

20.7

2.9

Hamburg

501

37.8

53.5

6.7

0.9

1.1

Leipzig

500

30.4

61.6

5.1

0.6

2.2

München

502

38.2

51.8

7.7

0.7

1.5

Rostock

502

52.9

44.3

2.4

0.4

Tallinn

500

19.9

40.8

20.4

14.4

4.6

Athinia

506

4.7

11.6

24.6

57.7

1.4

Irakleio

507

28.3

41.7

17.9

11.7

0.3

Barcelona

501

16.5

52.7

23.5

6.6

0.6

Madrid

501

18.5

47.3

25.2

7.7

1.3

Málaga

500

31.8

59.8

6.4

1.2

0.8

Oviedo

502

40.4

2.7

0.4

0.5

Bordeaux

502

37.5

57.7

3.1

1.3

0.5

Lille

503

36.3

49.8

9.4

2.4

Marseille

501

34.5

44.7

11.5

8.1

1.2

Paris

500

16.7

47.4

22.7

11.1

Rennes

506

58.4

4.4

1.4

0.8

Strasbourg

505

29.3

54.9

11.7

2.8

1.3

Dublin

500

35.7

44.5

12.1

6.8

0.9

Bologna

505

24.1

55.6

13.8

4.9

1.6

Napoli

500

7.7

34.9

31.6

24.4

1.4

Palermo

501

12.3

42.9

23.4

18.2

3.1

Roma

503

9.7

24.5

21.3

2.5

Torino

501

18.9

50.7

19.9

6.9

3.5

Verona

501

57.9

10.3

3.1

1.7

CITY

page 132

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Strongly agree

% Somewhat agree

% Somewhat disagree

% Strongly disagree

% DK/NA

Lefkosia

500

44.4

19.4

17.4

0.8

Riga

505

17.4

37.3

19.8

4.5

Vilnius

502

18.5

36.7

26.5

11.7

6.5

Luxembourg

503

36.5

57.3

4.8

0.9

0.6

Budapest

500

5.7

28.4

28.2

33.3

4.4

Miskolc

502

13.4

22.6

10.8

4.2

Valletta

500

11.3

37.2

26.5

17.1

7.9

Amsterdam

500

17.3

50.7

22.9

6.3

2.8

Groningen

500

43.4

53.5

2.4

0.8

Rotterdam

500

15.4

38.1

33.4

9.3

3.8

Wien

500

44.8

2.3

1.9

Graz

503

26.2

49.1

18.7

3.6

2.5

Białystok

501

42.1

2.3

1.9

1.7

Gdańsk

500

26.9

18.6

9.1

2.3

Kraków

501

27.1

14.1

2.8

Warszawa

501

9.2

32.4

21.9

2.6

Braga

502

61.5

34.4

3.6

0.4

Lisboa

503

17.7

52.8

19.5

8.7

1.3

Bucureşti

503

5.6

21.2

23.8

47.4

2.1

Cluj-Napoca

503

35.7

39.1

14.8

7.5

2.9

Piatra Neamţ

501

73.8

22.9

2.3

Ljubljana

508

16.7

57.8

15.4

7.3

2.8

Bratislava

501

6.9

42.2

36.5

9.3

5.2

Kosice

501

10.9

56.1

24.7

3.8

4.6

Helsinki

507

23.7

57.6

14.1

2.6

Oulu

505

64.1

8.5

1.4

Malmö

500

18.1

48.8

18.8

4.9

9.4

Stockholm

500

20.4

48.3

21.8

3.3

6.1

Belfast

500

31.5

49.6

11.2

5.7

Cardiff

500

33.4

55.7

6.1

2.9

1.9

Glasgow

500

15.5

35.9

3.7

London

500

14.1

37.4

13.2

2.3

Manchester

500

18.9

45.5

21.1

11.7

2.8

Newcastle

500

37.5

46.5

9.1

3.7

3.2

Zagreb

501

30.3

34.3

16.1

17.3

Ankara

502

29.2

44.7

16.4

9.1

0.7

Antalya

502

49.1

35.5

4.1

1.3

Diyarbakir

501

43.5

35.9

12.7

6.9

İstanbul

504

9.5

20.7

30.2

38.2

1.4

(continued) CITY

page 133

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 22. You have difficulties paying bills at the end of the month – by city QUESTION: Q3_A. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? - You have difficulty paying your bills at the end of the month

Total N

% Always

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

2.5

11.6

7.7

69.7

8.5

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

4.6

23.5

11.3

52.3

8.2

Liège

502

3.9

19.7

12.6

58.3

5.5

Burgas

500

9.1

27.9

18.2

43.2

1.6

Sofia

500

9.2

34.2

13.2

39.9

3.6

Ostrava

501

11.9

8.1

Praha

500

4.8

10.4

15.7

65.1

Aalborg

500

1.2

3.2

1.6

København

503

1.2

9.8

75.7

1.2

Berlin

501

4.1

15.5

13.7

63.1

3.7

Dortmund

505

3.4

11.1

13.2

2.3

Essen

501

3.2

8.9

17.7

67.7

2.4

Hamburg

501

3.4

12.7

14.1

2.8

Leipzig

500

3.1

14.5

19.6

1.8

München

502

3.9

12.5

13.9

65.9

3.9

Rostock

502

2.2

12.3

14.5

68.4

2.5

Tallinn

500

5.7

17.7

55.9

2.7

Athinia

506

11.8

29.9

22.6

32.1

3.6

Irakleio

507

10.4

35.1

22.4

29.4

2.7

Barcelona

501

6.1

14.4

59.8

2.7

Madrid

501

4.2

19.8

17.1

1.9

Málaga

500

9.5

18.3

13.7

55.1

3.4

Oviedo

502

3.6

12.1

15.2

66.7

2.4

Bordeaux

502

3.7

24.7

16.5

49.5

5.7

Lille

503

4.9

22.5

16.7

52.1

3.8

Marseille

501

5.8

27.9

15.5

48.5

2.3

Paris

500

2.9

22.4

15.2

55.7

3.8

Rennes

506

1.7

18.5

12.9

60.3

6.6

Strasbourg

505

2.8

20.6

14.8

56.8

4.9

Dublin

500

3.6

16.4

22.4

53.6

3.9

Bologna

505

6.9

21.1

13.5

54.4

4.1

Napoli

500

15.2

27.9

3.9

Palermo

501

16.2

24.7

13.8

5.2

Roma

503

10.1

28.9

15.1

40.6

5.3

Torino

501

9.9

26.6

14.1

46.6

2.8

Verona

501

7.6

20.8

13.2

53.4

4.9

Lefkosia

500

5.3

24.5

19.6

45.4

5.2

CITY

page 134

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

(continued) CITY

Total N

% Always

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

% DK/NA

Riga

505

33.8

13.4

33.1

1.7

Vilnius

502

4.2

23.9

59.8

3.1

Luxembourg

503

1.1

10.7

11.3

75.6

1.3

Budapest

500

12.5

23.5

16.2

43.7

Miskolc

502

16.1

21.7

19.1

40.1

Valletta

500

22.5

27.3

13.8

26.4

9.9

Amsterdam

500

5.8

20.4

14.2

56.4

3.2

Groningen

500

4.3

13.4

61.7

5.6

Rotterdam

500

2.5

18.2

12.2

61.9

5.1

Wien

500

1.3

12.9

10.2

71.9

3.7

Graz

503

1.4

7.7

8.1

78.4

4.3

Białystok

501

18.7

18.1

3.1

Gdańsk

500

2.1

16.8

3.1

Kraków

501

1.9

15.3

59.3

4.4

Warszawa

501

17.6

16.1

61.1

2.2

Braga

502

18.1

16.4

53.4

7.1

Lisboa

503

5.4

21.5

51.1

Bucureşti

503

4.4

20.2

15.7

57.7

Cluj-Napoca

503

4.2

20.2

13.9

60.6

1.1

Piatra Neamţ

501

4.9

23.6

10.5

59.5

1.6

Ljubljana

508

7.3

19.9

18.5

53.2

1.1

Bratislava

501

5.7

68.1

5.1

Kosice

501

5.3

8.5

11.9

66.2

8.2

Helsinki

507

1.6

14.1

16.7

66.7

0.9

Oulu

505

2.9

16.7

16.4

62.7

1.2

Malmö

500

2.4

6.9

6.8

Stockholm

500

7.2

9.2

78.8

3.9

Belfast

500

4.8

18.8

49.9

5.5

Cardiff

500

4.6

18.1

16.6

56.4

4.3

Glasgow

500

4.5

18.3

16.4

55.7

5.1

London

500

6.4

23.8

19.6

47.9

2.2

Manchester

500

3.5

18.7

49.7

5.1

Newcastle

500

13.5

14.9

64.5

Zagreb

501

22.2

10.9

52.5

2.4

Ankara

502

24.8

31.4

9.5

32.5

1.8

Antalya

502

38.3

34.3

1.3

Diyarbakir

501

28.9

36.8

7.8

24.9

1.5

İstanbul

504

30.1

34.6

10.8

23.4

1.1

page 135

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 23. You feel safe in this city – by city QUESTION: Q3_B. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? - You feel safe in [CITY NAME]

