EN
Survey on perception
of quality of life
in 75 European cities
Flash Eurobarometer
March 2010
Foreword
Cities are the vibrating pulse of our society. Since 1998, we have been working with
Member States on collecting statistical data that will give us means of comparing
Europe’s cities. The survey results you will find in the following pages usefully
complement these quantitative data. As in 2004 and in 2007, the inhabitants
interviewed were given the opportunity to express their views on the quality of life
in their home city.
The survey was carried out in 75 cities and shows that, on the whole, citizens
are satisfied with the quality of a number of services, in particular in the areas of
transport, health and cultural facilities. The quality of public spaces and green areas
also meets with general satisfaction.
But there are some less positive aspects. In many cities citizens believe it is difficult
to find a job or affordable housing. A majority of inhabitants consider poverty as a problem in their home city. These
findings can be attributed to the present crisis as people start to really feel the repercussions. Many towns are facing
increasing “social polarisation”. They are marked by social divisions that are bringing about geographical imbalances.
These problems have a clear impact on the well-being of citizens.
This survey also enables us to measure variations in the extent to which citizens are aware of issues linked to climate
change. Some towns are apparently more advanced than others. I also note the serious concerns expressed by
European citizens on questions of air and noise pollution.
This complex mix of challenges confirms the need to act on several fronts as part of an integrated urban approach
that alone can guarantee sustainable towns. In arriving at viable solutions there is a need to combine investment in
infrastructure (transport, housing, centres of learning, cultural facilities), measures to aid socio-economic development
(such as aid to small and medium-sized enterprises, urban regeneration) and measures that promote social inclusion.
For me, this is the occasion to stress that European cohesion policy offers a favourable framework for tackling all these
challenges simultaneously and for best meeting the needs of Europe’s citizens.
Johannes Hahn
European Commissioner
responsible for regional policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
REGIONAL POLICY
Policy development
Urban development, territorial cohesion
Survey on perceptions of quality of life
in 75 European cities
March 2010
Fieldwork: November 2009
page 1
The content of this brochure does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutions of the
European Union. This survey has been contracted to Gallup-Hungary in the context of a Framework
Contract with the Directorate-General Communication (European Commission).
The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.
This study complements the work which is carried out in the context of the European Urban Audit.
For more information on the Urban Audit
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/urban/audit/index_en.htm
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
(after choosing the language, click “data” and then “urban audit”)
Mailbox: [email protected]
And [email protected]
(statistical questions)
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Main findings ......................................................................................................................................... 7
1. Perceptions about social reality...................................................................................................... 10
1.1 Health care, employment opportunities and housing costs......................................... 10
Health care services................................................................................................................. 10
Employment opportunities .................................................................................................... 12
Housing costs ........................................................................................................................... 16
1.2 Poverty and financial difficulties ..................................................................................... 18
Poverty at city level.................................................................................................................. 18
1.3 The presence of foreigners................................................................................................ 20
The presence of foreigners is good for the city .................................................................... 20
Integration of foreigners......................................................................................................... 21
1.4 Feelings of safety and trust............................................................................................... 22
People can be trusted .............................................................................................................. 22
Feeling safe in the city............................................................................................................. 24
Feeling safe in one’s neighbourhood..................................................................................... 26
1.5 Cities’ most important problems ..................................................................................... 28
2. Pollution and climate change.......................................................................................................... 30
2.1 Clean and healthy cities .................................................................................................... 30
Air quality and air pollution ................................................................................................... 30
Noise is a major problem........................................................................................................ 32
Clean cities................................................................................................................................ 34
2.2 Cities committed to fight climate change ...................................................................... 39
3. Administrative services and city spending .................................................................................... 42
Resources spent in a responsible way................................................................................... 42
4. Satisfaction with cities’ infrastructure .......................................................................................... 44
Satisfaction with cultural facilities ........................................................................................ 44
Satisfaction with public spaces – markets and pedestrian areas ...................................... 46
Satisfaction with “the beauty of streets and buildings in one’s neighbourhood” ........... 48
Satisfaction with public parks and gardens (green spaces) ............................................... 50
Satisfaction with opportunities for outdoor recreation...................................................... 52
Sports facilities......................................................................................................................... 54
General satisfaction with a city’s facilities............................................................................ 56
5. Satisfaction with public transport.................................................................................................. 58
5.1 Frequency of using public transport ............................................................................... 58
5.2 Means of commuting and commuting time................................................................... 60
Means of transport for commuting ....................................................................................... 60
page 3
Length of time to commute .................................................................................................... 64
5.3 Satisfaction with public transport................................................................................... 66
Satisfaction with public transport ......................................................................................... 66
Reasons for not using public transport ................................................................................ 68
6. A comparison with the results of the 2006 perception survey..................................................... 69
Introduction
This “Perception survey on quality of life in European cities” was conducted in November 2009 to
measure local perceptions in 75 cities in the EU, Croatia and Turkey. The European Commission (DG
Regional Policy) has been using such surveys for several years to get a snapshot of people’s opinions
on a range of urban issues. Earlier surveys were conducted in 2004 and 2006 1 . 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 Audit 2 ).
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 277) was conducted by Gallup Hungary. In each city, 500
randomly selected citizens (aged 15 and older) were interviewed. This constituted a representative
profile of the wider population; the respondents were taken from all areas of the designated cities. In
1
For more details see: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_156_en.pdf (Flash EB 196) and
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/urban/audit/index_en.htm (also in French and German)
2
www.urbanaudit.org
page 5
total, more than 37,500 interviews were conducted between 30 October and 10 November 2009. More
details on the survey methodology are included in the main findings report’s annex.
Compared with previous surveys, Flash Eurobarometer No 277 introduced new questions to assess
people’s satisfaction with, for example, public spaces in their city (such as markets, squares and
pedestrian areas) and possibilities for outdoor recreation (such as walking and cycling). A new series
of questions was also introduced about transport modes and the usage of public transport, together
with a question on perceptions about the most important issues of cities. Finally, new question
statements were added, such as “poverty is a problem in this city”, “this city is a healthy place to live”
and “generally speaking, most people in this city can be trusted”.
In most charts, the 75 cities have been ranked according to their respondents’ perceptions about
quality of life – from most positive to least positive. Note that due to rounding, the percentages shown
in the charts and tables do not always add up exactly to the totals mentioned in the text.
Main findings
Health care, jobs and housing



Of the 75 cities surveyed, residents of north-western European cities were most satisfied with
health care services: at least 80% of respondents in those cities said they were content. The levels
of satisfaction were considerably lower in many southern and eastern European cities.
The picture in regard to job opportunities was rather bleak: there were only six cities where more
than half of respondents agreed that it was easy to find a good job.
Apart from 10 cities, respondents held a pessimistic view about the availability of reasonably
priced housing; many cities where respondents held such a view were capitals and/or large cities.
Poverty / economic situation


Except for nine cities, respondents who thought that poverty was a problem in their city
outnumbered those who believed it was not an issue.
Despite those prevailing views about poverty, it was rare for more than half of respondents in any
of the cities to admit that they have financial difficulties themselves.
Immigration / presence of foreigners


Opinions about the presence of foreigners in the surveyed cities were generally positive: in 68
cities, a slim majority of interviewees, at least, agreed that their presence was beneficial.
However, in almost all cities, the proportion who agreed that foreigners in their city were well
integrated was lower than the proportion who agreed that their presence was good for the city.
Safety and trust



As to whether people could be trusted, the picture across cities was mixed. In about one-third, less
than half agreed that most of their fellow citizens were trustworthy. Several eastern European
capitals were at the lower end of the scale.
In most Nordic cities, about two-thirds of respondents always felt safe in their city. There was a
strong correlation between the proportion of respondents who agreed that most of their fellow
citizens could be trusted and the proportion who always felt safe in their city.
Respondents across all surveyed cities were more likely to say they always felt safe in their
neighbourhood than they were to say that they always felt safe in their city.
Main issues facing city dwellers



When asked to list the three main issues facing their city, respondents typically opted for “job
creation/reducing unemployment”, “availability/quality of health services” and “educational
facilities”.
Job creation and reducing unemployment appeared among the three most significant problems that
respondents’ cities faced in 64 of the 75 surveyed cities.
The need to improve the quality/availability of health services appeared among the top three
problems in 54 cities.
Pollution / climate change



There appears to have been an improvement in the situation regarding air and noise pollution in
European cities.
In all Italian cities in this study, a large majority of respondents agreed that air pollution was a
major problem. A large number of cities in that same situation were capitals and/or large cities
(with at least 500,000 inhabitants).
In most cities, more than half of respondents agreed that noise was a major problem in their city –
this proportion ranged from 51% in Rotterdam and Strasbourg to 95% in Athens.
page 7



As with the results for air and noise pollution, a majority of cities seemed to have made progress
in terms of cleanliness in the past few years.
There was a strong correlation between the perceived levels of air pollution and perceptions about
whether a city was healthy to live in or not - the same cities appeared at the higher and lower ends
of the rankings.
Cities where respondents were more likely to agree that there was a commitment to fight climate
change were also the ones where respondents were somewhat more likely to agree that their city
was a healthy place to live.
Administrative services



In roughly one in three of the surveyed cities, a slim majority of respondents – at least – thought
that their city spent its resources in a responsible way.
All surveyed German cities (except Munich) were at the bottom of the ranking relating to
administrative services – the proportion of respondents who disagreed that resources were spent
responsibly in their city ranged from 52% in Leipzig to 73% in Dortmund.
There was a strong correlation between the proportion of respondents who agreed that resources
were spent in a responsible way and those who felt that administrative services helped citizens
efficiently.
City infrastructure







In a majority of cities (54 of 75), at least three-quarters of respondents were satisfied with their
own city’s cultural facilities, such as concert halls, museums and libraries.
In 69 cities, a majority of respondents said they were satisfied with public spaces, such as markets
and pedestrian areas. Many cities at the higher end of the ranking (where most respondents were
satisfied with their city’s markets and pedestrian areas) were situated in northern and western
European countries.
In 25 cities, at least three-quarters of interviewees were satisfied with the beauty of streets and
buildings in their neighbourhood, and in another 40 cities, between half and three-quarters of
respondents expressed satisfaction.
Nonetheless, in almost all cities, respondents were more likely to be satisfied with their city’s
markets and pedestrian areas than they were to be satisfied with the outlook of the streets and
buildings in their neighbourhood.
A majority of citizens were satisfied with parks and gardens in their cities except in 7 of the 75
listed cities. Similarly, a majority of citizens were satisfied with outdoor recreational facilities in
all cities except for 9 of the 75.
Many citizens found it difficult to estimate their satisfaction with their city’s sports facilities – the
proportion of “don’t know” responses reached 44% in Liege and Riga.
Overall, a positive picture emerged in terms of satisfaction with the types of facilities provided. In
a majority of surveyed cities, at least three-quarters of respondents were satisfied with at least four
of the six items listed in the survey, while this proportion dropped below 50% in just 11 cities.
Public transport





In about half of the surveyed cities roughly two-thirds of respondents said they were very or rather
satisfied with their city’s public transport.
The largest proportions of “frequent public transport users” were found in Paris, London, Prague,
Stockholm and Budapest – there, at least three-quarters of respondents took a bus, metro or
another means of public transport in their city at least once a week.
Europe’s capitals were among the cities with the highest proportions of respondents who used
public transport to commute – for example, 90% in London, 56% in Bratislava and 52% in Sofia.
Commuting times were the longest in Europe’s capitals and large cities (i.e. those with more than
500,000 inhabitants).
In eight cities, a relative majority of respondents – at least – said they usually walked or cycled to
work or college.
page 9
1. Perceptions about social reality
1.1 Health care, employment opportunities and housing costs Health care services There is a large variation, across cities in the EU, in the level of satisfaction with health care services
offered by doctors and hospitals. The total level of satisfaction (i.e. the sum of “very” and “fairly”
satisfied citizens) ranged from less than 40% in Athens, Bucharest and Burgas to more than 90% in
cities such as Groningen, Antwerp, Vienna and Bordeaux.
A detailed look at the ranking showed that residents of western European cities were most satisfied
with health care services: at least 80% of respondents in those cities said they were rather or very
satisfied with health care services provided by doctors and hospitals in their city. Furthermore, not
more than 1 in 20 respondents in these cities said they were not at all satisfied. For example, 92% of
interviewees in Bordeaux said they were content with the services provided by the city’s doctors and
hospitals (35% “very satisfied” and 57% “rather satisfied”), while just 2% were not at all satisfied
with such services.
London and Paris ranked relatively low compared with other western European cities: 78% of
Londoners and 79% of Parisians were rather or very satisfied with health care services provided by
doctors and hospitals in their respective cities (compared to, for example, 91% in Rotterdam or 88% in
Essen). However, Dublin was the real outlier among western European cities: a slim majority (57%) of
Dubliners expressed their satisfaction with the city’s health care services – compared to 40% who
were dissatisfied (25% “rather unsatisfied” and 15% “not at all satisfied”).
Somewhat lower, but still high levels of satisfaction were measured in the six Nordic cities included in
this study: 86% in both Aalborg and Stockholm, 80% in Copenhagen, 76% in Oulu, 73% in Malmo
and 71% in Helsinki. As with the results for western European cities, very few respondents in the
Nordic cities were not at all satisfied with health care services provided by doctors and hospitals in
their city (between 2% and 4%).
Satisfaction levels were considerably lower in many southern and eastern European cities. In the 10
cities at the bottom of the ranking, satisfaction with health care services dropped below 50% and
ranged from 34% in Burgas to 44% in Vilnius, Piatra Neamt and Riga. Furthermore, in these 10 cities,
respondents who were not at all satisfied with health services provided by doctors and hospitals in
their city largely outnumbered those who were very satisfied. For example, 32% of respondents in
Athens answered they were not at all satisfied compared to 9% of “very satisfied” respondents.
Satisfaction with health care services(offered by doctors and hospitals)
Satisfaction with health care services (offered by doctors and hospitals)
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)
Gdańsk (PL)
Kraków (PL)
Irakleio (EL)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Budapest (HU)
Riga (LV)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Vilnius (LT)
Sofia (BG)
Napoli (IT)
Warszawa (PL)
Palermo (IT)
Athinia (EL)
Bucureşti (RO)
Burgas (BG)
Rather satisfied
Rather unsatisfied
54
58
62
52
Not at all satisfied
DK/NA
41
36
32
40
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
20
40
60
80
Groningen (NL)
Graz (AT)
Newcastle (UK)
Antwerpen (BE)
Liège (BE)
Wien (AT)
Bordeaux (FR)
Luxembourg (LU)
Rotterdam (NL)
Lille (FR)
Marseille (FR)
München (DE)
Dortmund (DE)
Essen (DE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Oviedo (ES)
Hamburg (DE)
Aalborg (DK)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Rennes (FR)
Belfast (UK)
Strasbourg (FR)
Manchester (UK)
Stockholm (SE)
Rostock (DE)
Leipzig (DE)
Cardiff (UK)
Glasgow (UK)
Berlin (DE)
Ostrava (CZ)
Verona (IT)
København (DK)
Bologna (IT)
London (UK)
Paris (FR)
Praha (CZ)
Antalya (TR)
Oulu (FI)
Kosice (SK)
Malmö (SE)
Ankara (TR)
Barcelona (ES)
Torino (IT)
Helsinki (FI)
Braga (PT)
Ljubljana (SI)
İstanbul (TR)
Madrid (ES)
Málaga (ES)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Lisboa (PT)
Zagreb (HR)
Bratislava (SK)
Białystok (PL)
Valletta (MT)
Miskolc (HU)
Dublin (IE)
Lefkosia (CY)
Roma (IT)
Tallinn (EE)
Gdańsk (PL)
Kraków (PL)
Irakleio (EL)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Budapest (HU)
Riga (LV)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Vilnius (LT)
Sofia (BG)
Napoli (IT)
Warszawa (PL)
Palermo (IT)
Athinia (EL)
Bucureşti (RO)
Burgas (BG)
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 11
Employment opportunities Although satisfaction with health services was generally high, a less rosy picture emerged when
respondents were asked about job opportunities in their cities. More than half of respondents agreed
that that it was easy to find a good job in only six cities: Stockholm (61% in total agreed), Copenhagen
(57%), Prague (56%), Munich (54%), Amsterdam (53%) and Warsaw (52%). However, even in these
locations, less than a quarter of respondents expressed strong agreement (between 11% and 23%).
In most cities (62 of 75), respondents who disagreed that it was easy to find a good job outnumbered
those who agreed with the statement. For example, while a slim majority (53%) of respondents in
Essen disagreed that good jobs were easy to find in their city, only half as many (25%) agreed that this
was the case. It should be noted, however, that in several cities a large proportion of – mostly retired –
respondents did not express an opinion on this topic (e.g. 20% in Manchester, 27% in Rotterdam and
44% in Antwerp). For a more detailed discussion of the results of the cities where respondents were
the most pessimistic about job opportunities in their city, see page 14.
It is easy to find a good job–cities ranked from most positive to least positive
It is easy to find a good job – cities ranked from most positive to least positive
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 Neamț (RO)
Lisboa (PT)
Liège (BE)
Rostock (DE)
Ankara (TR)
Tallinn (EE)
Oviedo (ES)
Vilnius (LT)
Roma (IT)
Braga (PT)
Torino (IT)
Kosice (SK)
Málaga (ES)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Riga (LV)
Miskolc (HU)
Napoli (IT)
Palermo (IT)
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
DK/NA
17
8
14
38
23
17
9
18
43
14
13
10
21
40
16
15
8
24
41
13
18
6
23
42
11
8
17
23
38
14
12
16
21
36
14
27
6
18
38
12
9
13
30
38
11
11
10
32
40
8
17
7
29
43
5
13
20
22
32
13
13
22
24
32
10
14
16
29
37
4
9
25
26
33
7
13
25
24
33
6
14
19
29
35
4
23
15
24
28
10
20
24
19
29
8
25
11
28
29
8
5
30
28
30
7
13
23
28
31
6
21
9
33
29
8
44
9
12
31
5
21
13
32
28
6
24
11
32
31
3
6
34
27
21
13
17
24
26
24
9
24
16
28
29
3
12
31
26
21
10
10
40
20
22
9
24
10
36
29
2
22
20
29
25
5
7
25
39
25
4
15
25
32
25
4
13
30
29
23
5
17
23
34
24
3
16
32
26
21
5
3
42
29
21
5
15
27
32
24
3
22
12
41
21
4
21
23
32
21
3
28
18
31
19
4
14
34
29
18
5
11
40
29
17
4
5
29
46
19
2
15
17
49
18
1
11
36
34
16
4
21
38
23
16
2
15
18
50
16
1
10
41
32
15
1
18
20
45
15
2
5
34
44
15
2
6
62
16
12
5
5
48
30
12
4
3
54
27
10
6
15
47
22
14
2
11
47
27
13
2
9
55
22
1 13
27
26
33
2 12
13
26
47
1 13
5
50
32
3 10
10
48
28
1 12
10
30
47
1 12
13
52
22
2 11
8
44
35
1 12
13
46
30
2 10
12
44
33
0 11
11
45
33
2 9
5
42
44
1 8
3
69
20
3 4
10
71
12
1 7
7
71
15
1 5
3
70
24
03
2
75
20
03
0
20
40
60
80
Stockholm (SE)
København (DK)
Praha (CZ)
München (DE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Warszawa (PL)
Lefkosia (CY)
Rotterdam (NL)
Helsinki (FI)
Luxembourg (LU)
Hamburg (DE)
Sofia (BG)
London (UK)
Bratislava (SK)
Ljubljana (SI)
Gdansk (PL)
Paris (FR)
Malmö (SE)
Manchester (UK)
Wien (AT)
Irakleio (EL)
Kraków (PL)
Groningen (NL)
Antwerpen (BE)
Aalborg (DK)
Graz (AT)
Antalya (TR)
Newcastle (UK)
Strasbourg (FR)
Burgas (BG)
Bucureşti (RO)
Rennes (FR)
Cardiff (UK)
Oulu (FI)
Lille (FR)
Belfast (UK)
Bologna (IT)
Glasgow (UK)
Athinia (EL)
Verona (IT)
Essen (DE)
Bordeaux (FR)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Marseille (FR)
Madrid (ES)
Leipzig (DE)
Ostrava (CZ)
Valletta (MT)
Berlin (DE)
Białystok (PL)
Dortmund (DE)
Barcelona (ES)
Zagreb (HR)
Dublin (IE)
İstanbul (TR)
Budapest (HU)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Lisboa (PT)
Liège (BE)
Rostock (DE)
Ankara (TR)
Tallinn (EE)
Oviedo (ES)
Vilnius (LT)
Roma (IT)
Braga (PT)
Torino (IT)
Kosice (SK)
Málaga (ES)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Riga (LV)
Miskolc (HU)
Napoli (IT)
Palermo (IT)
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 13
In the cities where respondents were the most pessimistic about job opportunities, a large majority of
respondents strongly disagreed that it was easy to find a good job in their city: 75% in Palermo, 71%
in Riga and Miskolc, 70% in Naples and 69% in Diyarbakir. Other cities where more than half of
respondents expressed their strong disagreement were Vilnius (52%), Istanbul (54%), Lisbon (55%)
and Zagreb (62%). Moreover, in the other surveyed cities in Italy, Hungary, Turkey and Portugal, a
relative majority of interviewees - at least – disagreed strongly that good jobs were easy to find (e.g.
44% in Rome, 46% in Braga and 50% in Ankara – in Bologna, however, just 33% “strongly
disagreed”).
A comparison with results of the previous perception survey showed that Naples and Palermo scored
the lowest in both surveys: in 2006 and in 2009, just 3% of respondents in these two Italian cities
agreed that it was easy to find a good job. Similarly, only a small change was observed in the
proportion of respondents agreeing with this statement in Diyarbakir and Miskolc; Riga, however, has
experienced a 28 percentage point decrease in the proportion of respondents who thought that good
jobs were easy to find (8% in 2009, compared to 36% in 2006). Other cities where respondents were
considerably less optimistic about job opportunities in 2009 than in 2006 included Dublin (-50
percentage points), Tallinn (-24), Verona (-21), Cardiff (-21), Vilnius (-20) and Glasgow (-20).
In only a few cities were respondents more optimistic in 2009 than in 2006. The greatest increase in
the proportion of respondents who agreed that good jobs were easy to find was seen in Stockholm –
from 20th position in 2006 (43%) to top place in 2009 (61%); an increase of 18 percentage points.
Comparable increases in respondents’ likelihood to agree with the statements were observed in Malmo
(+17 percentage points) and Hamburg (+15).
It is easy to find a good job
It is easy to find a good job – ranked from most negative to least negative (% strongly diagree)
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 Neamț (RO)
Braga (PT)
Kosice (SK)
Roma (IT)
Torino (IT)
Málaga (ES)
Athinia (EL)
Białystok (PL)
Bucureşti (RO)
Marseille (FR)
Valletta (MT)
Ostrava (CZ)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Antalya (TR)
Barcelona (ES)
Glasgow (UK)
Burgas (BG)
Belfast (UK)
Oviedo (ES)
Irakleio (EL)
Madrid (ES)
Verona (IT)
Liège (BE)
Rostock (DE)
Lille (FR)
Oulu (FI)
Ljubljana (SI)
Gdansk (PL)
Manchester (UK)
Newcastle (UK)
Bordeaux (FR)
Bologna (IT)
Kraków (PL)
London (UK)
Sofia (BG)
Dortmund (DE)
Cardiff (UK)
Paris (FR)
Berlin (DE)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Warszawa (PL)
Leipzig (DE)
Strasbourg (FR)
Lefkosia (CY)
Bratislava (SK)
Malmö (SE)
Aalborg (DK)
Helsinki (FI)
Essen (DE)
Wien (AT)
Graz (AT)
Praha (CZ)
Rennes (FR)
Luxembourg (LU)
København (DK)
Antwerpen (BE)
Groningen (NL)
München (DE)
Stockholm (SE)
Hamburg (DE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Rotterdam (NL)
Somewhat disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
DK/NA
302
20
7 1 10
5 1 7
303
24
4 3 3
20
5 6
12
16
62
13 1 9
22
55
6 3
10
27
54
13
11 2
22
52
10 3 5
32
50
4 5
12
30
48
12 1 10
28
48
15
2
14
22
47
2 11
13
27
47
10 2 13
30
46
9 2 11
33
45
12 1 8
35
44
11 0 12
33
44
8 1 5
44
42
5 3
21
29
42
1 10
15
32
41
10
9
22
20
40
4 11
17
29
40
21
2
16
23
38
4 11
16
34
36
14
5
18
29
34
6
13
21
27
34
2 5
15
44
34
16
5
21
26
32
12
10
21
26
31
13
5
23
29
30
12 1 10
47
30
7 5
30
28
30
2 5
19
46
29
15
3
24
32
27
27
12 2
33
26
13 1 13
47
26
15
4
25
32
25
4 7
25
39
25
9
7
33
26
25
13
6
33
24
25
20
8
29
19
24
17
9
24
26
24
21
3
21
32
23
17
3
24
34
23
13
6
31
28
23
13
10
32
24
22
13
13
32
22
20
18
2
15
45
20
22
5
25
29
20
14
4
35
29
19
15
1
16
50
18
28
4
19
31
18
8
14
38
23
17
15
1
18
49
17
24
3
29
28
16
12
14
36
21
16
14
4
37
29
16
23
10
28
24
15
21
6
28
32
13
9
11
38
30
13
22
4
21
41
12
25
8
29
28
11
24
3
31
32
11
13
16
40
21
10
24
2
29
36
10
11
8
40
32
10
17
14
43
18
9
44
5
31
12
9
21
8
29
33
9
15
13
41
24
8
17
23
38
14
8
17
5
43
29
7
18
11
42
23
6
27
12
38
18
6
75
71
71
70
69
0
20
40
12
15
60
80
Palermo (IT)
Riga (LV)
Miskolc (HU)
Napoli (IT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Zagreb (HR)
Lisboa (PT)
İstanbul (TR)
Vilnius (LT)
Ankara (TR)
Dublin (IE)
Tallinn (EE)
Budapest (HU)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Braga (PT)
Kosice (SK)
Roma (IT)
Torino (IT)
Málaga (ES)
Athinia (EL)
Białystok (PL)
Bucureşti (RO)
Marseille (FR)
Valletta (MT)
Ostrava (CZ)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Antalya (TR)
Barcelona (ES)
Glasgow (UK)
Burgas (BG)
Belfast (UK)
Oviedo (ES)
Irakleio (EL)
Madrid (ES)
Verona (IT)
Liège (BE)
Rostock (DE)
Lille (FR)
Oulu (FI)
Ljubljana (SI)
Gdansk (PL)
Manchester (UK)
Newcastle (UK)
Bordeaux (FR)
Bologna (IT)
Kraków (PL)
London (UK)
Sofia (BG)
Dortmund (DE)
Cardiff (UK)
Paris (FR)
Berlin (DE)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Warszawa (PL)
Leipzig (DE)
Strasbourg (FR)
Lefkosia (CY)
Bratislava (SK)
Malmö (SE)
Aalborg (DK)
Helsinki (FI)
Essen (DE)
Wien (AT)
Graz (AT)
Praha (CZ)
Rennes (FR)
Luxembourg (LU)
København (DK)
Antwerpen (BE)
Groningen (NL)
München (DE)
Stockholm (SE)
Hamburg (DE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Rotterdam (NL)
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 15
Housing costs About two-thirds of respondents living in Leipzig, Aalborg, Braga and Oulu strongly or somewhat
agreed that it was easy to find good housing at a reasonable price in their respective cities (between
64% and 71%). In six other cities – Dortmund, Oviedo, Newcastle, Malaga, Diyarbakir and Berlin – a
slim majority of interviewees agreed (between 51% and 59%).