Total N

% Always

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

29.7

8.8

11.9

1.7

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

33.2

36.1

14.3

15.3

1.1

Liège

502

29.7

11.2

11.7

1.4

Burgas

500

31.7

35.9

16.1

13.3

2.9

Sofia

500

20.2

30.2

19.5

29.3

0.8

Ostrava

501

30.6

37.3

17.5

12.7

1.8

Praha

500

30.4

34.7

21.9

12.3

0.7

Aalborg

500

77.6

20.5

1.4

0.6

København

503

66.9

29.8

2.2

1.1

Berlin

501

50.9

37.1

8.5

3.4

0.2

Dortmund

505

59.1

29.2

7.2

2.8

1.7

Essen

501

59.7

31.6

6.1

1.9

0.8

Hamburg

501

59.6

33.8

4.9

1.6

0.2

Leipzig

500

59.3

31.6

6.5

1.6

München

502

75.9

19.3

3.6

0.2

Rostock

502

62.8

6.1

1.1

Tallinn

500

41.9

32.4

14.1

10.4

1.3

Athinia

506

14.2

41.8

16.8

0.2

Irakleio

507

35.9

43.8

9.1

1.2

Barcelona

501

46.9

37.8

6.3

Madrid

501

46.8

39.8

8.5

4.9

Málaga

500

59.1

29.1

8.4

3.4

Oviedo

502

84.1

13.5

0.5

1.4

0.5

Bordeaux

502

68.5

4.1

2.4

0.2

Lille

503

50.5

36.5

6.3

5.8

0.9

Marseille

501

44.2

36.7

8.2

10.3

0.6

Paris

500

51.9

38.9

5.7

3.3

0.3

Rennes

506

55.7

35.7

6.4

1.5

0.6

Strasbourg

505

53.2

6.3

4.2

0.3

Dublin

500

40.5

48.2

7.7

3.1

0.6

Bologna

505

44.5

31.7

12.3

11.1

0.5

Napoli

500

35.6

25.1

17.6

0.7

Palermo

501

52.5

8.9

0.6

Roma

503

40.8

29.6

14.8

1.7

Torino

501

41.1

30.6

13.6

0.7

Verona

501

61.1

28.7

7.1

2.8

0.3

Lefkosia

500

46.8

36.9

9.4

6.2

0.7

CITY

page 136

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

(continued) CITY

Total N

% Always

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

% DK/NA

Riga

505

33.3

31.6

19.5

2.6

Vilnius

502

33.7

32.8

11.9

2.6

Luxembourg

503

Budapest

500

31.6

31.7

15.5

18.8

2.3

Miskolc

502

33.9

34.7

11.9

1.4

Valletta

500

55.2

31.5

8.3

3.9

1.2

Amsterdam

500

64.8

30.8

1.4

2.2

0.8

Groningen

500

79.4

19.2

1.3

0.2

Rotterdam

500

36.4

5.9

3.4

0.3

Wien

500

62.6

27.5

6.7

0.2

Graz

503

60.6

26.9

7.8

3.9

0.9

Białystok

501

58.4

33.2

4.8

2.2

1.4

Gdańsk

500

48.6

41.7

6.1

1.7

1.9

Kraków

501

47.2

41.3

7.3

2.9

1.2

Warszawa

501

42.3

45.5

6.5

4.2

1.5

Braga

502

56.7

35.6

1.6

0.2

Lisboa

503

34.1

43.7

11.4

10.7

0.2

Bucureşti

503

25.2

35.8

14.9

22.2

Cluj-Napoca

503

60.4

3.4

4.1

Piatra Neamţ

501

73.4

21.1

2.3

2.6

0.6

Ljubljana

508

62.6

28.5

5.8

2.2

0.9

Bratislava

501

39.2

39.5

14.6

6.4

0.3

Kosice

501

44.1

34.3

16.4

3.5

1.8

Helsinki

507

66.6

30.2

2.2

0.6

0.4

Oulu

505

77.4

20.4

1.8

0.4

Malmö

500

48.6

41.9

5.2

3.9

0.4

Stockholm

500

63.9

32.6

2.5

0.8

0.2

Belfast

500

51.7

41.1

3.8

2.7

0.8

Cardiff

500

42.9

4.3

1.6

0.2

Glasgow

500

41.4

45.6

5.2

0.8

London

500

32.4

54.7

7.8

4.7

0.4

Manchester

500

35.3

51.1

7.8

4.2

1.5

Newcastle

500

55.8

38.5

3.3

2.1

0.3

Zagreb

501

61.2

22.6

8.1

7.9

0.1

Ankara

502

44.8

35.9

6.6

0.8

Antalya

502

6.5

10.6

2.9

Diyarbakir

501

47.6

28.2

5.8

17.1

1.3

İstanbul

504

29.6

11.3

38.9

0.1

page 137

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 24. You feel safe in your neighbourhood – by city QUESTION: Q3_C. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? - You feel safe in your neighbourhood