In all other cities, respondents had a less optimistic view about housing in their city; the proportion of
respondents who strongly or somewhat disagreed that it was easy to find good housing at a reasonable
price ranged from less than a quarter in some of the above-mentioned cities (Leipzig, Aalborg and
Braga – between 20% and 24%) to almost 9 in 10 respondents in Luxembourg, Munich and Rome
(88%-89%) and virtually all respondents in Paris (96%).
About three-quarters of Parisians (77%) and two-thirds of Romans (65%) strongly disagreed that
reasonably priced housing was easy to find in their respective cities; this proportion, however, was
lower in Munich and Luxembourg (48% and 53%, respectively). Other cities where more than half of
respondents strongly disagreed with this statement were Zagreb (67%), Ljubljana (64%), Lisbon
(64%), London (60%), Bucharest (56%), Bologna (55%), Helsinki (54%).
A large number of cities positioned in the lowest third of this ranking were capitals and/or large cities
(with at least 500,000 inhabitants). Several of these were listed in the previous paragraphs (Rome,
Lisbon, etc.), but the lowest third also included cities such as Stockholm, Marseilles and Brussels. The
most important exception among these large capital cities was Berlin, which was ranked in the top 10
of cities where at least half of respondents agreed that it was easy to find reasonably priced housing in
their city; none of the others in the top 10 were capitals and most of the cities had less than 500,000
inhabitants (such as Leipzig, Braga or Oulu).
Contrary to the negative change, from 2006 to 2009, in city dwellers’ perceptions about job
opportunities in their city, not many of the surveyed cities have seen a decrease in the proportion of
respondents who agreed that it was easy to find reasonably priced good housing. In fact, in one-third
of the cities, this proportion has even increased by 10 percentage points or more.
It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price
It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price
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 Neamț (RO)
Vilnius (LT)
Riga (LV)
Ankara (TR)
Valletta (MT)
Tallinn (EE)
Glasgow (UK)
Ostrava (CZ)
Irakleio (EL)
Palermo (IT)
Burgas (BG)
Malmö (SE)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Rotterdam (NL)
Madrid (ES)
Sofia (BG)
Liège (BE)
Gdansk (PL)
Athinia (EL)
Dublin (IE)
Bordeaux (FR)
Praha (CZ)
Budapest (HU)
İstanbul (TR)
Lille (FR)
Barcelona (ES)
Kraków (PL)
Graz (AT)
Kosice (SK)
Antwerpen (BE)
Rennes (FR)
Napoli (IT)
Torino (IT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Wien (AT)
Verona (IT)
Strasbourg (FR)
Bucureşti (RO)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Warszawa (PL)
København (DK)
Marseille (FR)
Bratislava (SK)
Zagreb (HR)
Hamburg (DE)
Stockholm (SE)
London (UK)
Helsinki (FI)
Ljubljana (SI)
Bologna (IT)
Lisboa (PT)
Luxembourg (LU)
Amsterdam (NL)
München (DE)
Roma (IT)
Paris (FR)
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
20
40
60
80
Leipzig (DE)
Aalborg (DK)
Braga (PT)
Oulu (FI)
Dortmund (DE)
Oviedo (ES)
Newcastle (UK)
Málaga (ES)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Berlin (DE)
Essen (DE)
Groningen (NL)
Rostock (DE)
Miskolc (HU)
Belfast (UK)
Białystok (PL)
Antalya (TR)
Cardiff (UK)
Manchester (UK)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Vilnius (LT)
Riga (LV)
Ankara (TR)
Valletta (MT)
Tallinn (EE)
Glasgow (UK)
Ostrava (CZ)
Irakleio (EL)
Palermo (IT)
Burgas (BG)
Malmö (SE)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Rotterdam (NL)
Madrid (ES)
Sofia (BG)
Liège (BE)
Gdansk (PL)
Athinia (EL)
Dublin (IE)
Bordeaux (FR)
Praha (CZ)
Budapest (HU)
İstanbul (TR)
Lille (FR)
Barcelona (ES)
Kraków (PL)
Graz (AT)
Kosice (SK)
Antwerpen (BE)
Rennes (FR)
Napoli (IT)
Torino (IT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Wien (AT)
Verona (IT)
Strasbourg (FR)
Bucureşti (RO)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Warszawa (PL)
København (DK)
Marseille (FR)
Bratislava (SK)
Zagreb (HR)
Hamburg (DE)
Stockholm (SE)
London (UK)
Helsinki (FI)
Ljubljana (SI)
Bologna (IT)
Lisboa (PT)
Luxembourg (LU)
Amsterdam (NL)
München (DE)
Roma (IT)
Paris (FR)
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 17
1.2 Poverty and financial difficulties Poverty at city level Respondents in Prague, Luxembourg, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Warsaw and Nicosia were not only
among the most likely to agree that it was easy to find a good job in their respective cities, they were
also among the most likely to disagree that their city has a problem with poverty. Similarly, Miskolc,
Riga, Lisbon, Diyarbakir and Liege were not only found at the bottom of the ranking in terms of
perceptions about job opportunities, but they were also among the most likely to agree that poverty
was a problem. Nevertheless, the correlation between perceptions about these two topics was
relatively weak (a correlation coefficient of .544) – as illustrated in the scatter plot on page 20.
Half or more respondents in Aalborg, Oulu, Prague, Oviedo, Valletta, Bratislava and Luxembourg
somewhat or strongly disagreed that poverty was a problem in their city (between 50% and 69%). In
Groningen and Copenhagen, just less than half of respondents disagreed with this statement (48%49%). These nine cities were the only ones where respondents who did not think that poverty was a
problem outnumbered those who believed it was an issue in their city (the level of agreement ranged
from 21% in Aalborg to 46% Luxembourg).
About 9 in 10 interviewees in Miskolc, Riga, Budapest, Lisbon and Diyarbakir somewhat or strongly
agreed that poverty was a problem in their city (between 87% and 93%). Furthermore, in each of these
cities at least half of respondents strongly agreed that poverty constituted a problem: ranging from
50% in Lisbon to 78% in Miskolc. Other cities were a majority of interviewees strongly agreed with
the statement were Athens (61%), Istanbul (58%) and Zagreb (53%).
There was not only a large variation between European cities in respondents’ perceptions about
poverty being an issue in their city, but also between cities within some countries. For example, in
Germany, the proportion of respondents who thought that poverty was a problem in their city ranged
from 48% in Munich to 79% in Dortmund and 82% in Berlin. Similarly, while 85% of respondents in
Athens agreed that poverty was a problem, this proportion was 60% in Iraklion.
Poverty is a problem
Poverty is a problem
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 Neamț (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
20
40
60
80
Aalborg (DK)
Oulu (FI)
Praha (CZ)
Oviedo (ES)
Valletta (MT)
Bratislava (SK)
Luxembourg (LU)
København (DK)
Groningen (NL)
Lefkosia (CY)
Stockholm (SE)
Warszawa (PL)
München (DE)
Gdansk (PL)
Rennes (FR)
Cardiff (UK)
Kraków (PL)
Helsinki (FI)
Antalya (TR)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Bologna (IT)
Verona (IT)
Newcastle (UK)
Ljubljana (SI)
Irakleio (EL)
Ostrava (CZ)
Amsterdam (NL)
Wien (AT)
Białystok (PL)
Burgas (BG)
Graz (AT)
Manchester (UK)
Kosice (SK)
Malmö (SE)
Málaga (ES)
Belfast (UK)
Strasbourg (FR)
Bordeaux (FR)
Madrid (ES)
Rostock (DE)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Sofia (BG)
Leipzig (DE)
Rotterdam (NL)
Braga (PT)
Hamburg (DE)
Roma (IT)
Barcelona (ES)
Essen (DE)
Ankara (TR)
London (UK)
Zagreb (HR)
Vilnius (LT)
Bucureşti (RO)
Dublin (IE)
Tallinn (EE)
Napoli (IT)
Glasgow (UK)
Antwerpen (BE)
Lille (FR)
Torino (IT)
Palermo (IT)
İstanbul (TR)
Paris (FR)
Dortmund (DE)
Berlin (DE)
Marseille (FR)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Athinia (EL)
Liège (BE)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Lisboa (PT)
Budapest (HU)
Riga (LV)
Miskolc (HU)
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 19
Correlation between perceptions about job opportunities and poverty
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
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% agreeing it is easy to find a good job in the city
[N.B. A correlation coefficient summarises the strength of the (linear) relationship between two measures. While
a correlation of -1 or 1 indicates a perfect correlation, a coefficient of 0 indicates that there is no correlation
between two measures. A positive correlation means that as one measure gets larger, the other gets larger too
(i.e. the higher the score on variable A, the higher the score is for variable B). A negative correlation means that
as one measure gets larger the other gets smaller.]
1.3 The presence of foreigners The presence of foreigners is good for the city City dwellers’ opinions about the presence of foreigners in their city were generally positive: in 68
cities (out of 75), a slim majority of interviewees, at least, strongly or somewhat agreed that the
presence of foreigners was good for their city.
Respondents living in Luxembourg or Stockholm were the most likely to think that the presence of
foreigners was beneficial to their cities: 92% and 88%, respectively, of respondents in these cities
agreed with the statement (48% and 55%, respectively, “strongly agreed”). Other cities where
respondents were very likely to see their presence as being useful were Cracow, Gdansk, Piatra
Neamt, Burgas, Copenhagen and Paris – in these cities more than 8 in 10 respondents agreed (between
81% and 84%).
Respondents in Nicosia, on the other hand, were the least likely to strongly or somewhat agree that the
presence of foreigners was good (7% “strongly agreed” and 24% “somewhat agreed”), while about
two-thirds of them disagreed with the statement (41% “strongly disagreed” and 24% “somewhat
disagreed”). Respondents who disagreed with the statement outnumbered those who agreed in just two
other cities: Athens (40% “agreed” vs. 56% “disagreed”) and Liege (41% “agreed” vs. 48%
“disagreed”).
Ostrava, Ankara and Antwerp were also found at the bottom of this ranking, although in those cities,
more respondents thought that the presence of foreigners was a good thing for their city than the
equivalent number in Nicosia: 47%-48% of respondents in those cities strongly or somewhat agreed
with the statement. About 4 in 10 interviewees in Antwerp and Ankara disagreed that the presence of
foreigners was good for their cities; however, this proportion was only 32% in Ostrava – in this city, a
fifth of respondents could not, or did not want to answer this question.
As with the results presented in previous sections, views about the presence of foreigners did not only
vary between cities in Europe, but also between cities within a specific country. For example, while
80% of respondents in Amsterdam agreed that the presence of foreigners was beneficial for their city,
this proportion dropped to 61% in Rotterdam. In some other countries, however, a more uniform
picture emerged; for example, it was noted above that both Liege and Antwerp were found at the
bottom of the ranking (41% and 47%, respectively, agreed), but Brussels did not score much higher –
just 54% agreed that the presence of foreigners was good for their city.
Integration of foreigners Although many city dwellers appeared to agree that the presence of foreigners in their city was
advantageous (see previous section), they were less likely to agree that those foreigners were well
integrated. In almost all surveyed cities, the proportion of respondents who agreed that foreigners in
their city were well integrated was lower than the proportion who agreed that their presence was good
for their city – this can easily be seen on the scatter plot below.
The proportion of respondents who strongly or somewhat agreed that foreigners in their city were well
integrated ranged from 20% in Athens to 67% in Antalya. Other cities at the higher end of this ranking
were Groningen, Cluj-Napoca, Cardiff, Kosice, Braga and Luxembourg; in these cities, roughly 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.
Correlation between two statements about foreigners
page 21
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
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% agreeing that the presence of foreigners is good
1.4 Feelings of safety and trust People can be trusted When city dwellers were asked whether they thought that, generally speaking, most people living in
their city could be trusted, there was, once more, a large variation. Aalborg was found at the top of the
ranking with 34% of respondents who strongly agreed and 56% that somewhat agreed – only 6% in
Aalborg disagreed that most people could be trusted. Istanbul was found at the bottom of the ranking
with results that were almost a mirror image of Aalborg’s: 59% of people living in Istanbul strongly
disagreed and 26% somewhat disagreed that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted – only 14%
agreed with the statement.
A very high level of trust was also measured in Rostock, Groningen and Oviedo; in these three cities,
88% of respondents agreed that, generally speaking, most people living in their city could be trusted.
Nevertheless, even in those cities, only about a quarter of respondents strongly agreed with the
statement (between 24% and 27%). The largest proportions of “strongly agree” responses were in
Aalborg (see above), Newcastle, Belfast, Glasgow, Stockholm and Leipzig (between 30% and 35%).