Total N

% Always

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

70.8

6.6

0.6

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

57.8

25.1

7.5

0.5

Liège

502

63.5

22.8

7.7

Burgas

500

38.3

35.2

11.2

13.1

2.1

Sofia

500

32.6

13.3

21.3

0.8

Ostrava

501

49.2

30.5

11.6

8.1

0.5

Praha

500

45.7

30.2

16.8

0.3

Aalborg

500

90.9

0.6

0.4

København

503

83.3

15.1

1.2

0.5

Berlin

501

86.9

11.7

1.1

0.4

Dortmund

505

88.3

8.6

1.4

0.2

Essen

501

88.6

8.2

2.2

Hamburg

501

87.9

9.7

1.3

0.9

0.2

Leipzig

500

89.8

7.2

2.4

0.3

0.2

München

502

90.6

7.9

0.9

0.4

0.2

Rostock

502

91.3

6.7

1.3

0.7

Tallinn

500

59.7

24.7

7.4

6.8

1.4

Athinia

506

38.4

38.1

9.4

0.2

Irakleio

507

50.2

34.1

8.3

0.4

Barcelona

501

62.4

5.7

4.8

Madrid

501

60.9

29.7

5.5

Málaga

500

73.9

18.2

Oviedo

502

89.1

9.4

1.4

0.2

Bordeaux

502

83.7

0.8

2.3

0.2

Lille

503

75.3

19.3

1.9

3.4

Marseille

501

66.3

24.7

4.7

4.1

0.3

Paris

500

68.8

24.2

4.7

0.2

Rennes

506

73.9

20.4

3.9

1.6

0.2

Strasbourg

505

72.8

20.5

3.4

3.2

Dublin

500

76.1

20.6

2.1

1.2

Bologna

505

58.5

23.3

8.5

0.7

Napoli

500

52.3

21.2

11.9

14.7

Palermo

501

66.9

19.8

6.5

6.8

Roma

503

55.9

22.1

10.1

10.8

1.1

Torino

501

54.2

27.2

10.5

0.1

Verona

501

70.8

20.9

6.1

2.1

0.1

Lefkosia

500

67.4

24.4

4.3

3.6

0.2

CITY

page 138

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

(continued) CITY

Total N

% Always

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

% DK/NA

Riga

505

45.5

26.9

10.2

15.2

2.2

Vilnius

502

45.6

28.6

8.6

16.1

1.1

Luxembourg

503

86.6

10.4

1.2

1.8

Budapest

500

59.6

22.6

7.5

9.3

1.1

Miskolc

502

59.2

22.1

10.6

7.8

0.3

Valletta

500

60.3

27.7

6.4

4.6

0.9

Amsterdam

500

77.8

1.8

1.4

Groningen

500

88.2

11.4

0.4

Rotterdam

500

77.1

18.5

2.8

1.4

0.2

Wien

500

81.6

14.4

2.3

1.7

Graz

503

11.5

1.5

2.5

0.4

Białystok

501

76.4

2.6

1.1

0.9

Gdańsk

500

68.3

24.4

4.5

2.4

0.5

Kraków

501

63.2

26.5

6.6

0.8

Warszawa

501

67.3

24.6

4.2

3.5

0.4

Braga

502

74.8

20.3

3.1

1.9

Lisboa

503

53.4

34.4

6.9

5.3

Bucureşti

503

44.4

31.5

9.2

13.4

1.6

Cluj-Napoca

503

76.2

17.9

2.4

2.9

0.6

Piatra Neamţ

501

83.2

13.6

1.3

1.7

0.2

Ljubljana

508

79.3

15.6

3.7

1.2

0.3

Bratislava

501

62.6

25.1

9.2

2.9

0.1

Kosice

501

64.6

22.1

9.5

1.7

Helsinki

507

79.9

18.1

1.6

0.2

Oulu

505

87.3

10.9

1.3

0.4

Malmö

500

71.5

22.4

3.9

2.2

Stockholm

500

82.2

16.7

0.8

0.2

Belfast

500

22.4

1.7

1.8

0.2

Cardiff

500

66.4

29.6

2.1

1.7

0.2

Glasgow

500

69.5

25.2

3.1

2.1

0.2

London

500

37.7

5.1

3.9

0.2

Manchester

500

55.3

37.3

3.7

3.6

0.2

Newcastle

500

25.9

2.6

1.5

Zagreb

501

78.5

13.3

4.2

3.7

0.3

Ankara

502

66.9

20.9

4.6

7.4

0.1

Antalya

502

73.6

18.6

1.5

5.8

0.4

Diyarbakir

501

70.3

17.7

2.6

0.3

İstanbul

504

48.4

5.8

20.8

page 139

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 25. Minutes per day spent to go to work or training place – by city

% Less than 10 minutes

% Between 1020 minutes

% Between 3045 minutes

% Between 4560 minutes

% More than 60 minutes

% Does not commute, work from home

% Doesn't work or attend training

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

7.3

12.2

9.4

5.1

2.7

4.3

4.2

42.7

12.1

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

5.5

13.5

11.1

8.3

4.7

3.8

34.9

7.1

Liège

502

6.9

15.8

10.7

6.5

2.3

5.7

10.1

37.1

4.8

Burgas

500

18.1

28.2

15.6

8.6

1.6

0.9

3.7

22.3

Sofia

500

10.2

14.3

15.6

13.7

12.8

8.7

6.3

17.5

0.9

Ostrava

501

7.8

13.4

10.2

7.9

6.9

26.3

0.7

Praha

500

4.3

11.8

10.8

12.6

10.5

10.1

8.3

30.1

1.5

Aalborg

500

17.1

26.9

15.1

8.6

3.2

4.6

1.6

20.7

København

503

12.8

25.6

18.7

14.2

5.3

6.3

0.6

14.8

1.7

Berlin

501

9.6

13.4

12.1

8.3

5.6

2.3

32.5

1.1

Dortmund

505

10.4

18.6

13.4

7.9

5.4

6.1

1.8

35.9

0.6

Essen

501

8.6

17.9

12.6

9.5

5.7

3.1

3.7

38.1

0.9

Hamburg

501

7.2

15.6

17.8

14.2

7.2

4.1

4.2

28.9

0.8

Leipzig

500

9.8

18.9

13.4

3.7

4.9

31.9

2.4

München

502

11.8

18.5

16.1

12.7

6.7

2.4

2.7

27.5

1.5

Rostock

502

8.6

21.4

13.8

9.4

4.3

4.2

1.9

34.7

1.8

Tallinn

500

7.5

22.6

11.2

7.3

3.8

18.8

0.9

Athinia

506

11.3

14.1

17.4

9.2

10.4

7.8

25.2

0.5

Irakleio

507

24.4

25.1

12.3

4.4

2.1

1.9

2.4

26.2

1.2

Barcelona

501

7.8

16.4

18.7

9.5

6.4

4.8

4.7

31.6

0.2

CITY

% Between 2030 minutes

Total N

QUESTION: Q4A. How many minutes per day do you usually spend to go to your working/training place?

Madrid

501

7.4

11.4

16.1

15.7

7.7

5.1

6.6

29.8

0.3

Málaga

500

13.8

18.4

14.3

9.3

2.7

6.2

0.3

Oviedo

502

15.4

22.2

12.6

5.1

1.5

0.8

7.4

Bordeaux

502

11.9

19.2

16.3

8.3

2.8

4.2

9.2

27.2

Lille

503

9.7

21.4

11.7

3.2

2.6

11.5

28.9

0.9

Marseille

501

10.5

15.5

14.9

7.8

3.4

4.3

9.2

33.6

0.7

Paris

500

4.3

12.5

17.7

17.6

8.7

7.2

22.7

0.3

Rennes

506

11.1

28.3

13.9

9.8

3.2

4.2

6.1

22.6

0.8

Strasbourg

505

9.7

23.6

17.4

10.2

4.1

5.1

7.6

21.8

0.5

Dublin

500

8.3

11.8

16.2

12.3

10.2

10.7

3.8

0.7

Bologna

505

9.3

26.9

10.8

6.3

2.9

2.1

3.2

36.2

2.4

Napoli

500

9.1

17.5

6.7

5.7

4.5

3.2

5.7

45.3

2.2

Palermo

501

12.8

20.6

14.2

5.2

3.3

4.1

36.7

1.1

Roma

503

7.9

17.1

12.6

10.1

6.7

5.5

4.5

33.2

2.5

Torino

501

7.7

16.8

11.2

10.9

5.1

2.7

3.4

40.7

1.5

Verona

501

14.7

22.1

10.9

3.7

3.2

1.5

3.3

39.5

1.1

Lefkosia

500

19.9

23.2

14.9

9.7

2.7

2.6

6.5

20.1

0.3

page 140

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Total N

% Less than 10 minutes

% Between 1020 minutes

% Between 2030 minutes

% Between 3045 minutes

% Between 4560 minutes

% More than 60 minutes

% Does not commute, work from home

% Doesn't work or attend training

% DK/NA

Annex

37626

10.1

18.2

14.4

9.8

6.3

5.4

5.9

28.4

1.5

Riga

505

6.5

16.4

10.4

7.4

4.8

0.8

39.2

1.5

Vilnius

502

10.6

18.6

21.1

9.3

4.6

5.8

6.9

21.5

1.6

Luxembourg

503

18.7

29.2

14.4

6.5

2.6

1.7

3.1

23.5

0.2

Budapest

500

6.4

5.4

10.1

9.1

11.7

19.9

6.2

30.3

0.9

(continued) CITY TOTAL CITY

Miskolc

502

6.6

15.6

12.3

9.2

10.7

8.8

6.1

30.1

0.6

Valletta

500

12.3

22.8

4.4

5.7

5.1

33.3

1.4

Amsterdam

500

7.2

15.6

11.2

10.8

13.6

9.1

15.5

0.8

Groningen

500

9.7

18.3

18.1

13.6

8.8

9.2

5.6

15.3

1.4

Rotterdam

500

5.8

15.8

11.7

12.1

6.6

22.1

0.7

Wien

500

6.9

14.6

19.6

12.7

5.9

2.4

3.7

Graz

503

12.6

15.6

8.5

3.3

0.8

2.4

28.5

4.4

Białystok

501

13.3

29.5

18.1

7.3

3.7

1.7

4.3

21.5

0.8

Gdańsk

500

8.7

10.3

10.5

6.5

6.2

24.3

0.6

Kraków

501

16.2

15.6

11.7

4.4

19.7

1.3

Warszawa

501

5.2

11.6

15.5

16.1

13.6

10.9

4.8

21.8

0.5

Braga

502

24.3

24.8

8.8

5.1

3.3

1.3

14.6

16.5

1.4

Lisboa

503

8.1

16.7

18.1

7.4

4.5

2.9

27.1

0.3

Bucureşti

503

5.1

11.6

15.6

13.5

13.1

3.5

28.4

0.2

Cluj-Napoca

503

7.8

17.1

11.1

4.5

4.4

2.4

31.2

0.5

Piatra Neamţ

501

15.7

23.7

11.4

4.7

3.2

2.4

34.9

Ljubljana

508

10.3

22.1

10.4

5.9

2.6

2.5

25.5

0.5

Bratislava

501

6.6

22.1

7.9

7.1

4.8

3.9

29.7

0.8

Kosice

501

10.5

22.3

17.1

7.1

4.1

2.4

3.6

1.9

Helsinki

507

10.4

17.7

19.5

15.2

3.8

7.3

18.8

1.3

Oulu

505

18.4

13.5

5.1

1.7

2.4

4.6

1.2

Malmö

500

10.5

15.7

10.5

8.4

9.1

3.7

22.8

2.3

Stockholm

500

9.2

14.6

13.3

14.4

8.7

18.5

1.2

Belfast

500

9.5

17.1

6.4

5.9

2.1

2.9

Cardiff

500

6.4

13.9

16.8

12.6

6.7

5.4

4.2

32.9

1.2

Glasgow

500

8.2

14.7

11.8

10.5

8.6

8.4

3.5

30.6

3.7

London

500

4.4

8.6

9.9

11.3

15.4

2.9

28.5

Manchester

500

7.7

15.7

15.4

10.8

9.6

1.9

28.8

Newcastle

500

7.5

17.7

10.3

6.8

5.4

2.6

28.9

Zagreb

501

5.6

13.1

16.1

6.4

6.3

8.2

30.5

2.8

Ankara

502

10.5

14.2

8.3

8.4

7.3

5.6

19.3

26.4

Antalya

502

15.2

15.5

5.9

4.8

3.4

2.3

19.7

32.1

1.2

Diyarbakir

501

11.4

8.7

3.1

2.6

20.5

31.4

0.3

İstanbul

504

7.1

12.6

8.9

6.6

6.5

7.3

18.6

31.3

1.1

page 141

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 26. Means of transport used to go to work or training place – by city QUESTION: 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

CITY

Total N

% Public transport

% Car

% Biking

% Walking

% Motorbike

% Other

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

205

17.8

45.9

28.5

3.1

2.4

Bruxelles/Brussel

235

45.9

38.6

3.9

8.9

0.6

2.2

Liège

241

25.1

59.6

6.1

7.5

1.6

Burgas

365

32.8

33.6

0.2

26.1

0.4

6.7

0.2

Sofia

377

51.8

32.8

0.4

11.9

0.4

2.7

Ostrava

332

53.5

37.7

6.1

0.2

0.5

Praha

300

65.9

26.4

0.5

5.4

0.3

1.6

Aalborg

378

10.5

45.6

36.9

4.4

0.5

1.9

0.3

København

417

15.4

18.4

59.5

5.2

1.5

Berlin

321

42.9

32.2

17.2

5.5

0.8

1.5

Dortmund

311

28.7

60.8

3.1

4.8

1.2

1.1

0.4

Essen

288

27.2

57.7

3.7

8.6

0.4

1.7

0.7

Hamburg

331

41.5

37.1

13.5

6.3

0.7

0.6

0.2

Leipzig

313

31.7

44.3

17.7

4.4

1.8

München

343

40.1

32.6

16.7

1.6

0.9

Rostock

309

44.5

12.6

9.3

1.3

0.3

Tallinn

383

52.2

38.8

0.6

5.6

1.9

0.9

Athinia

356

30.8

46.2

1.6

12.4

6.7

2.2

Irakleio

356

13.7

53.7

0.3

2.2

Barcelona

318

54.3

15.2

0.3

15.9

1.3

Madrid

317

54.1

29.4

0.7

9.6

3.6

2.3

0.4

Málaga

298

48.6

23.1

8.6

0.8

Oviedo

289

22.6

27.9

0.3

48.1

0.7

0.5

Bordeaux

314

30.5

46.3

8.4

8.5

4.1

1.8

0.4

Lille

295

28.8

57.3

4.9

7.1

1.2

0.7

Marseille

283

27.8

52.6

2.1

11.6

3.8

1.6

0.5

Paris

349

10.7

5.3

11.7

2.7

Rennes

357

36.3

39.7

8.1

13.3

0.9

1.7

Strasbourg

354

27.2

35.4

20.7

13.5

1.4

1.8

Dublin

347

28.9

51.4

4.8

13.5

0.6

0.9

Bologna

294

28.6

42.9

7.1

11.5

8.6

1.2

Napoli

234

24.2

52.1

0.5

11.2

9.7

2.3

Palermo

291

14.5

51.6

0.8

13.1

19.2

0.8

Roma

301

31.6

49.9

7.2

8.4

1.9

Torino

273

33.9

47.6

4.5

11.3

1.9

0.8

Verona

281

16.7

54.7

9.1

7.6

10.6

1.3

Lefkosia

365

3.5

88.6

5.2

0.7

page 142

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

(continued) CITY

Total N

% Public transport

% Car

% Biking

% Walking

% Motorbike

% Other

% DK/NA

Riga

296

59.7

24.2

0.9

14.5

0.8

Vilnius

351

36.1

51.3

0.8

11.6

0.2

Luxembourg

368

23.2

59.3

5.5

10.6

0.3

0.6

0.5

Budapest

313

58.9

26.7

5.7

6.4

0.7

1.6

Miskolc

317

54.5

30.5

3.1

10.9

0.4

0.7

Valletta

301

17.9

62.2

0.4

12.9

0.8

5.7

Amsterdam

373

23.6

45.6

2.7

2.8

3.3

Groningen

389

8.5

24.7

3.2

2.2

1.2

0.2

Rotterdam

353

25.7

41.4

24.9

2.4

1.5

3.5

0.6

Wien

311

32.6

3.7

1.2

0.4

Graz

325

27.3

31.6

27.7

1.9

0.9

0.5

Białystok

368

44.2

39.2

15.1

0.3

0.2

Gdańsk

345

43.6

41.7

3.2

8.5

1.5

1.1

0.4

Kraków

374

52.1

37.7

1.2

8.6

0.5

Warszawa

365

33.5

0.6

0.2

Braga

339

10.9

0.4

24.5

1.2

Lisboa

290

47.6

0.8

10.1

0.5

Bucureşti

341

58.6

29.8

0.7

8.1

2.3

0.6

Cluj-Napoca

331

49.2

29.4

1.2

1.9

0.3

Piatra Neamţ

309

24.3

40.7

1.1

29.7

0.4

3.8

Ljubljana

363

29.2

43.2

15.4

0.9

0.4

Bratislava

328

56.1

31.1

1.2

11.4

0.2

Kosice

318

54.4

28.9

0.7

15.7

0.2

Helsinki

368

50.1

25.9

11.9

1.8

0.3

Oulu

354

6.8

37.6

0.6

1.1

Malmö

356

22.2

29.8

7.9

0.3

2.4

0.3

Stockholm

376

47.6

14.4

18.7

16.3

0.3

2.3

0.2

Belfast

330

24.4

56.5

1.6

14.7

0.5

2.2

Cardiff

309

18.1

14.7

4.1

Glasgow

311

29.9

49.3

1.8

13.2

1.3

4.5

London

333

59.6

17.1

9.1

2.2

1.7

0.3

Manchester

336

27.4

57.9

2.4

11.1

0.7

0.6

Newcastle

333

34.1

49.9

2.9

10.3

0.6

2.2

Zagreb

293

48.7

3.1

12.4

0.2

1.5

Ankara

272

53.2

20.2

21.6

Antalya

236

25.3

33.3

1.2

30.9

4.1

5.2

Diyarbakir

239

39.5

20.2

36.3

İstanbul

247

50.4

21.2

19.2

2.6

6.3

0.3

page 143

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 27. Frequency of using public transport – by city QUESTION: Q4C. How often do you use public transport in [CITY NAME]?