In about one-third of cities, less than half of interviewees somewhat or strongly agreed that most of
their fellow citizens could be trusted. Several capital cities of eastern European countries joined
Istanbul at the lower end of the scale; these included Sofia, Bucharest, Budapest, Riga, Prague,
Bratislava, Zagreb and Warsaw. In these capitals, between 21% and 41% of respondents agreed that,
generally speaking, most people living in their city could be trusted; however, at least half of
respondents thought the opposite (between 50% and 71%). Other cities where at least half of
interviewees disagreed with this statement were Naples, Athens, Iraklion, Miskolc, Ostrava, Nicosia,
Ankara and Antalya (between 50% and 75%).
It was noted above that Newcastle had the largest proportion of “strongly agree” responses – 35%. The
largest proportion of “strongly disagree” responses, however, was almost twice that figure: 59% of
respondents in Istanbul strongly disagreed that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted. In Sofia,
Bucharest and Athens, about half of respondents expressed strong disagreement (48%-50%).
Generally speaking, most people in the city can be trusted
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 Neamț (RO)
Dublin (IE)
Strasbourg (FR)
Bologna (IT)
Manchester (UK)
Lille (FR)
Valletta (MT)
Gdansk (PL)
Kraków (PL)
Ljubljana (SI)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Palermo (IT)
Lisboa (PT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Marseille (FR)
London (UK)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Liège (BE)
Roma (IT)
Irakleio (EL)
Tallinn (EE)
Lefkosia (CY)
Paris (FR)
Burgas (BG)
Torino (IT)
Kosice (SK)
Antalya (TR)
Ankara (TR)
Napoli (IT)
Vilnius (LT)
Warszawa (PL)
Ostrava (CZ)
Zagreb (HR)
Bratislava (SK)
Praha (CZ)
Miskolc (HU)
Riga (LV)
Budapest (HU)
Bucureşti (RO)
Athinia (EL)
Sofia (BG)
İstanbul (TR)
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
20
40
60
80
Aalborg (DK)
Rostock (DE)
Groningen (NL)
Oviedo (ES)
Luxembourg (LU)
Leipzig (DE)
Oulu (FI)
München (DE)
Stockholm (SE)
Braga (PT)
Hamburg (DE)
Graz (AT)
Essen (DE)
København (DK)
Newcastle (UK)
Helsinki (FI)
Belfast (UK)
Dortmund (DE)
Glasgow (UK)
Cardiff (UK)
Wien (AT)
Berlin (DE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Málaga (ES)
Malmö (SE)
Madrid (ES)
Verona (IT)
Białystok (PL)
Rennes (FR)
Barcelona (ES)
Antwerpen (BE)
Bordeaux (FR)
Rotterdam (NL)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Dublin (IE)
Strasbourg (FR)
Bologna (IT)
Manchester (UK)
Lille (FR)
Valletta (MT)
Gdansk (PL)
Kraków (PL)
Ljubljana (SI)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Palermo (IT)
Lisboa (PT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Marseille (FR)
London (UK)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Liège (BE)
Roma (IT)
Irakleio (EL)
Tallinn (EE)
Lefkosia (CY)
Paris (FR)
Burgas (BG)
Torino (IT)
Kosice (SK)
Antalya (TR)
Ankara (TR)
Napoli (IT)
Vilnius (LT)
Warszawa (PL)
Ostrava (CZ)
Zagreb (HR)
Bratislava (SK)
Praha (CZ)
Miskolc (HU)
Riga (LV)
Budapest (HU)
Bucureşti (RO)
Athinia (EL)
Sofia (BG)
İstanbul (TR)
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 23
Feeling safe in the city The proportion of respondents who answered that they always felt safe in their city was highest in
Oviedo (84%). Other cities where respondents were more likely to say they always felt safe in their
city were Groningen (79%), Aalborg (78%), Oulu (77%), Munich (76%), Piatra Neamt and
Luxembourg (both 73%). Not more than 1 in 20 respondents in the aforementioned cities rarely or
never felt safe in their city (between 1% and 5%).
Similarly, in most other surveyed cities in the Nordic countries (e.g. Copenhagen and Helsinki), about
two-thirds of respondents always felt safe in their city (between 64% and 67%), while less than 1 in 20
respondents rarely or never did so (3%-4%). There was, however, one exception: only half (49%) of
respondents in Malmo said they always felt safe and one-tenth (9%) rarely or never felt this way. That
city’s current result, however, represented an improvement of 15 percentage points compared to 2006;
in that year, just 34% of respondents in Malmo said they always felt safe in their city.
This dominant feeling of safety was in sharp contrast to the results for cities at the lower end of this
ranking; in the latter, less than 4 in 10 respondents answered that they always felt safe in their city –
e.g. 34% of interviewees in Lisbon, Miskolc and Vilnius selected “always” as a response. Interviewees
in Athens, Istanbul, Sofia and Bucharest were the least likely to always feel safe in their respective
cities (between 14% and 25%). In Istanbul and Sofia, about half of interviewees answered that they
rarely or never felt safe in their city; this proportion was somewhat lower in Athens and Bucharest
(44% and 37%, respectively).
The scatter plot below shows a strong correlation between the proportion of respondents who agreed
that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted and the proportion who always felt safe in their city.
In other words, cities where a large majority felt that most people in their city could be trusted were
also characterised by a large proportion of respondents who always felt safe in their city – cities in this
group included Oviedo, Luxembourg and Stockholm. There were, nevertheless, a few outliers worth
mentioning: although Brussels, Liege, London, Manchester and Lisbon had average scores for the
proportion of respondents who generally trusted their fellow citizens (between 49% and 60%),
respondents in these cities were among the least likely to always feel safe in their city (between 30%
and 35%).
Respondents feel safe in the city
Respondents feel safe in the city
Always
Oviedo (ES)
Groningen (NL)
Aalborg (DK)
Oulu (FI)
München (DE)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Luxembourg (LU)
Bordeaux (FR)
København (DK)
Helsinki (FI)
Amsterdam (NL)
Stockholm (SE)
Rostock (DE)
Ljubljana (SI)
Wien (AT)
Zagreb (HR)
Verona (IT)
Graz (AT)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Essen (DE)
Hamburg (DE)
Leipzig (DE)
Dortmund (DE)
Málaga (ES)
Białystok (PL)
Braga (PT)
Newcastle (UK)
Rennes (FR)
Valletta (MT)
Rotterdam (NL)
Strasbourg (FR)
Palermo (IT)
Paris (FR)
Belfast (UK)
Cardiff (UK)
Berlin (DE)
Lille (FR)
Antalya (TR)
Gdansk (PL)
Malmö (SE)
Antwerpen (BE)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Kraków (PL)
Barcelona (ES)
Lefkosia (CY)
Madrid (ES)
Ankara (TR)
Bologna (IT)
Marseille (FR)
Kosice (SK)
Warszawa (PL)
Tallinn (EE)
Glasgow (UK)
Torino (IT)
Roma (IT)
Dublin (IE)
Bratislava (SK)
Irakleio (EL)
Napoli (IT)
Manchester (UK)
Lisboa (PT)
Miskolc (HU)
Vilnius (LT)
Riga (LV)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
London (UK)
Burgas (BG)
Budapest (HU)
Ostrava (CZ)
Praha (CZ)
Liège (BE)
Bucureşti (RO)
Sofia (BG)
İstanbul (TR)
Athinia (EL)
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
20
40
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
80
Oviedo (ES)
Groningen (NL)
Aalborg (DK)
Oulu (FI)
München (DE)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Luxembourg (LU)
Bordeaux (FR)
København (DK)
Helsinki (FI)
Amsterdam (NL)
Stockholm (SE)
Rostock (DE)
Ljubljana (SI)
Wien (AT)
Zagreb (HR)
Verona (IT)
Graz (AT)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Essen (DE)
Hamburg (DE)
Leipzig (DE)
Dortmund (DE)
Málaga (ES)
Białystok (PL)
Braga (PT)
Newcastle (UK)
Rennes (FR)
Valletta (MT)
Rotterdam (NL)
Strasbourg (FR)
Palermo (IT)
Paris (FR)
Belfast (UK)
Cardiff (UK)
Berlin (DE)
Lille (FR)
Antalya (TR)
Gdansk (PL)
Malmö (SE)
Antwerpen (BE)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Kraków (PL)
Barcelona (ES)
Lefkosia (CY)
Madrid (ES)
Ankara (TR)
Bologna (IT)
Marseille (FR)
Kosice (SK)
Warszawa (PL)
Tallinn (EE)
Glasgow (UK)
Torino (IT)
Roma (IT)
Dublin (IE)
Bratislava (SK)
Irakleio (EL)
Napoli (IT)
Manchester (UK)
Lisboa (PT)
Miskolc (HU)
Vilnius (LT)
Riga (LV)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
London (UK)
Burgas (BG)
Budapest (HU)
Ostrava (CZ)
Praha (CZ)
Liège (BE)
Bucureşti (RO)
Sofia (BG)
İstanbul (TR)
Athinia (EL)
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 25
Correlation between “trust in people” and “feeling safe in the city”
Correlation between “trust in people” and “feeling safe in the city”
100
Correlation coefficient:
rxy = .828
90
% “always” feeling safe in their city
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% agreeing that most people in the city can be trusted
Feeling safe in one’s neighbourhood Not surprisingly, a strong correlation was observed between a more general feeling of safety (at a city
level – discussed in the previous section) and the more specific feeling of being safe in one’s
neighbourhood (a correlation coefficient of .897). In addition, the scatter plot below shows that
respondents across all cities in this study were more likely to say they always felt safe in their
neighbourhood than they were to say that they always felt safe in their city (in general).
In 65 cities, a majority of interviewees selected “always” as a response when asked how often they felt
safe in their neighbourhood – ranging from 52% in Napoli to 91% in Munich, Aalborg and Rostock. In
the other 10 cities, not more than half of interviewees said they always felt safe in the area where they
lived, while between 15% and 34% of them rarely, or even never felt safe.
Each of the German cities included in this study were placed at the higher end of this scale – where
about 9 in 10 respondents always felt safe in their neighbourhood: 91% of interviewees in Rostock and
Munich, 90% in Leipzig, 89% in Essen, 88% in Dortmund and Hamburg and 87% in Berlin always
felt safe in the area where they lived. Other cities that belonged to this group were Aalborg (91%),
Oviedo (89%), Groningen (88%), Oulu and Luxembourg (both 87%).
Respondents living in Sofia, on the other hand, were the most likely to answer that they rarely or
never felt safe in their neighbourhood (13% “rarely” and 21% “never”). In Athens, Burgas, Bucharest,
Riga, Vilnius, Prague, Istanbul and Naples more than a fifth of interviewees rarely or never felt safe in
the area where they lived (between 22% and 27%). While the proportion of respondents who always
felt safe in their neighbourhood has decreased from 2006 to 2009 in most of the aforementioned cities,
the current result for Naples represented a 21 percentage point improvement over 2006 (31% in 2006
vs. 52% in 2009).
Other cities that have seen an increase in the proportion of interviewees who always felt safe in their
area included the German cities (e.g. Berlin: +21 percentage points; Essen: +16; Munich: +8), Gdansk
(+18) and Dublin (+15).
Respondents feel safe in their neighbourhood
Respondents feel safe in theirneighbourhood
Always
Rostock (DE)
Aalborg (DK)
München (DE)
Leipzig (DE)
Oviedo (ES)
Essen (DE)
Dortmund (DE)
Groningen (NL)
Hamburg (DE)
Oulu (FI)
Berlin (DE)
Luxembourg (LU)
Graz (AT)
Bordeaux (FR)
København (DK)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Stockholm (SE)
Wien (AT)
Helsinki (FI)
Ljubljana (SI)
Zagreb (HR)
Amsterdam (NL)
Rotterdam (NL)
Białystok (PL)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Dublin (IE)
Lille (FR)
Braga (PT)
Belfast (UK)
Málaga (ES)
Rennes (FR)
Antalya (TR)
Strasbourg (FR)
Malmö (SE)
Antwerpen (BE)
Verona (IT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Newcastle (UK)
Glasgow (UK)
Paris (FR)
Gdansk (PL)
Lefkosia (CY)
Warszawa (PL)
Ankara (TR)
Palermo (IT)
Cardiff (UK)
Marseille (FR)
Kosice (SK)
Liège (BE)
Kraków (PL)
Bratislava (SK)
Barcelona (ES)
Madrid (ES)
Valletta (MT)
Tallinn (EE)
Budapest (HU)
Miskolc (HU)
Bologna (IT)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Roma (IT)
Manchester (UK)
Torino (IT)
Lisboa (PT)
London (UK)
Napoli (IT)
Irakleio (EL)
Ostrava (CZ)
İstanbul (TR)
Praha (CZ)
Vilnius (LT)
Riga (LV)
Bucureşti (RO)
Athinia (EL)
Burgas (BG)
Sofia (BG)
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
20
40
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
80
Rostock (DE)
Aalborg (DK)
München (DE)
Leipzig (DE)
Oviedo (ES)
Essen (DE)
Dortmund (DE)
Groningen (NL)
Hamburg (DE)
Oulu (FI)
Berlin (DE)
Luxembourg (LU)
Graz (AT)
Bordeaux (FR)
København (DK)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Stockholm (SE)
Wien (AT)
Helsinki (FI)
Ljubljana (SI)
Zagreb (HR)
Amsterdam (NL)
Rotterdam (NL)
Białystok (PL)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Dublin (IE)
Lille (FR)
Braga (PT)
Belfast (UK)
Málaga (ES)
Rennes (FR)
Antalya (TR)
Strasbourg (FR)
Malmö (SE)
Antwerpen (BE)
Verona (IT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Newcastle (UK)
Glasgow (UK)
Paris (FR)
Gdansk (PL)
Lefkosia (CY)
Warszawa (PL)
Ankara (TR)
Palermo (IT)
Cardiff (UK)
Marseille (FR)
Kosice (SK)
Liège (BE)
Kraków (PL)
Bratislava (SK)
Barcelona (ES)
Madrid (ES)
Valletta (MT)
Tallinn (EE)
Budapest (HU)
Miskolc (HU)
Bologna (IT)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Roma (IT)
Manchester (UK)
Torino (IT)
Lisboa (PT)
London (UK)
Napoli (IT)
Irakleio (EL)
Ostrava (CZ)
İstanbul (TR)
Praha (CZ)
Vilnius (LT)
Riga (LV)
Bucureşti (RO)
Athinia (EL)
Burgas (BG)
Sofia (BG)
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
Correlation between feeling safe in cities and neighbourhoods
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
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% “always” feeling safe in their city
80
90
100
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.
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
34
68
59
66
51
31
29
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
72
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
62
49
39
33
39
37
62
48
42
29
45
44
35
38
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
Gdańsk (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 Neamț (RO)
Jobs creation
62
Health services
51
Education
37
Ankara (TR)
Health services
45
Education
45
Jobs creation
33
Antalya (TR)
Health services
30
Education
30
Jobs creation
29
Diyarbakir (TR)
Education
44
Jobs creation
27
Health services
23
İstanbul (TR)
Health services
66
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
34
32
67
55
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 29
2. Pollution and climate change
2.1 Clean and healthy cities Air quality and air pollution It was noted in the previous chapter that air pollution appeared among the three most important
problems in 21 cities; for example, 56% of respondents in Sofia, 47% in Athens, 39% in Budapest and
37% in Bucharest mentioned it as one of their city’s main problems. Respondents in those four cities
were also the most likely to somewhat or strongly agree with the statement that “air pollution was a
major problem in their city” (between 92% and 96%). In Athens and Bucharest, more than 8 in 10
respondents strongly agreed with that statement (88% and 83%, respectively).
All Italian cities included in this study were found at the bottom of this ranking – with a large majority
of respondents who somewhat or strongly agreed that air pollution was a major problem in their city:
89% of interviewees in Rome, 86% in Naples, 84% in Bologna, 83% in Turin, and 82% in Palermo
and Verona.
A large number of cities ranked in the lowest quarter were capitals and/or large cities (with at least
500,000 inhabitants). Several of these cities were listed in the previous paragraphs (Athens, Budapest,
Rome, Naples etc.), but the list also included cities such as Warsaw, Paris, Lisbon and London. The
most notable exception among these lowest-ranked cities was Burgas, a city with less than 250,000
inhabitants; however, about 9 in 10 respondents there thought that air pollution was a major problem
(18% “somewhat agreed” and 71% “strongly agreed”).
All cities, where residents were the least likely to think that air pollution was a serious problem for
their city, had less than 500,000 inhabitants. Respondents in Rostock, followed by those in Groningen
and Bialystok, most frequently disagreed that air pollution was a problem (81% in Rostock and 75% in
Groningen and Bialystok). In Oviedo, Rennes, Newcastle, Piatra Neamt, Leipzig and Aalborg, about
two-thirds of respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed that air pollution was an issue (between
64% and 69%).
A comparison with the results of the previous perception survey showed that – in the opinion of the
inhabitants – many cities have improved their air quality in the past three years. For example, in 2006,
just 6% of respondents in Valletta disagreed that air pollution was a problem in their city, this
proportion increased to 23% in 2009. The opposite trend (i.e. a decrease in positive perceptions about
air quality) was observed in a minority of the cities included this study: e.g. in Stockholm (-16
percentage points), Malmo (-16), Ostrava (-11) and Budapest (-10).
Air pollution is a major problem
Air pollution is a major problem
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 Neamț (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
20
40
60
80
Rostock (DE)
Groningen (NL)
Białystok (PL)
Oviedo (ES)
Rennes (FR)
Newcastle (UK)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Leipzig (DE)
Aalborg (DK)
Oulu (FI)
Hamburg (DE)
Luxembourg (LU)
Dortmund (DE)
Cardiff (UK)
Wien (AT)
Helsinki (FI)
Bordeaux (FR)
Dublin (IE)
Belfast (UK)
Essen (DE)
Antalya (TR)
Málaga (ES)
München (DE)
Berlin (DE)
Kosice (SK)
Braga (PT)
Ankara (TR)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Manchester (UK)
Bratislava (SK)
Glasgow (UK)
Miskolc (HU)
Gdansk (PL)
Lille (FR)
Malmö (SE)
Tallinn (EE)
Zagreb (HR)
Amsterdam (NL)
Riga (LV)
Irakleio (EL)
Ljubljana (SI)
København (DK)
İstanbul (TR)
Stockholm (SE)
Graz (AT)
Praha (CZ)
Marseille (FR)
Rotterdam (NL)
Liège (BE)
Barcelona (ES)
Valletta (MT)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Ostrava (CZ)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Kraków (PL)
Vilnius (LT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Strasbourg (FR)
Antwerpen (BE)
Paris (FR)
Warszawa (PL)
London (UK)
Palermo (IT)
Torino (IT)
Verona (IT)
Bologna (IT)
Madrid (ES)
Lisboa (PT)
Napoli (IT)
Roma (IT)
Burgas (BG)
Sofia (BG)
Bucureşti (RO)
Budapest (HU)
Athinia (EL)
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 31
Noise is a major problem More than three-quarters of respondents in Groningen and Oulu disagreed that noise was a major
problem in their city (78% and 76%, respectively); only about a fifth of respondents in these cities
agreed about this issue (19% and 22%, respectively). Nevertheless, in most other cities, more than half
of respondents agreed that noise was a major problem in their city – this proportion ranged from 51%
in Rotterdam and Strasbourg to 95% in Athens.
The scatter plot below shows a strong correlation between the proportions of respondents who
disagreed that air pollution was a major problem in their city and those who disagreed that noise was
an important issue. As such, respondents in Athens, Bucharest, Sofia and Budapest were not only
among the most likely to agree that air pollution was a major problem in their city, but also that noise
was an issue; in these cities, between 85% and 95% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with
the statement about noise being a big problem. Furthermore, in these four cities, at least 6 in 10
respondents strongly agreed (between 61% and 82%) about noise.
Noise is a major problem
Noise is a major problem
Strongly disagree
Groningen (NL)
Oulu (FI)
Rostock (DE)
Białystok (PL)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Aalborg (DK)
Newcastle (UK)
Cardiff (UK)
Luxembourg (LU)
Belfast (UK)
Oviedo (ES)
Leipzig (DE)
Bordeaux (FR)
Rennes (FR)
Dublin (IE)
Manchester (UK)
Hamburg (DE)
Helsinki (FI)
Amsterdam (NL)
Dortmund (DE)
München (DE)
Braga (PT)
Strasbourg (FR)
Wien (AT)
Kosice (SK)
Rotterdam (NL)
Glasgow (UK)
Essen (DE)
Miskolc (HU)
Antwerpen (BE)
København (DK)
Graz (AT)
Lille (FR)
Riga (LV)
Liège (BE)
Malmö (SE)
Tallinn (EE)
Verona (IT)
Berlin (DE)
Vilnius (LT)
Antalya (TR)
Gdansk (PL)
Valletta (MT)
Ljubljana (SI)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Bratislava (SK)
Málaga (ES)
Zagreb (HR)
Stockholm (SE)
Ankara (TR)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Ostrava (CZ)
Bologna (IT)
Torino (IT)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Marseille (FR)
Paris (FR)
London (UK)
Burgas (BG)
Praha (CZ)
Palermo (IT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Barcelona (ES)
Lisboa (PT)
İstanbul (TR)
Kraków (PL)
Napoli (IT)
Warszawa (PL)
Roma (IT)
Irakleio (EL)
Madrid (ES)
Budapest (HU)
Sofia (BG)
Bucureşti (RO)
Athinia (EL)
Somewhat disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
DK/NA
5 2
21
7 2
22
51
12 3
19
40
1
17
18
29
36
7 5
24
45
19
10 4
22
39
24
3
14
20
43
21
12 1
24
38
24
2
16
20
43
18
10 1
30
44
15
9 2
32
47
10
1
16
28
33
22
2
14
28
34
22
3
19
24
30
25
5
19
22
41
13
3
12
33
42
11
1
14
34
38
14
2
15
33
40
10
3
16
31
39
10
3
17
33
39
8
1
18
34
31
17
1
23
28
32
16
2
19
33
35
12
2
15
38
41
4
4
16
35
37
8
2
24
29
31
14
3
16
36
37
8
2
23
32
35
8
5
19
33
30
12
1
22
34
35
8
3
22
33
32
11
2
23
34
28
14
3
33
23
20
22
2
16
41
31
10
3
17
40
29
11
4
32
25
26
13
2
26
33
31
9
2
22
37
32
8
5
33
25
25
13
1
32
30
17
20
2
31
30
25
12
2
35
27
20
16
2
33
30
26
10
2
31
32
20
16
0
26
39
31
4
0
25
39
29
6
0
37
29
16
18
2
23
42
22
11
2
31
35
21
12
2
23
43
23
9
2
34
32
26
6
1
34
35
22
7
2
33
36
24
6
1
44
26
15
13
1
39
31
18
11
1
39
33
21
7
2
40
32
18
8
2
51
23
15
9
1
34
42
19
5
1
45
34
16
5
1
54
24
15
7
1
34
46
15
5
1
44
35
16
4
0
55
27
15
4
1
52
28
14
5
1
49
34
11
6
1
55
28
10
6
1
52
32
11
5
1
60
24
11
4
1
42
42
13
3
3
61
24
4 9
1
65
23
5 6
1
73
16
5 6
1
82
3 2 13
0
14
20
52
53
26
23
18
27
20
40
60
80
Groningen (NL)
Oulu (FI)
Rostock (DE)
Białystok (PL)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Aalborg (DK)
Newcastle (UK)
Cardiff (UK)
Luxembourg (LU)
Belfast (UK)
Oviedo (ES)
Leipzig (DE)
Bordeaux (FR)
Rennes (FR)
Dublin (IE)
Manchester (UK)
Hamburg (DE)
Helsinki (FI)
Amsterdam (NL)
Dortmund (DE)
München (DE)
Braga (PT)
Strasbourg (FR)
Wien (AT)
Kosice (SK)
Rotterdam (NL)
Glasgow (UK)
Essen (DE)
Miskolc (HU)
Antwerpen (BE)
København (DK)
Graz (AT)
Lille (FR)
Riga (LV)
Liège (BE)
Malmö (SE)
Tallinn (EE)
Verona (IT)
Berlin (DE)
Vilnius (LT)
Antalya (TR)
Gdansk (PL)
Valletta (MT)
Ljubljana (SI)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Bratislava (SK)
Málaga (ES)
Zagreb (HR)
Stockholm (SE)
Ankara (TR)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Ostrava (CZ)
Bologna (IT)
Torino (IT)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Marseille (FR)
Paris (FR)
London (UK)
Burgas (BG)
Praha (CZ)
Palermo (IT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Barcelona (ES)
Lisboa (PT)
İstanbul (TR)
Kraków (PL)
Napoli (IT)
Warszawa (PL)
Roma (IT)
Irakleio (EL)
Madrid (ES)
Budapest (HU)
Sofia (BG)
Bucureşti (RO)
Athinia (EL)
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 33
Correlation between “air pollution” and “noise”
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
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% disagreeing that air pollution is a big problem
Clean cities There was not only a high correlation between the proportions of respondents who disagreed that air
and noise pollution were major problems in their city, but also between those who disagreed that air
pollution was a problem and those who agreed that they lived in a clean city (a correlation coefficient
of .694).
In Oviedo, Piatra Neamt and Luxembourg, almost all respondents agreed that they lived in a clean city
(96%-97%). In more than a third of the surveyed cities, however, less than half of respondents agreed
that their city was clean. The lowest proportions were seen in Palermo, Budapest, Sofia and Athens;
less than a sixth of interviewees in those cities somewhat or strongly agreed that they lived in a clean
city (between 13% and 17%). Almost 6 in 10 respondents in Palermo, Sofia and Athens strongly
disagreed that their city was clean (58%-59%).
In accordance with the results for air and noise pollution, a majority of cities seemed to have made
progress in terms of cleanliness in the past few years. For example, while the results of the previous
perception survey showed that less than a tenth of respondents living in Marseilles or Naples agreed
that their cities were clean, this proportion increased to slightly more than a quarter in 2009 (26%27%). Note that respondents in Malmo and Stockholm were now also more likely to agree that they
lived in a clean city (+22 and +23 percentage points compared to 2006) – although they had seen a
decrease in air quality and an increase in noise pollution during the same period.
Athens, Palermo and Brussels were the main exceptions to this positive trend. In these cities, the
proportion of respondents who agreed that their city was clean decreased by at least 12 percentage
points. For example, in 2006, 3 in 10 interviewees in Athens agreed that they lived in a clean city,
while this proportion dropped to 16% in 2009 (-14 percentage points).
Interestingly, cities that were described by their inhabitants as being clean were also the ones where a
larger proportion always felt safe – as illustrated in the scatter plot below. For example, more than 9 in
10 respondents in Piatra Neamt, Luxembourg and Munich agreed that they lived in a clean city and
about three-quarters of them always felt safe there. Similarly, less than a sixth of respondents in
Athens and Sofia described their city as clean and only slightly more – about a fifth – always felt safe
in that city.