Total N

% Never

% Less than once a month

% At least once a month

% At least once a week, but not every day

% Every day

% DK/NA

Antwerpen

500

11.8

15.5

36.1

19.6

1.1

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

16.2

8.3

11.7

29.9

33.4

0.4

Liège

502

17.9

8.7

23.7

18.4

0.3

Burgas

500

19.4

20.5

14.7

17.2

27.7

0.5

Sofia

500

11.3

13.1

5.9

24.4

44.9

0.4

Ostrava

501

13.6

13.4

11.1

25.5

36.2

0.2

Praha

500

3.5

7.7

11.8

27.5

49.4

0.2

Aalborg

500

27.2

26.5

19.3

17.3

9.3

0.4

København

503

5.9

14.8

30.8

31.3

16.9

0.4

Berlin

501

6.7

15.9

14.8

32.3

0.2

Dortmund

505

21.7

17.4

21.9

Essen

501

19.9

25.3

17.3

16.2

21.4

Hamburg

501

6.6

18.5

21.8

23.8

29.3

Leipzig

500

11.8

23.1

19.4

21.2

24.2

0.2

München

502

5.1

12.1

34.1

28.6

Rostock

502

11.3

18.5

20.1

27.1

22.8

0.2

Tallinn

500

10.1

11.4

24.1

44.7

0.7

Athinia

506

12.7

13.5

16.9

31.6

24.8

0.4

Irakleio

507

40.3

16.3

12.2

18.2

12.6

0.4

Barcelona

501

6.9

6.7

13.2

31.4

41.7

Madrid

501

5.8

12.2

31.9

0.2

Málaga

500

15.3

21.1

29.6

12.7

0.3

Oviedo

502

19.7

20.8

21.3

26.7

11.6

Bordeaux

502

17.3

21.5

12.9

26.7

21.6

Lille

503

29.3

20.7

13.3

17.8

18.8

Marseille

501

23.2

20.4

15.2

22.3

18.4

0.4

Paris

500

2.3

5.7

6.1

26.7

59.1

0.2

Rennes

506

12.7

13.8

15.8

29.6

0.2

Strasbourg

505

10.2

20.5

31.4

20.8

Dublin

500

9.4

18.5

21.7

30.4

19.9

Bologna

505

27.7

11.3

23.6

21.4

Napoli

500

37.6

12.6

12.9

20.1

16.6

0.3

Palermo

501

52.5

14.1

12.9

12.6

7.7

0.2

Roma

503

31.9

12.8

13.7

21.4

19.8

0.4

Torino

501

23.9

15.6

23.3

22.8

0.5

Verona

501

41.7

20.1

12.2

10.8

0.2

Lefkosia

500

83.9

5.9

2.4

4.3

3.6

CITY

page 144

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Total N

% Never

% Less than once a month

% At least once a month

% At least once a week, but not every day

% Every day

% DK/NA

37626

16.8

15.7

25.5

26.7

0.3

Riga

505

6.1

7.6

12.8

38.3

35.1

Vilnius

502

17.5

18.2

9.6

24.4

29.3

0.9

Luxembourg

503

11.4

13.9

23.2

30.1

20.9

0.5

Budapest

500

8.3

7.9

8.8

26.1

Miskolc

502

12.8

10.9

6.7

22.2

47.4

Valletta

500

38.5

14.9

12.3

0.2

Amsterdam

500

12.4

19.5

24.7

28.5

Groningen

500

24.4

29.2

19.4

4.9

Rotterdam

500

17.7

21.1

21.5

19.8

0.8

Wien

500

4.8

9.8

15.5

28.4

41.6

Graz

503

10.5

13.2

23.3

30.1

22.7

0.2

Białystok

501

10.1

14.5

25.5

36.5

0.3

Gdańsk

500

10.9

15.1

11.7

28.6

33.6

0.2

Kraków

501

4.7

11.8

12.5

29.4

41.3

0.2

Warszawa

501

6.4

8.8

14.3

23.7

46.4

0.4

Braga

502

47.3

20.1

9.1

9.5

13.9

0.2

Lisboa

503

14.4

8.7

11.7

27.4

37.2

0.6

Bucureşti

503

10.4

8.2

22.5

47.9

Cluj-Napoca

503

8.7

12.9

28.9

40.1

0.4

Piatra Neamţ

501

23.8

23.9

12.5

20.2

18.5

1.1

Ljubljana

508

14.9

20.1

20.6

24.1

19.9

0.5

Bratislava

501

8.9

13.9

10.8

23.3

43.1

Kosice

501

9.8

11.3

10.6

26.7

41.1

0.5

Helsinki

507

3.1

11.8

11.4

30.4

43.3

Oulu

505

16.9

19.7

10.7

4.1

0.5

Malmö

500

13.4

23.6

23.9

22.7

0.4

Stockholm

500

4.5

5.3

14.4

37.1

38.5

0.2

Belfast

500

15.4

20.3

13.7

32.7

17.7

0.2

Cardiff

500

15.2

19.6

19.1

33.2

12.6

0.2

Glasgow

500

11.2

13.9

18.3

32.1

0.5

London

500

4.8

34.3

43.8

0.2

Manchester

500

16.8

24.5

14.6

24.7

19.1

0.3

Newcastle

500

11.5

15.9

12.7

34.2

25.5

0.2

Zagreb

501

10.9

14.8

10.4

23.6

40.3

Ankara

502

10.8

12.4

19.5

28.8

1.4

Antalya

502

24.7

15.6

17.8

26.4

13.7

1.8

Diyarbakir

501

13.8

14.8

22.4

29.5

18.3

1.1

İstanbul

504

10.9

10.5

18.6

32.6

26.9

0.5

(continued) CITY TOTAL CITY

page 145

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 28. Reasons for not using public transport – by city

Total N

Not frequent enough

Too congested

Too many variations in time schedule / time schedule is not reliable

Not adapted to my itinerary

Not easy to access either from where you live or to where you need to go

Not safe

I do not like public transport

Too expensive

Other

DK/NA

QUESTION: Q4D_01-99. Why don't you use public transport? Base: those who never use public transport in the city % of “Mentioned” shown