Correlation between “a clean city” and “feeling safe”
Correlation between “a clean city” and “feeling safe”
100
90
% “always” feeling safe in their city
80
70
60
50
40
30
Correlation coefficient:
rxy = .728
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% agreeing that the city is clean
The city is clean
page 35
The city is clean
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
DK/NA
2 10
Oviedo (ES)
30
67
3 10
Piatra Neamț (RO)
21
75
3 10
Luxembourg (LU)
46
50
6 11
München (DE)
55
38
8 41
Białystok (PL)
51
37
41
11
Wien (AT)
49
35
21
13
Groningen (NL)
58
26
51
11
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
50
34
51
11
Newcastle (UK)
50
34
40
13
Braga (PT)
47
36
31
13
63
Hamburg (DE)
20
50
14
Verona (IT)
59
21
7 1
15
Antalya (TR)
36
43
21
19
53
Rostock (DE)
25
7 1
16
Ljubljana (SI)
55
22
6 1
17
53
Graz (AT)
23
7 1
16
55
Stockholm (SE)
21
7 1
16
Rennes (FR)
56
20
50
19
60
Oulu (FI)
16
7 1
19
Aalborg (DK)
57
16
11 1
15
Cardiff (UK)
48
24
7 1
20
54
Strasbourg (FR)
18
41
23
Helsinki (FI)
55
17
9 1
18
51
Lille (FR)
21
12
26
58
Leipzig (DE)
14
10 1
18
50
Bordeaux (FR)
21
10 1
20
44
Ankara (TR)
25
8 2
21
53
Malmö (SE)
16
12 2
19
37
Diyarbakir (TR)
32
41
27
53
Dortmund (DE)
14
12 0
21
44
Riga (LV)
23
3
13
19
44
Tallinn (EE)
21
9 1
26
52
Gdansk (PL)
12
11 1
26
49
Torino (IT)
13
0
16
21
40
Zagreb (HR)
23
5 2
31
53
Kosice (SK)
9
1
15
24
43
Belfast (UK)
18
2
18
22
41
Manchester (UK)
17
1
14
29
47
Kraków (PL)
10
10 3
31
39
Vilnius (LT)
17
5 1
38
46
Essen (DE)
10
10 1
35
45
Madrid (ES)
10
1
15
30
41
Bologna (IT)
14
1
21
24
41
Glasgow (UK)
14
1
26
24
41
Lefkosia (CY)
9
12 1
37
41
Amsterdam (NL)
8
1
15
35
40
Ostrava (CZ)
9
11 1
40
40
Rotterdam (NL)
8
1
24
28
33
Dublin (IE)
15
2
23
29
34
Valletta (MT)
12
2
22
29
40
Antwerpen (BE)
6
1
21
34
38
Miskolc (HU)
6
0
21
35
38
Paris (FR)
6
1
18
38
37
København (DK)
6
2
26
30
34
London (UK)
9
1
29
27
29
Burgas (BG)
13
2
16
40
35
Praha (CZ)
7
1
24
33
35
Warszawa (PL)
6
1
17
42
34
Barcelona (ES)
6
1
15
44
37
Bratislava (SK) 3
1
31
30
29
İstanbul (TR)
10
1
37
27
27
Irakleio (EL)
8
1
23
42
26
Málaga (ES)
9
1
29
37
27
6
Lisboa (PT)
1
17
50
27
Berlin (DE) 5
2
36
34
27
Liège (BE) 2
0
38
35
24
Napoli (IT) 3
1
33
39
24
Roma (IT) 3
1
44
30
20
Marseille (FR)
6
2
38
34
23
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 3
1
50
25
20
Bucureşti (RO) 3
1
59
24
14
Athinia (EL) 3
1
59
25
Sofia (BG) 5 10
1
50
34
Budapest (HU) 2 13
1
58
29
Palermo (IT) 2 11
0
20
40
60
80
Oviedo (ES)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Luxembourg (LU)
München (DE)
Białystok (PL)
Wien (AT)
Groningen (NL)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Newcastle (UK)
Braga (PT)
Hamburg (DE)
Verona (IT)
Antalya (TR)
Rostock (DE)
Ljubljana (SI)
Graz (AT)
Stockholm (SE)
Rennes (FR)
Oulu (FI)
Aalborg (DK)
Cardiff (UK)
Strasbourg (FR)
Helsinki (FI)
Lille (FR)
Leipzig (DE)
Bordeaux (FR)
Ankara (TR)
Malmö (SE)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Dortmund (DE)
Riga (LV)
Tallinn (EE)
Gdansk (PL)
Torino (IT)
Zagreb (HR)
Kosice (SK)
Belfast (UK)
Manchester (UK)
Kraków (PL)
Vilnius (LT)
Essen (DE)
Madrid (ES)
Bologna (IT)
Glasgow (UK)
Lefkosia (CY)
Amsterdam (NL)
Ostrava (CZ)
Rotterdam (NL)
Dublin (IE)
Valletta (MT)
Antwerpen (BE)
Miskolc (HU)
Paris (FR)
København (DK)
London (UK)
Burgas (BG)
Praha (CZ)
Warszawa (PL)
Barcelona (ES)
Bratislava (SK)
İstanbul (TR)
Irakleio (EL)
Málaga (ES)
Lisboa (PT)
Berlin (DE)
Liège (BE)
Napoli (IT)
Roma (IT)
Marseille (FR)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Bucureşti (RO)
Athinia (EL)
Sofia (BG)
Budapest (HU)
Palermo (IT)
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
Healthy places to live
Looking at both the perceived levels of air pollution and perceptions about whether a city was healthy
to live in or not, similarities again existed: each time, the same cities appeared at the higher and lower
ends of the rankings. The correlation coefficient for the relationship between these two variables at
city level was .765 – a strong correlation.
Rostock, Groningen, Bialystok, Oviedo, Rennes and Leipzig were cities with some of the highest
proportions of interviewees who disagreed that air pollution was a problem. In those cities,
respondents were also among the most likely to somewhat or strongly agree that their city was a
healthy place to live: 97% in Rostock and Groningen, 96% in Oviedo, 94% in Bialystok, 93% in
Rennes and 92% in Leipzig. Respondents in Piatra Neamt, Braga, Bordeaux, Luxembourg, Malaga
and Hamburg were, however, just as likely to agree with this statement (between 92% and 97%).
Respondents in Sofia and Athens were not only among the most likely to agree that air pollution was a
major problem in their city, they were also the least likely to somewhat or strongly agree that it was a
healthy place to live (13% and 17%, respectively) – more than half of those respondents strongly
disagreed with this statement (56% and 58%, respectively). Although Sofia and Athens were the only
cities where a majority strongly disagreed, in eight other cities more than half of respondents
somewhat or strongly disagreed that they lived in a healthy place: Bucharest (71%), Istanbul (68%),
Burgas (67%), Budapest (61%), Ostrava (58%), Naples and Warsaw (both 56%), and Prague (52%).
Correlation between "air pollution" and "a healthy city"
Correlation between “air pollution” and “a healthy city”
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
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% disagreeing that air pollution is a big problem
The city is a healthy place to live in
page 37
The city is a healthy place to live
Strongly agree
Rostock (DE)
Groningen (NL)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Oviedo (ES)
Braga (PT)
Bordeaux (FR)
Białystok (PL)
Luxembourg (LU)
Rennes (FR)
Leipzig (DE)
Málaga (ES)
Hamburg (DE)
Wien (AT)
München (DE)
Cardiff (UK)
Oulu (FI)
Lille (FR)
Aalborg (DK)
Verona (IT)
Antalya (TR)
Strasbourg (FR)
Newcastle (UK)
Helsinki (FI)
Belfast (UK)
Dublin (IE)
Bologna (IT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Marseille (FR)
Dortmund (DE)
Liège (BE)
Graz (AT)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Ljubljana (SI)
Essen (DE)
Ankara (TR)
Lisboa (PT)
Irakleio (EL)
Gdansk (PL)
Torino (IT)
Barcelona (ES)
Stockholm (SE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Berlin (DE)
Kosice (SK)
Malmö (SE)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Madrid (ES)
Zagreb (HR)
Manchester (UK)
Paris (FR)
Lefkosia (CY)
Miskolc (HU)
Tallinn (EE)
København (DK)
Kraków (PL)
Palermo (IT)
Vilnius (LT)
Riga (LV)
Rotterdam (NL)
Roma (IT)
London (UK)
Glasgow (UK)
Bratislava (SK)
Valletta (MT)
Antwerpen (BE)
Praha (CZ)
Napoli (IT)
Warszawa (PL)
Ostrava (CZ)
Budapest (HU)
Burgas (BG)
İstanbul (TR)
Bucureşti (RO)
Athinia (EL)
Sofia (BG)
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
DK/NA
20
201
201
23
74
301
40
56
40
34
62
3 11
58
38
2 22
42
52
5 11
57
37
4 11
58
35
5 12
62
30
6 11
60
32
7 11
54
38
5 22
46
45
8 12
52
38
6 32
56
33
9 11
64
25
9 22
50
36
9 23
63
23
10 3 2
58
27
10 4 1
36
49
31
12
55
29
9 4 3
47
38
32
14
58
24
6 2
11
50
32
7 1
12
45
36
5 2
14
56
24
7 1
13
36
44
8 1
12
45
35
23
18
57
20
5 6
13
52
24
4 3
19
49
26
8 3
15
39
36
7 3
15
58
17
32
21
56
19
9 1
16
45
29
9 1
20
53
18
12 0
18
42
28
9 2
19
43
27
7 4
20
51
19
7 1
24
53
17
3 6
22
48
20
6 3
23
51
17
4 2
26
49
19
4 5
25
56
11
9
5
19
49
18
6
11
17
50
16
8 1
25
47
19
2
17
16
34
30
3
12
21
46
19
11 2
23
47
17
1
17
19
44
18
4
11
23
49
13
5
14
20
41
20
5
9
28
48
9
3
14
27
39
17
3
18
23
43
12
7
12
27
37
19
5
21
20
37
17
4
9
33
38
15
3
21
25
42
10
2
13
33
37
14
4
20
25
36
16
5
9
37
42
7
8
17
27
37
11
10
14
28
40
8
3
13
39
37
8
1
24
32
35
8
3
22
34
32
9
3
21
37
30
9
4
33
28
28
6
3
36
31
18
12
1
38
30
21
10
2
47
24
21
6
1
58
25
12
5
2
56
30
2 11
43
0
20
53
54
40
60
44
80
Rostock (DE)
Groningen (NL)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Oviedo (ES)
Braga (PT)
Bordeaux (FR)
Białystok (PL)
Luxembourg (LU)
Rennes (FR)
Leipzig (DE)
Málaga (ES)
Hamburg (DE)
Wien (AT)
München (DE)
Cardiff (UK)
Oulu (FI)
Lille (FR)
Aalborg (DK)
Verona (IT)
Antalya (TR)
Strasbourg (FR)
Newcastle (UK)
Helsinki (FI)
Belfast (UK)
Dublin (IE)
Bologna (IT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Marseille (FR)
Dortmund (DE)
Liège (BE)
Graz (AT)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Ljubljana (SI)
Essen (DE)
Ankara (TR)
Lisboa (PT)
Irakleio (EL)
Gdansk (PL)
Torino (IT)
Barcelona (ES)
Stockholm (SE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Berlin (DE)
Kosice (SK)
Malmö (SE)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Madrid (ES)
Zagreb (HR)
Manchester (UK)
Paris (FR)
Lefkosia (CY)
Miskolc (HU)
Tallinn (EE)
København (DK)
Kraków (PL)
Palermo (IT)
Vilnius (LT)
Riga (LV)
Rotterdam (NL)
Roma (IT)
London (UK)
Glasgow (UK)
Bratislava (SK)
Valletta (MT)
Antwerpen (BE)
Praha (CZ)
Napoli (IT)
Warszawa (PL)
Ostrava (CZ)
Budapest (HU)
Burgas (BG)
İstanbul (TR)
Bucureşti (RO)
Athinia (EL)
Sofia (BG)
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
2.2 Cities committed to fight climate change The proportion of respondents who somewhat or strongly agreed that their city was committed to fight
climate change (e.g. by promoting eco-friendly means of transport) ranged from 14% in Sofia to 76%
in Luxembourg. Munich, Newcastle and Bordeaux joined Luxembourg at the higher end of the
ranking (between 68% and 70% agreed), with Burgas and Palermo joining Sofia at the lower end
(20% and 26%, respectively, agreed). Considerably less variation was observed in the proportion of
respondents who strongly agreed that their city was committed to fight climate change – in a majority
of cities in this study between one-tenth and one-fifth of respondents expressed strong agreement.
Many respondents found it difficult to answer this question about their city’s commitment to fight
climate change. In Piatra Neamt, Tallinn, Vilnius, Antwerp, Kosice and Burgas, more than 3 in 10
respondents gave a “don’t know” response (between 32% and 36%). In Dublin, Luxembourg, London,
Barcelona and Belfast, however, less than a tenth of respondents did not answer this question.
A comparison with the results discussed in the previous sections about healthy and clean cities once
more showed similarities in the city rankings – cities where respondents were more likely to agree that
there was a commitment to fight climate change were also the ones where respondents were, for
example, somewhat more likely to agree that their city was a healthy place to live. The four scatter
plots below show, nevertheless, that the correlation coefficients were somewhat smaller than most
coefficients discussed earlier in the report.
Correlation coefficients : air pollution, noise, a clean city, a healthy city
“air pollution”
% disagreeing that air pollution is a big problem 100
Correlation coefficient:
rxy = .537
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% agreeing that the city is committed to fight climate change
page 39
“noise”
100
Correlation coefficient:
rxy = .599
% disagreeing that noise is a big problem 90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% agreeing that the city is committed to fight climate change
“a clean city”
100
90
% agreeing that the city is clean 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Correlation coefficient:
rxy = .516
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% agreeing that the city is committed to fight climate change
“a healthy city”
% agreeing that the city is a healthy place to live 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Correlation coefficient:
rxy = .639
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% agreeing that the city is committed to fight climate change
100
page 41
3. Administrative services and city spending
Resources spent in a responsible way In a third of the cities in this study (24 out of 75), at least a slim majority of respondents thought that
their city spent its resources in a responsible way. Interviewees in Luxembourg, Bordeaux and Piatra
Neamt most frequently agreed that this was the case (69%, 67% and 65%, respectively). In the 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%).
The city spends its resources in a responsible way
The city spends its resources in a responsible way
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
DK/NA
12
3
16
Luxembourg (LU)
52
17
20
6
8
Bordeaux (FR)
52
15
20
5
10
Piatra Neamț (RO)
30
35
16
7
14
Groningen (NL)
51
12
15
9
14
Newcastle (UK)
45
18
20
3
15
Stockholm (SE)
48
13
13
9
17
Braga (PT)
43
18
22
6
14
Białystok (PL)
35
23
10
12
20
Oviedo (ES)
44
15
22
6
14
Malmö (SE)
45
13
22
7
14
35
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
22
25
6
13
46
Lille (FR)
11
23
4
17
München (DE)
44
13
23
6
14
48
Rennes (FR)
8
11
13
20
43
Cardiff (UK)
13
11
9
25
Aalborg (DK)
45
11
20
8
17
42
Verona (IT)
13
10
7
29
47
Helsinki (FI)
7
15
11
20
Antalya (TR)
32
22
18
12
17
36
Irakleio (EL)
18
10
16
22
39
Belfast (UK)
13
21
4
24
Rotterdam (NL)
41
11
23
5
20
44
Strasbourg (FR)
8
16
16
18
37
Manchester (UK)
14
12
21
17
39
Glasgow (UK)
11
26
7
17
45
Antwerpen (BE) 5
21
9
21
38
Wien (AT)
11
23
9
20
37
Valletta (MT)
12
18
11
22
36
Bologna (IT)
13
20
11
22
38
Torino (IT)
10
23
10
22
35
Kraków (PL)
11
17
17
21
29
Diyarbakir (TR)
16
12
10
34
38
Oulu (FI)
6
25
6
25
Ostrava (CZ)
37
7
21
14
21
Gdansk (PL)
34
11
15
13
28
38
Málaga (ES)
6
16
11
30
40
København (DK) 4
11
19
28
30
Ankara (TR)
14
13
20
24
34
London (UK)
9
17
18
23
34
Lisboa (PT)
8
22
12
25
37
Paris (FR) 4
21
19
20
33
Ljubljana (SI)
8
22
13
25
34
Praha (CZ)
6
22
19
20
32
Marseille (FR)
7
10
26
26
31
İstanbul (TR)
8
35
16
12
23
Burgas (BG)
14
14
17
33
28
Graz (AT)
8
16
15
34
28
Amsterdam (NL)
7
11
17
37
28
Madrid (ES)
7
6
33
26
24
Dublin (IE)
11
10
19
37
30
Barcelona (ES) 4
14
12
41
30
Hamburg (DE) 4
34
17
16
24
Miskolc (HU)
9
19
21
27
28
Warszawa (PL) 5
22
15
32
28
Liège (BE) 4
35
6
28
27
Kosice (SK) 4
21
21
29
22
Lefkosia (CY)
7
18
13
40
26
Rostock (DE) 3
19
12
40
26
Leipzig (DE) 2
8
49
16
19
Zagreb (HR)
9
32
15
26
24
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 3
24
25
25
18
Tallinn (EE)
8
32
13
29
23
Bratislava (SK) 3
22
24
28
18
Roma (IT)
8
15
15
45
23
Essen (DE) 2
30
30
19
17
Sofia (BG) 5
16
47
18
15
Bucureşti (RO) 5
20
36
25
14
Napoli (IT) 5
14
19
48
16
Berlin (DE) 2
10
31
42
14
Dortmund (DE) 3
12
54
19
Palermo (IT) 4 11
15
45
25
Athinia (EL) 4 11
21
48
18
Riga (LV) 2 12
23
36
28
Vilnius (LT) 3 10
20
52
19
Budapest (HU) 2 7
0
20
40
60
80
Luxembourg (LU)
Bordeaux (FR)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Groningen (NL)
Newcastle (UK)
Stockholm (SE)
Braga (PT)
Białystok (PL)
Oviedo (ES)
Malmö (SE)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Lille (FR)
München (DE)
Rennes (FR)
Cardiff (UK)
Aalborg (DK)
Verona (IT)
Helsinki (FI)
Antalya (TR)
Irakleio (EL)
Belfast (UK)
Rotterdam (NL)
Strasbourg (FR)
Manchester (UK)
Glasgow (UK)
Antwerpen (BE)
Wien (AT)
Valletta (MT)
Bologna (IT)
Torino (IT)
Kraków (PL)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Oulu (FI)
Ostrava (CZ)
Gdansk (PL)
Málaga (ES)
København (DK)
Ankara (TR)
London (UK)
Lisboa (PT)
Paris (FR)
Ljubljana (SI)
Praha (CZ)
Marseille (FR)
İstanbul (TR)
Burgas (BG)
Graz (AT)
Amsterdam (NL)
Madrid (ES)
Dublin (IE)
Barcelona (ES)
Hamburg (DE)
Miskolc (HU)
Warszawa (PL)
Liège (BE)
Kosice (SK)
Lefkosia (CY)
Rostock (DE)
Leipzig (DE)
Zagreb (HR)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Tallinn (EE)
Bratislava (SK)
Roma (IT)
Essen (DE)
Sofia (BG)
Bucureşti (RO)
Napoli (IT)
Berlin (DE)
Dortmund (DE)
Palermo (IT)
Athinia (EL)
Riga (LV)
Vilnius (LT)
Budapest (HU)
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 43
4. Satisfaction with cities’ infrastructure
Satisfaction with cultural facilities In a majority of cities (54 of 75), at least three-quarters of respondents were satisfied with their own
city’s cultural facilities, such as concert halls, museums and libraries. In about half of the 54 cities,
more than 50% of respondents were very satisfied with these facilities; this proportion was highest in
Vienna (74%), Cardiff (71%), Newcastle (68%), Munich (71%), Berlin (68%) and Amsterdam (66%).
In the above-mentioned cities, less than 1 in 20 respondents were dissatisfied with their city’s cultural
facilities (e.g. 2% in Cardiff and 3% in Berlin). More than a quarter of respondents said they were
rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with cultural facilities in Braga (26%), Malaga (27%), Palermo
(30%), Nicosia (39%), Valletta (42%), Iraklion (45%) and Naples (46%). Nevertheless, only in
Valletta and Naples did these unsatisfied respondents outnumber satisfied ones (Valletta: 42%
“unsatisfied” vs. 35% “satisfied”; Naples: 46% “unsatisfied” vs. 41% “satisfied”).
In many cities at the bottom of the ranking, a considerable number of respondents did not answer the
question about cultural facilities. The largest proportions of “don’t know” responses were recorded in
Turkish cities included in this study: 35% in Diyarbakir, 31% in Antalya and 30% in Ankara.
Satisfaction with cultural facilities (e.g. concert halls and museums)
Satisfaction with cultural facilities (e.g. concert halls and museums)
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 Neamț (RO)
Verona (IT)
Marseille (FR)
Lisboa (PT)
Riga (LV)
Roma (IT)
Bucureşti (RO)
Braga (PT)
Athinia (EL)
Málaga (ES)
Palermo (IT)
Sofia (BG)
İstanbul (TR)
Lefkosia (CY)
Ankara (TR)
Antalya (TR)
Burgas (BG)
Irakleio (EL)
Napoli (IT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Valletta (MT)
Rather satisfied
Rather unsatisfied
71
Not at all satisfied
DK/NA
25
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
0
20
35
40
60
80
Cardiff (UK)
Helsinki (FI)
Wien (AT)
Glasgow (UK)
København (DK)
Berlin (DE)
Amsterdam (NL)
München (DE)
Newcastle (UK)
Paris (FR)
Dublin (IE)
Leipzig (DE)
Stockholm (SE)
Groningen (NL)
Aalborg (DK)
Luxembourg (LU)
Belfast (UK)
Manchester (UK)
Hamburg (DE)
London (UK)
Essen (DE)
Strasbourg (FR)
Graz (AT)
Oulu (FI)
Malmö (SE)
Ljubljana (SI)
Rotterdam (NL)
Dortmund (DE)
Budapest (HU)
Tallinn (EE)
Warszawa (PL)
Praha (CZ)
Rennes (FR)
Kraków (PL)
Miskolc (HU)
Antwerpen (BE)
Barcelona (ES)
Gdansk (PL)
Lille (FR)
Kosice (SK)
Madrid (ES)
Bratislava (SK)
Bordeaux (FR)
Torino (IT)
Oviedo (ES)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Ostrava (CZ)
Rostock (DE)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Liège (BE)
Bologna (IT)
Vilnius (LT)
Białystok (PL)
Zagreb (HR)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Verona (IT)
Marseille (FR)
Lisboa (PT)
Riga (LV)
Roma (IT)
Bucureşti (RO)
Braga (PT)
Athinia (EL)
Málaga (ES)
Palermo (IT)
Sofia (BG)
İstanbul (TR)
Lefkosia (CY)
Ankara (TR)
Antalya (TR)
Burgas (BG)
Irakleio (EL)
Napoli (IT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Valletta (MT)
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 45
Satisfaction with public spaces – markets and pedestrian areas Satisfaction with public spaces was generally high: in 69 cities, a majority of respondents said they
were very or rather satisfied with public spaces, such as markets and pedestrian areas in their city.
Citizens of Oviedo, Munich, Groningen, Malmo, Cardiff, Luxembourg, Rennes, Newcastle and Piatra
Neamt expressed the highest levels of satisfaction (between 90% and 96%). Furthermore, in most of
these cities, more than 4 in 10 respondents were very satisfied, and less than 1 in 10 citizens were
dissatisfied with their city’s public spaces.
Many cities at the higher end of this ranking (where most respondents were satisfied with their city’s
markets and pedestrian areas) were situated in northern and western European countries – such as
Groningen and Malmo (see above), Aalborg, Stockholm and Strasbourg. One of the most notable
exceptions at the higher end of the ranking, however, was Piatra Neamt where 46% of respondents
were very satisfied and 44% rather satisfied with the public spaces of their city.
A very different picture emerged at the lower end of the ranking: all of those cities were located in
southern and eastern European countries. In Sofia, Bucharest, Athens, Naples, Palermo and Nicosia,
less than half of respondents were very or rather satisfied with their city’s public spaces (between 35%
and 49%) – the corresponding proportions of unsatisfied respondents were between 51% in Palermo
and 65% in Athens. It is of interest to note that while Piatra Neamt scored among the highest cities in
terms of satisfaction with public spaces, Bucharest was among the lowest.
Focusing on respondents who selected the more extreme responses of being “very satisfied”, while
almost half of interviewees living in Munich, Newcastle and Piatra Neamt selected this response, this
proportion dropped to less than 10% in the lowest ranked cities (e.g. 6% in Naples and 9% in Nicosia).
Furthermore, the proportion of “not at all satisfied” respondents was at least twice as high in the
following cities: 19% in Palermo, 20% in Naples, 21% in Bucharest, 25% in Sofia, 30% in Nicosia
and 37% in Athens.
Satisfaction with public spaces (e.g. markets or pedestrian areas)
Satisfaction with public spaces (e.g. markets or pedestrian areas)
Very satisfied
Oviedo (ES)
München (DE)
Groningen (NL)
Malmö (SE)
Cardiff (UK)
Luxembourg (LU)
Rennes (FR)
Newcastle (UK)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Kosice (SK)
Bordeaux (FR)
Aalborg (DK)
Leipzig (DE)
Stockholm (SE)
Lille (FR)
Kraków (PL)
Hamburg (DE)
Strasbourg (FR)
Rostock (DE)
Glasgow (UK)
Torino (IT)
Paris (FR)
Helsinki (FI)
Amsterdam (NL)
London (UK)
Białystok (PL)
Rotterdam (NL)
Dortmund (DE)
Manchester (UK)
Kobenhavn (DK)
Oulu (FI)
Wien (AT)
Ostrava (CZ)
Antalya (TR)
Belfast (UK)
Graz (AT)
Antwerpen (BE)
Madrid (ES)
Zagreb (HR)
Berlin (DE)
Dublin (IE)
Praha (CZ)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Ljubljana (SI)
Braga (PT)
Gdansk (PL)
Barcelona (ES)
Bologna (IT)
Ankara (TR)
Essen (DE)
Verona (IT)
Bratislava (SK)
Miskolc (HU)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Burgas (BG)
Marseille (FR)
Liège (BE)
Tallinn (EE)
Budapest (HU)
Lisboa (PT)
Málaga (ES)
Warszawa (PL)
Vilnius (LT)
İstanbul (TR)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Roma (IT)
Riga (LV)
Irakleio (EL)
Valletta (MT)
Palermo (IT)
Bucureşti (RO)
Napoli (IT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Sofia (BG)
Athinia (EL)
Rather satisfied
Rather unsatisfied
43
47
44
Not at all satisfied
DK/NA
53
47
50
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
20
40
60
80
Oviedo (ES)
München (DE)
Groningen (NL)
Malmö (SE)
Cardiff (UK)
Luxembourg (LU)
Rennes (FR)
Newcastle (UK)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Kosice (SK)
Bordeaux (FR)
Aalborg (DK)
Leipzig (DE)
Stockholm (SE)
Lille (FR)
Kraków (PL)
Hamburg (DE)
Strasbourg (FR)
Rostock (DE)
Glasgow (UK)
Torino (IT)
Paris (FR)
Helsinki (FI)
Amsterdam (NL)
London (UK)
Białystok (PL)
Rotterdam (NL)
Dortmund (DE)
Manchester (UK)
Kobenhavn (DK)
Oulu (FI)
Wien (AT)
Ostrava (CZ)
Antalya (TR)
Belfast (UK)
Graz (AT)
Antwerpen (BE)
Madrid (ES)
Zagreb (HR)
Berlin (DE)
Dublin (IE)
Praha (CZ)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Ljubljana (SI)
Braga (PT)
Gdansk (PL)
Barcelona (ES)
Bologna (IT)
Ankara (TR)
Essen (DE)
Verona (IT)
Bratislava (SK)
Miskolc (HU)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Burgas (BG)
Marseille (FR)
Liège (BE)
Tallinn (EE)
Budapest (HU)
Lisboa (PT)
Málaga (ES)
Warszawa (PL)
Vilnius (LT)
İstanbul (TR)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Roma (IT)
Riga (LV)
Irakleio (EL)
Valletta (MT)
Palermo (IT)
Bucureşti (RO)
Napoli (IT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Sofia (BG)
Athinia (EL)
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 47
Satisfaction with “the beauty of streets and buildings in one’s neighbourhood” Citizens of Oviedo were not only the most likely to be satisfied with public spaces in their city, they
were also among the most likely to be happy with the beauty of the streets and buildings in their
neighbourhood: 49% of respondents were very satisfied and 47% were rather satisfied.