Antwerpen

6.4

3.7

4.7

11.1

14.6

12.6

35.6

25.1

Bruxelles/Brussel

4.2

6.9

7.5

6.8

10.8

5.6

9.9

3.7

55.7

5.4

Liège

156

4.4

7.8

16.2

6.9

4.9

41.9

9.3

Burgas

2.8

4.3

2.8

19.9

7.2

7.7

71.6

1.4

Sofia

1.4

11.3

3.8

21.2

7.6

3.8

7.6

53.6

1.5

Ostrava

14.7

10.5

8.7

7.5

7.9

6.8

59.3

CITY

Praha

31.8

8.7

18.2

20.2

7.7

4.4

43.5

Aalborg

136

7.6

1.4

5.9

19.4

19.2

0.7

6.7

1.4

53.8

København

10.6

3.8

11.7

6.8

13.8

17.4

14.5

55.8

Berlin

8.5

2.4

2.7

8.3

16.9

15.9

51.6

Dortmund

109

13.1

4.8

12.4

4.1

5.6

60.9

Essen

5.1

3.4

5.7

9.6

8.2

2.9

11.7

6.2

61.1

3.5

Hamburg

7.3

6.5

9.8

3.6

2.5

8.8

56.3

2.8

Leipzig

10.7

1.4

8.3

1.4

14.2

54.2

1.4

München

4.6

3.2

9.2

18.5

4.6

3.2

8.2

21.3

50.2

Rostock

5.1

15.6

10.3

1.5

8.1

55.8

3.6

Tallinn

7.7

4.9

7.1

21.7

9.3

4.9

51.6

1.6

Athinia

4.6

2.7

7.1

22.7

13.2

1.4

3.2

1.9

51.7

3.3

Irakleio

204

9.7

6.1

26.6

11.3

0.8

5.3

1.4

54.6

1.1

Barcelona

7.1

3.5

7.1

21.5

9.5

3.5

14.5

9.6

51.9

Madrid

17.3

5.6

21.8

5.8

2.8

8.6

46.4

7.5

Málaga

8.1

8.9

14.2

6.1

57.7

Oviedo

2.8

3.6

10.3

8.6

2.8

68.9

Bordeaux

10.2

8.3

1.8

3.9

8.8

1.5

27.8

0.9

46.9

Lille

147

8.6

5.8

4.4

9.9

4.9

25.6

4.8

39.9

1.1

Marseille

116

6.5

8.5

14.7

10.7

3.8

32.7

3.1

30.6

1.2

Paris

7.1

14.3

85.7

Rennes

11.6

6.4

8.2

31.4

4.5

1.7

14.7

7.4

34.7

Strasbourg

6.5

4.1

13.1

6.4

62.2

Dublin

3.7

9.2

1.6

17.1

2.6

6.5

74.3

Bologna

140

10.4

5.2

2.7

6.3

43.6

1.6

Napoli

188

13.8

8.3

9.8

19.2

11.7

3.6

17.3

0.8

34.5

3.1

Palermo

263

21.5

10.7

17.5

14.8

9.9

6.5

11.8

1.7

30.6

Roma

160

13.2

15.8

19.2

9.2

7.9

20.8

0.5

32.5

Torino

120

1.3

9.2

21.3

4.5

7.1

14.8

1.3

44.2

0.6

Verona

209

10.6

4.3

10.4

20.1

7.2

2.2

35.9

1.5

page 146

12.2

Budapest

11.8

1.7

3.6

12.4

4.9

8.9

5.1

2.1

3.5

11.1

0.9

10.3 5.2

DK/NA

3.7 2.5

15.7

Other

Luxembourg

25.8

Too expensive

22.9

I do not like public transport

4.2

Not safe

Vilnius

Not adapted to my itinerary

Riga

Too many variations in time schedule / time schedule is not reliable

Not frequent enough

37.4

Lefkosia

Too congested

Total N

419

(continued) CITY

Not easy to access either from where you live or to where you need to go

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

9.8

1.7

33.6

1.1

13.7

7.3

72.8

9.4

9.5

61.5

2.6

14.4

49.8

2.3

13.3

64.3

2.2

Miskolc

7.7

1.3

13.3

17.6

67.8

1.3

Valletta

193

14.9

3.1

5.5

10.9

9.4

0.4

0.7

55.9

Amsterdam

3.2

3.5

3.2

1.6

20.9

64.4

Groningen

122

7.6

1.7

10.3

7.4

11.5

3.4

0.7

Rotterdam

4.3

2.4

1.8

10.1

5.3

5.1

10.8

1.5

66.9

1.5

Wien

17.1

5.8

18.1

15.7

3.5

9.2

54.2

9.2

Graz

8.1

1.6

3.2

24.9

8.8

3.2

17.8

12.8

43.9

11.1

Białystok

2.2

1.8

4.8

1.8

2.2

5.3

79.7

4.4

Gdańsk

1.7

5.4

5.9

2.5

8.1

76.7

3.9

Kraków

3.9

8.6

3.9

4.8

4.7

8.7

Warszawa

2.8

3.7

2.8

7.5

9.2

2.8

13.1

72.1

Braga

237

1.9

0.3

7.2

16.4

2.5

0.4

4.9

2.1

69.9

1.8

Lisboa

5.4

4.3

8.7

22.6

7.3

2.2

2.1

51.4

Bucureşti

11.8

1.8

3.5

8.7

67.7

3.5

Cluj-Napoca

3.9

6.9

4.1

2.9

6.9

73.6

5.7

Piatra Neamţ

119

1.4

4.5

7.9

3.9

13.5

67.5

3.5

Ljubljana

6.8

10.6

6.7

26.7

16.6

1.7

11.2

5.2

51.9

2.8

Bratislava

8.3

23.7

3.3

7.5

66.8

Kosice

6.3

7.9

9.5

3.2

14.2

2.9

65.5

4.8

Helsinki

7.1

26.2

20.2

7.1

52.4

Oulu

9.9

1.4

8.6

20.2

13.9

8.4

10.4

47.1

3.2

Malmö

4.5

1.3

9.2

66.7

3.3

Stockholm

11.5

5.3

14.5

16.8

3.8

54.2

5.4

Belfast

4.1

2.8

8.6

15.4

1.4

4.2

3.2

73.2

1.4

Cardiff

6.9

10.6

13.3

15.7

6.6

12.2

66.1

Glasgow

9.4

10.9

8.9

10.4

5.2

72.9

London

4.6

8.3

4.6

20.4

3.6

20.7

4.6

70.3

Manchester

18.8

3.8

18.5

14.8

6.8

16.7

15.8

57.8

0.9

Newcastle

5.3

1.3

5.1

23.1

3.3

13.9

13.1

67.3

Zagreb

11.9

2.6

6.6

3.7

22.3

47.3

12.2

Ankara

8.5

9.6

14.8

4.2

3.1

6.8

Antalya

124

12.1

2.2

5.3

4.3

8.1

1.1

8.6

60.1

4.2

Diyarbakir

11.1

7.8

1.8

2.9

13.2

2.9

4.7

1.2

50.7

9.2

İstanbul

7.1

6.2

3.1

4.4

1.3

2.4

6.3

3.6

69.9

2.6

page 147

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Table 29. Most important problems for this city – by city

Total N

Urban safety

Air pollution

Noise

Public transport

Health services

Social services

Education and training

Jobs creation / reduce unemployment

Housing conditions

Road infrastructure

DK/NA

QUESTION: Q5_01-99. Among the following issues, which are the three most important for your city? % of “Mentioned” shown

Antwerpen

500

29.6

15.6

28.5

23.4

22.8

25.1

23.7

19.4

30.1

3.7

Bruxelles/Brussel

501

44.7

28.4

13.9

28.4

27.5

18.2

35.1

37.4

24.5

11.6

3.9

Liège

502

49.6

32.6

9.9

19.5

26.9

17.9

30.2

20.8

15.5

4.2

Burgas

500

19.6

62.5

23.7

9.5

51.2

12.1

15.9

38.9

4.2

34.4

2.5

Sofia

500

24.2

55.9

27.7

25.2

37.8

13.7

22.8

18.2

5.2

51.4

1.5

Ostrava

501

32.3

54.5

32.1

12.1

15.3

15.9

8.5

39.5

14.1

15.4

4.8

Praha

500

42.9

37.5

16.5

17.8

19.4

9.2

17.2

22.1

3.5

Aalborg

500

27.1

19.9

4.7

20.3

48.9

24.4

47.1

40.4

22.9

5.8

København

503

28.5

31.7

11.5

29.6

39.3

24.4

37.5

33.1

28.5

16.4

5.7

Berlin

501

34.2

16.2

11.8

18.7

26.7

27.1

67.7

9.6

18.4

1.6

Dortmund

505

15.9

11.9

13.2

27.8

25.8

50.6

66.2

10.9

30.9

3.2

Essen

501

27.1

16.8

16.5

19.7

29.2

28.2

51.1

59.6

12.8

27.5

2.3

Hamburg

501

34.5

14.9

12.4

13.9

28.5

26.4

58.7

51.7

25.5

18.4

2.1

Leipzig

500

27.1

12.6

13.4

28.5

27.6

50.2

69.4

9.9

31.1

3.7

München

502

33.9

15.2

24.7

25.8

22.1

49.6

43.1

31.6

15.4

2.6

Rostock

502

21.2

9.6

13.1

35.9

27.2

50.6

72.3

13.5

28.3

2.1

Tallinn

500

30.7

18.4

9.4

18.3

44.3

33.6

20.8

55.1

12.2

33.2

3.1

Athinia

506

26.7

46.6

15.5

51.8

19.7

29.3

38.2

5.6

19.3

3.1

Irakleio

507

19.1

29.6

22.4

16.4

43.9

17.5

27.3

38.6

8.9

44.6

2.7

Barcelona

501

40.5

19.4

18.1

45.8

16.8

39.1

54.4

7.4

1.6

Madrid

501

12.7

20.1

48.4

16.9

36.3

59.3

32.8

8.6

1.1

Málaga

500

35.1

11.4

11.6

15.8

44.6

39.3

72.4

19.6

0.6

Oviedo

502

31.8

13.8

12.3

13.4

47.8

23.9

40.4

65.2

27.1

11.1

1.5

Bordeaux

502

32.1

24.9

10.4

28.5

35.6

31.6

52.2

12.7

2.8

Lille

503

38.7

26.9

11.4

24.2

20.8

32.6

50.9

34.9

12.9

1.4

Marseille

501

31.5

16.5

26.1

32.4

14.4

33.9

31.2

14.6

2.6

Paris

500

32.2

18.8

34.4

29.4

15.1

35.8

40.6

51.2

6.1

1.3

Rennes

506

32.2

19.1

28.8

34.8

17.8

42.4

51.1

9.3

2.2

Strasbourg

505

29.4

44.2

12.5

23.2

31.4

15.8

39.2

46.8

12.1

2.3

Dublin

500

17.7

12.5

4.6

30.7

62.6

21.4

47.9

63.1

17.4

16.6

0.9

Bologna

505

36.9

37.9

10.4

21.9

27.2

19.3

18.4

42.1

21.6

4.2

Napoli

500

25.8

38.5

9.4

20.9

35.4

18.8

18.5

12.7

20.1

2.4

Palermo

501

37.5

7.5

30.1

35.9

20.4

16.1

25.8

2.6

Roma

503

26.9

39.1

8.9

33.1

31.9

15.9

16.8

49.2

19.4

25.7

2.6

Torino

501

36.8

38.6

8.4

20.7

29.7

17.5

17.4

61.8

12.2

12.7

3.6

Verona

501

28.7

47.6

9.6

24.4

18.6

13.2

12.7

20.2

5.7

CITY

page 148

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Total N

Urban safety

Air pollution

Noise

Public transport

Health services

Social services

Education and training

Jobs creation / reduce unemployment

Housing conditions

Road infrastructure

DK/NA

Annex

Lefkosia

500

18.8

19.5

45.4

43.8

23.8

24.3

28.1

16.1

34.1

0.7

Riga

505

30.9

6.9

4.1

10.2

58.9

38.2

36.3

69.3

13.1

16.7

2.4

Vilnius

502

31.2

26.7

12.8

13.9

45.8

26.4

18.4

52.6

13.6

21.8

Luxembourg

503

27.6

17.5

10.6

27.3

36.7

20.3

46.5

44.3

39.4

17.7

1.4

Budapest

500

38.9

39.4

11.8

27.1

46.1

17.5

49.6

9.3

25.8

Miskolc

502

49.3

14.3

18.6

40.1

20.5

13.1

78.1

10.6

24.7

3.2

Valletta

500

15.5

19.6

19.4

15.2

18.9

31.1

4.7

Amsterdam

500

39.3

25.2

7.8

21.6

37.6

45.8

30.7

34.7

19.3

0.8

Groningen

500

6.2

22.8

39.5

26.2

44.1

23.5

23.8

2.8

Rotterdam

500

51.6

30.1

9.8

23.3

38.3

20.5

40.6

32.3

20.5

2.2

Wien

500

44.5

15.7

12.2

22.5

43.5

19.4

47.6

45.7

12.5

Graz

503

36.2

37.8

13.6

27.8

33.1

24.2

41.1

41.3

13.3

1.3

Białystok

501

24.4

8.6

5.8

18.3

60.1

10.2

28.2

70.9

16.4

38.4

0.6

Gdańsk

500

22.1

18.3

13.5

25.6

51.6

9.1

27.8

44.2

14.3

49.4

2.3

Kraków

501

26.5

30.1

17.1

21.3

53.4

6.1

21.6

43.2

17.3

45.4

1.8

Warszawa

501

26.3

19.6

19.2

37.8

56.3

8.7

23.5

31.4

17.4

43.6

1.7

Braga

502

32.6

20.2

6.1

12.4

67.4

22.1

42.7

70.4

12.3

6.8

0.9

Lisboa

503

36.7

25.3

7.7

19.6

61.6

19.6

35.2

51.4

29.1

5.3

1.4

Bucureşti

503

20.6

36.5

12.4

20.1

55.4

10.2

37.4

33.2

14.8

34.2

4.1

Cluj-Napoca

503

16.6

29.2

13.1

15.6

51.6

15.6

34.3

51.8

11.7

29.9

5.8

Piatra Neamţ

501

18.4

7.9

13.2

58.6

16.4

32.1

63.6

13.3

28.5

5.1

Ljubljana

508

15.1

26.5

11.5

27.6

25.1

21.6

44.7

32.7

24.2

1.4

Bratislava

501

25.7

29.6

26.1

26.8

28.8

21.1

21.5

17.8

30.1

3.5

Kosice

501

26.9

22.6

17.3

20.5

19.9

17.9

7.7

44.1

18.3

19.8

8.8

Helsinki

507

24.8

3.8

40.1

32.7

45.8

34.8

25.1

8.3

1.4

Oulu

505

10.7

1.2

22.7

64.2

37.7

59.4

10.6

9.8

1.2

Malmö

500

37.9

26.2

19.4

15.3

23.5

33.8

11.3

4.7

Stockholm

500

30.3

11.5

36.6

15.8

22.4

40.1

40.6

24.5

1.7

Belfast

500

15.8

14.5

27.9

19.3

57.5

52.3

27.3

16.2

1.2

Cardiff

500

23.6

13.7

6.2

34.3

54.5

21.3

48.6

21.3

2.5

Glasgow

500

19.8

15.5

7.1

52.6

21.8

50.9

47.1

34.2

15.7

London

500

28.9

10.5

37.2

48.5

19.3

43.8

41.5

29.7

1.5

Manchester

500

30.2

16.4

35.4

45.7

18.4

46.7

43.9

29.2

17.6

1.8

Newcastle

500

22.9

15.7

5.2

30.8

52.6

21.2

49.6

51.7

25.8

18.6

1.2

Zagreb

501

20.5

15.3

47.2

29.9

20.2

31.4

23.3

1.4

Ankara

502

22.2

23.8

14.5

34.2

53.3

17.9

52.2

43.8

5.9

1.8

Antalya

502

21.2

17.4

31.6

50.9

24.5

49.5

35.1

6.5

23.7

3.9

Diyarbakir

501

18.6

16.5

9.8

52.3

21.1

60.6

4.3

23.5

2.2

İstanbul

504

22.3

24.2

16.7

37.1

50.3

18.3

47.1

47.5

3.5

25.1

1.6

(continued) CITY

page 149

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

II. Survey details This special target group survey “Urban Audit Perception survey among the general population in selected cities in the 27 Member States, Croatia, and Turkey” (No 277) was conducted for the European Commission, DG Communication Unit A3 - Research and political analysis. Telephone interviews were conducted between 30/10/2009 and 04/11/2009 (according the contract for FL277a, b, c) and between 05/11/2009 and 10/11/2009 (according the contract for FL277d) by the following institutes: Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden United Kingdom Bulgaria Romania Croatia Turkey

BE CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT SI SK FI SE UK BG RO HR TR

Gallup Europe Focus Agency Hermelin IFAK Saar Poll Metroanalysis Gallup Spain Efficience3 Gallup UK Demoskopea CYMAR Latvian Facts Baltic Survey Gallup Europe Gallup Hungary MISCO MSR Spectra Gallup Poland Consulmark Cati d.o.o Focus Agency Norstat Finland Oy Hermelin Gallup UK Vitosha Gallup Romania Gallup Croatia Konsensus

(Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 05/11/2009 - 10/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 10/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 04/10/2009) (Interviews: 30/10/2009 - 10/10/2009)

Representativeness of the results Each city sample is representative of the population aged 15 years and above.

page 150

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Sample sizes This perception survey included all capital cities of the countries concerned, together with more cities in the larger countries. In each city the target sample size was 500 respondents. The following 75 cities were selected: Country Belgium

Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Germany

Estonia Ireland Greece Spain

France

Italy

Cyprus Latvia

City Antwerpen Bruxelles/Brussel Liège Burgas Sofia Ostrava Praha Aalborg København Berlin Dortmund Essen Hamburg Leipzig München Rostock Tallinn Dublin Athina Irakleio Barcelona Madrid Málaga Oviedo Bordeaux Lille Marseille Paris Rennes Strasbourg Bologna Napoli Palermo Roma Torino Verona Lefkosia Riga

Country Lithuania Luxembourg (G.D.) Hungary Malta Netherlands

Austria Poland

Portugal Romania

Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden United Kingdom

Croatia Turkey

A weighting factor was applied for each city result. Questionnaires 1. The questionnaire prepared for this survey is reproduced at the end of this results volume, in English. 2. The institutes listed above translated the questionnaire in their respective national language(s). 3. One copy of each national questionnaire is annexed to the results (volume tables). Tables of results VOLUME A: CITY BY CITY The VOLUME A tables present the European results city by city. page 151

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

VOLUME C: RESPONDENTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS The VOLUME C tables present the country results with the following socio-demographic characteristics of respondents as breakdowns: Volume C: Sex (Male, Female) Age (15-24, 25-39, 40-54, 55 +) Occupation (Self-employed, Employee, Manual worker, Not working) Education (-15, 16-20, 21+, Still in full time education) HH composition (Single person household, Married or cohabiting couple, no children or no children living at home, Single parent, one or more children living at home, Married or cohabiting couple, with one or more children living at home, Other) How long have you been living in the CITY? (Was born here, 1-10, 11-25, 25-40, 40+) Sampling error Surveys are designed and conducted to provide an estimate of a true value of characteristics of a population at a given time. An estimate of a survey is unlikely to exactly equal the true population quantity of interest for a variety of reasons. One of these reasons is that data in a survey are collected from only some – a sample of – members of the population, this to make data collection cheaper and faster. The “margin of error” is a common summary of sampling error, which quantifies uncertainty about (or confidence in) a survey result. Usually, one calculates a 95 percent confidence interval of the format: survey estimate +/- margin of error. This interval of values will contain the true population value at least 95% of time. For example, if it was estimated that 45% of EU citizens are in favour of a single European currency and this estimate is based on a sample of 100 EU citizens, the associated margin of error is about 10 percentage points. The 95 percent confidence interval for support for a European single currency would be (45%-10%) to (45%+10%), suggesting that in the EU the support for a European single currency could range from 35% to 55%. Because of the small sample size of 100 EU citizens, there is considerable uncertainty about whether or not the citizens of the EU support a single currency. As a general rule, the more interviews conducted (sample size), the smaller the margin of error. Larger samples are more likely to give results closer to the true population quantity and thus have smaller margins of error. For example, a sample of 500 will produce a margin of error of no more than about 4.5 percentage points, and a sample of 1,000 will produce a margin of error of no more than about 3 percentage points. Margin of error (95% confidence interval) Sample size (n) Survey estimate 10 50 100 150 200 400 800 1000 2000 4000 5% 13.5% 6.0% 4.3% 3.5% 3.0% 2.1% 1.5% 1.4% 1.0% 0.7% 10% 18.6% 8.3% 5.9% 4.8% 4.2% 2.9% 2.1% 1.9% 1.3% 0.9% 25% 26.8% 12.0% 8.5% 6.9% 6.0% 4.2% 3.0% 2.7% 1.9% 1.3% 50% 31.0% 13.9% 9.8% 8.0% 6.9% 4.9% 3.5% 3.1% 2.2% 1.5% 75% 26.8% 12.0% 8.5% 6.9% 6.0% 4.2% 3.0% 2.7% 1.9% 1.3% 90% 18.6% 8.3% 5.9% 4.8% 4.2% 2.9% 2.1% 1.9% 1.3% 0.9% 95% 13.5% 6.0% 4.3% 3.5% 3.0% 2.1% 1.5% 1.4% 1.0% 0.7% (The values in the table are the margin of error – at 95% confidence level – for a given survey estimate and sample size)

page 152

Flash EB No 277 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

III. Questionnaire

FLASH 277 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; URBAN AUDIT 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: Very satisfied ............................................................................................ 1 Rather satisfied ........................................................................................ 2 Rather unsatisfied .................................................................................... 3 Not at all satisfied .................................................................................... 4 [DK/NA] .................................................................................................... 9 a. Public transport in [CITY NAME], for example the bus, tram or metro ................................. 1 2 3 4 9 b. Health care services offered by doctors and hospitals in [CITY NAME] ................................. 1 2 3 4 9 c. Sports facilities in [CITY NAME] such as sport fields and indoor sport halls ........................... 1 2 3 4 9 d. Cultural facilities in [CITY NAME] such as concert halls, theatres, museums and libraries .... 1 2 3 4 9 e. The beauty of streets and buildings in your neighbourhood .................................................. 1 2 3 4 9 f. Public spaces in [CITY NAME] such as markets, squares, pedestrian areas ............................ 1 2 3 4 9 g. Green spaces such as parks and gardens inside [CITY NAME] ................................................ 1 2 3 4 9 h. Outdoor recreation outside / around [CITY NAME], such as walking, cycling or picnicking ... 1 2 3 4 9

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? Strongly agree ...................................................................................... 1 Somewhat agree .................................................................................. 2 Somewhat disagree .............................................................................. 3 Strongly disagree.................................................................................. 4 [DK/NA] ................................................................................................ 9 a. In [CITY NAME], it is easy to find a good job ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 9 b. The presence of foreigners is good for [CITY NAME] ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 9 c. Foreigners who live in [CITY NAME] are well integrated ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 9 d. In [CITY NAME], it is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price ................................... 1 2 3 4 9 e. Generally speaking, most people in [CITY NAME] can be trusted .......................................... 1 2 3 4 9 f. In [CITY NAME], poverty is a problem ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 9 g. When you contact administrative services of [CITY NAME], they help you efficiently ........... 1 2 3 4 9 h. In [CITY NAME], air pollution is a big problem ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 9 i. In [CITY NAME], noise is a big problem .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 9 j. [CITY NAME] is a clean city ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 9 k. [CITY NAME] spends its resources in a responsible way ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 9 l. [CITY NAME] is committed to the fight against climate change (e.g. reducing energy consumption in housing or promoting alternatives to transport by car) ........................ 1 2 3 4 9 m. [CITY NAME] is a healthy city to live in .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 9 page 153

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Q3.

Annex

For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? Always ...................................................................................................... 1 Sometimes ............................................................................................... 2 Rarely ....................................................................................................... 3 Never ........................................................................................................ 4 [DK/NA] .................................................................................................... 9 a. You have difficulty paying your bills at the end of the month ................................................ 1 2 3 4 9 b. You feel safe in [CITY NAME] .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 9 c. You feel safe in your neighbourhood ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 9

Q4A. How many minutes per day do you usually spend to go to your working/training place? Less than 10 minutes................................................................................ 1 Between 10-20 minutes ........................................................................... 2 Between 20-30 minutes ........................................................................... 3 Between 30-45 minutes ........................................................................... 4 Between 45-60 minutes ........................................................................... 5 More than 60 minutes ............................................................................. 6 [Does not commute, work from home] ................................................... 7 *Doesn’t work or attend training+ ............................................................ 8 [DK/NA] .................................................................................................... 9 ASK ONLY IF ANSWER IN Q4A IS “1-6” Q4B. Which means of transport do you mostly/primarily use to go to your working/training place? [READ OUT - ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE] Public transport ........................................................................................ 1 Car .......................................................................................................... 2 Biking ........................................................................................................ 3 Walking .................................................................................................... 4 Motorbike ................................................................................................ 5 Other ........................................................................................................ 6 [DK/NA] .................................................................................................... 9 ASK ALL Q4C. How often do you use public transport in [CITY NAME]? Never ........................................................................................................ 1 Less than once a month ........................................................................... 2 At least once a month .............................................................................. 3 At least once a week, but not every day .................................................. 4 Every day .................................................................................................. 5 [DK/NA] .................................................................................................... 9

page 154

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Annex

Q4D. Why don’t you use public transport? [DO NOT READ OUT - OPEN ENDED WITH PRECODES - MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE] Not frequent enough ............................................................................. 01 Too congested ........................................................................................ 02 Too many variations in time schedule / time schedule is not reliable ............................................................................................ 03 Not adapted to my itinerary .................................................................. 04 Not easy to access either from where you live or to where you need to go ....................................................................................... 05 Not safe .................................................................................................. 06 I do not like public transport .................................................................. 07 Too expensive ....................................................................................... 08 Other ..................................................................................................... 09 [DK/NA] .................................................................................................. 99 Q5.

Among the following issues, which are the three most important for your city? [READ OUT - ROTATE - ONLY THREE ANSWERS ARE POSSIBLE] Urban safety ........................................................................................... 01 Air pollution ........................................................................................... 02 Noise ...................................................................................................... 03 Public transport ...................................................................................... 04 Health services ...................................................................................... 05 Social services ........................................................................................ 06 Education and training .......................................................................... 07 Jobs creation / reduce unemployment .................................................. 08 Housing conditions ................................................................................ 09 Road infrastructure ............................................................................... 10 [DK/NA] .................................................................................................. 99

D1.

Sex [DO NOT ASK- MARK APPROPRIATE] Male ......................................................................................................... 1 Female ...................................................................................................... 2

D2.

D3.

Exact Age [_][_]

years old

[00]

[REFUSAL/NO ANSWER]

Age when finished full time education [EXACT AGE IN 2 DIGITS] [_][_] years old [99]

[REFUSAL/NO ANSWER]

[01]

[NEVER BEEN IN FULL TIME EDUCATION]

[00]

[STILL IN FULL TIME EDUCATION] page 155

Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

D4.

As far as your current occupation is concerned, would you say you are self-employed, an employee, a manual worker or would you say that you are without a professional activity? [READ OUT LEFT ITEMS - THEN ASK TO SPECIFY (“THAT IS TO SAY”) - ONLY ONE ANSWER] - Self-employed; i.e.: - farmer, forester, fisherman ................................................. 11 - owner of a shop, craftsman ................................................. 12 - professional (lawyer, medical practitioner, accountant, architect,...) ........................................................................... 13 - manager of a company ........................................................ 14 - other (S PE C IF Y ) ................................................................. 15 - Employee; i.e.: - professional (employed doctor, lawyer, accountant, accountant ............................................................................. 21 - general management, director or top management .......... 22 - middle management ........................................................... 23 - Civil servant ......................................................................... 24 - other clerk ........................................................................... 25 - other employee (salesman, nurse, etc...) ............................ 26 - other (SPECIFY) .................................................................... 27 - Manual worker; i.e.: - supervisor / foreman (team manager, etc...) .................... 31 - manual worker ................................................................. 32 - unskilled manual worker ................................................... 33 - other (SPECIFY) .................................................................. 34 - Without a professional activity; i.e.: - looking after the home ...................................................... 41 - student (full time) .............................................................. 42 - retired ............................................................................... 43 - seeking a job ...................................................................... 44 - other (SPECIFY) .................................................................. 45 - (Refusal)

D5.

Annex

............................................................................................. 99

Which of the following best describes your household composition? [READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY] Single person household .......................................................................... 1 Married or cohabiting couple, no children or no children living at home ................................................................................................. 2 Single parent, one or more children living at home ................................. 3 Married or cohabiting couple, with one or more children living at home ................................................................................................. 4 Other ........................................................................................................ 5 [DK/NA] .................................................................................................... 9

page 156

Annex

D6.

Flash EB No 277 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Perception survey on quality of life in European cities

Were you born in the city, if no how long have you been living in [CITY NAME]? [WRITE IN:] [ ]years 1 year or less ............................................................................................ 1 Was born there ........................................................................................ 0

page 157