Generally speaking, satisfaction with the beauty of streets and buildings in respondents’
neighbourhoods was high. In 25 cities, at least three-quarters of interviewees were content (ranging
from 75% in Leipzig to 96% in Oviedo – see above) and in another 40 cities, between half and 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%).
Satisfaction with the beauty of streets in my neighbourhood
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
0
20
45
40
60
47
80
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 49
Satisfaction with public parks and gardens (green spaces) Citizens of Malmo, Munich, Groningen, Cardiff and Luxembourg were not only among the most
likely to be satisfied with public spaces in their city, they were also among the most satisfied with
what their city had to offer in terms of green spaces, such as public parks and gardens. In these cities,
between 92% and 94% of interviewees were happy with this aspect of their city. There were six more
cities were at least 90% of satisfied citizens: Leipzig and Hamburg (both 93%), Bordeaux, Stockholm,
Bialystok (all 91%) and Glasgow (90%).
Respondents in Malmo, Munich, Hamburg, Cardiff and Bialystok were also the most likely to be very
satisfied with their city’s parks and gardens (between 55% and 63%). The proportion of “very
satisfied” respondents, however, dropped to about 1 in 20 in Athens and Palermo (4%-6%).
A closer look at the lower end of the ranking showed that respondents in Athens or Palermo were not
the only ones with a low level of satisfaction about available green spaces in their city, as the same
was true for respondents in Iraklion, Naples and Nicosia. In each of these cities, less than 4 in 10
respondents were satisfied with gardens, parks and other green areas in their city; the proportions of
dissatisfied respondents, however, were considerably higher: 76% in Athens, 67% in Iraklion, 63% in
Naples, 61% in Nicosia and 60% in Palermo.
A comparison, between the results of the 2006 and 2009 perception surveys showed that in a majority
of cities in this study, satisfaction levels with cities’ parks, gardens and other green areas have
increased. The highest rises were measured in Burgas (from 56% in 2006 to 82% in 2009; +24
percentage points), Bratislava (from 36% in 2006 to 60% in 2009; +24 percentage points), Antwerp
(from 56% in 2006 to 78% in 2009; +22 percentage points) and Sofia (from 26% in 2006 to 48% in
2009; +22 percentage points).
In about one-third of cities, satisfaction levels with green spaces and facilities have remained the same
in the past few years, while in a few cities respondents were now less satisfied than they were three
years ago: Nicosia (-14 percentage points), Iraklion (-12), Athens (-9), Brussels (-9), Palermo, Valetta
and Roma (all -6).
Satisfaction with green spaces (e.g. parks and gardens)
Satisfaction with green spaces (e.g. parks and gardens)
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 Neamț (RO)
Oulu (FI)
Rennes (FR)
København (DK)
Riga (LV)
London (UK)
Dublin (IE)
Belfast (UK)
Dortmund (DE)
Warszawa (PL)
Torino (IT)
Strasbourg (FR)
Kraków (PL)
Rotterdam (NL)
Wien (AT)
Rostock (DE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Berlin (DE)
Paris (FR)
Burgas (BG)
Aalborg (DK)
Tallinn (EE)
Antalya (TR)
Lille (FR)
Essen (DE)
Gdansk (PL)
Madrid (ES)
Antwerpen (BE)
Graz (AT)
Bologna (IT)
Ankara (TR)
Ljubljana (SI)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Praha (CZ)
Ostrava (CZ)
Manchester (UK)
Marseille (FR)
Zagreb (HR)
Kosice (SK)
Verona (IT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Roma (IT)
Bucureşti (RO)
Liège (BE)
Vilnius (LT)
İstanbul (TR)
Bratislava (SK)
Miskolc (HU)
Barcelona (ES)
Braga (PT)
Budapest (HU)
Lisboa (PT)
Málaga (ES)
Sofia (BG)
Valletta (MT)
Palermo (IT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Napoli (IT)
Irakleio (EL)
Athinia (EL)
Rather satisfied
Rather unsatisfied
62
63
Not at all satisfied
DK/NA
32
31
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
20
40
60
80
Malmö (SE)
München (DE)
Leipzig (DE)
Groningen (NL)
Hamburg (DE)
Cardiff (UK)
Luxembourg (LU)
Bordeaux (FR)
Stockholm (SE)
Białystok (PL)
Glasgow (UK)
Newcastle (UK)
Oviedo (ES)
Helsinki (FI)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Oulu (FI)
Rennes (FR)
København (DK)
Riga (LV)
London (UK)
Dublin (IE)
Belfast (UK)
Dortmund (DE)
Warszawa (PL)
Torino (IT)
Strasbourg (FR)
Kraków (PL)
Rotterdam (NL)
Wien (AT)
Rostock (DE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Berlin (DE)
Paris (FR)
Burgas (BG)
Aalborg (DK)
Tallinn (EE)
Antalya (TR)
Lille (FR)
Essen (DE)
Gdansk (PL)
Madrid (ES)
Antwerpen (BE)
Graz (AT)
Bologna (IT)
Ankara (TR)
Ljubljana (SI)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Praha (CZ)
Ostrava (CZ)
Manchester (UK)
Marseille (FR)
Zagreb (HR)
Kosice (SK)
Verona (IT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Roma (IT)
Bucureşti (RO)
Liège (BE)
Vilnius (LT)
İstanbul (TR)
Bratislava (SK)
Miskolc (HU)
Barcelona (ES)
Braga (PT)
Budapest (HU)
Lisboa (PT)
Málaga (ES)
Sofia (BG)
Valletta (MT)
Palermo (IT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Napoli (IT)
Irakleio (EL)
Athinia (EL)
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 51
Satisfaction with opportunities for outdoor recreation Not surprisingly, results for satisfaction with outdoor recreational opportunities (such as walking or
cycling) showed many similarities with those for satisfaction with green spaces (public parks, gardens
etc.) in the surveyed European cities. For both questions, a high level of satisfaction was measured in a
majority of surveyed cities. Furthermore, similarities were seen in the ranking of cities for both
questions – with the same ones appearing at the higher and lower ends.
Respondents in Oulu and Helsinki were the most likely to be satisfied with the possibilities for outdoor
recreation that their city had to offer (95% and 93%, respectively). Additionally, a majority of
respondents in these cities reported being very satisfied with this aspect of city life (68% and 56%,
respectively). Groningen, Cardiff, Munich, Rotterdam, Stockholm, Newcastle and Bordeaux joined the
Finnish cities at the higher end of the ranking with between 85% and 90% of satisfied citizens.
None of the highest ranked, in terms of satisfaction with outdoor recreational opportunities, were
located in southern or eastern Europe; the highest ranked eastern European city was Prague (with 82%
of satisfied citizens – 16th position), while the highest ranked southern European city was Turin (with
79% of satisfied citizens – 24th position).
Respondents in Athens were not only the least satisfied with public parks and gardens in their city,
they were also the least likely to be satisfied with the opportunities for cycling, walking and other
outdoor recreation: just 23% of interviewees in Athens were satisfied, while 48% were not at all
satisfied. Naples, Palermo, Valletta, Nicosia and Iraklion – once again – joined Athens at the lower
end of the ranking with between 48% and 68% of dissatisfied respondents.
In some cities, a considerable number of respondents found it difficult to answer the question about
outdoor recreation. The largest proportions of “don’t know” responses were recorded in Riga and
Bucharest (22%-23%).
Satisfaction with outdoor recreation (e.g. walking or cycling)
Satisfaction with outdoor recreation (e.g. walking or cycling)
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 Neamț (RO)
Marseille (FR)
Kraków (PL)
Verona (IT)
Oviedo (ES)
Zagreb (HR)
Tallinn (EE)
Ankara (TR)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Sofia (BG)
Braga (PT)
Warszawa (PL)
Madrid (ES)
Liège (BE)
Paris (FR)
Miskolc (HU)
Lisboa (PT)
Barcelona (ES)
Burgas (BG)
Roma (IT)
Málaga (ES)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Budapest (HU)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Istanbul (TR)
Vilnius (LT)
Irakleio (EL)
Riga (LV)
Lefkosia (CY)
Valletta (MT)
Palermo (IT)
Napoli (IT)
Bucureşti (RO)
Athinia (EL)
Rather satisfied
Rather unsatisfied
68
Not at all satisfied
DK/NA
27
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
0
20
37
40
60
80
Oulu (FI)
Helsinki (FI)
Groningen (NL)
Cardiff (UK)
München (DE)
Rotterdam (NL)
Stockholm (SE)
Newcastle (UK)
Bordeaux (FR)
Leipzig (DE)
København (DK)
Malmö (SE)
Aalborg (DK)
Luxembourg (LU)
Strasbourg (FR)
Praha (CZ)
Hamburg (DE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Rennes (FR)
Belfast (UK)
Wien (AT)
Glasgow (UK)
Graz (AT)
Torino (IT)
Lille (FR)
Gdansk (PL)
Ostrava (CZ)
Ljubljana (SI)
Essen (DE)
Antwerpen (BE)
Dortmund (DE)
Berlin (DE)
Dublin (IE)
London (UK)
Manchester (UK)
Rostock (DE)
Antalya (TR)
Kosice (SK)
Białystok (PL)
Bologna (IT)
Bratislava (SK)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Marseille (FR)
Kraków (PL)
Verona (IT)
Oviedo (ES)
Zagreb (HR)
Tallinn (EE)
Ankara (TR)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Sofia (BG)
Braga (PT)
Warszawa (PL)
Madrid (ES)
Liège (BE)
Paris (FR)
Miskolc (HU)
Lisboa (PT)
Barcelona (ES)
Burgas (BG)
Roma (IT)
Málaga (ES)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Budapest (HU)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Istanbul (TR)
Vilnius (LT)
Irakleio (EL)
Riga (LV)
Lefkosia (CY)
Valletta (MT)
Palermo (IT)
Napoli (IT)
Bucureşti (RO)
Athinia (EL)
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 53
Sports facilities Most city dwellers had no difficulties in answering the satisfaction questions discussed in the previous
section (e.g. about public places or green spaces and facilities). A different picture, however, emerged
when they were asked to estimate their satisfaction with their city’s sports facilities (such as sports
fields and indoor sports halls). The proportion of “don’t know” responses ranged from 3%-4% in the
Finnish cities – Helsinki and Oulu – to 44% in Liege and Riga. Other cities with a very high
proportion of respondents who did not answer this question were Antalya (40%), Diyarbakir (37%)
and Ankara (36%) in Turkey.
Respondents in Helsinki, Oulu and Groningen were not only among the most likely to be satisfied
with their city’s outdoor recreational opportunities, they were also (by far) the most likely to be
satisfied with the sports facilities on offer: 92% in Helsinki, 89% in Oulu and 88% in Groningen. In
each of these cities, at least 4 in 10 respondents were very satisfied with these types of facilities (45%,
40% and 52%, respectively).
In the cities at the lower end of the ranking, however, a large proportion of respondents did not answer
the question; of those who did, however, dissatisfied respondents outnumbered the satisfied. In
Naples, 28% of respondents said they were happy with their city’s sports facilities, while almost twice
as many said they were not satisfied (29% “rather unsatisfied” and 24% “not at all satisfied”). The
corresponding proportions were 30% “satisfied” vs. 44% “unsatisfied” in Bucharest, 31% “satisfied”
vs. 38% “unsatisfied” in Sofia and 32% “satisfied” vs. 51% “unsatisfied” in Palermo.
A comparison with the results of the previous perception survey showed the proportion of respondents
who were satisfied with their city’s sports facilities has increased in about one-third of the surveyed
cities.
Satisfaction with sports facilities (e.g. sports fields and indoor sport halls)
Satisfaction with sports facilities (e.g. sports fields and indoor sport halls)
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 Neamț (RO)
Verona (IT)
Tallinn (EE)
Belfast (UK)
Praha (CZ)
Bologna (IT)
Rostock (DE)
Strasbourg (FR)
Berlin (DE)
Madrid (ES)
Barcelona (ES)
Wien (AT)
Antwerpen (BE)
Málaga (ES)
Zagreb (HR)
Ljubljana (SI)
Graz (AT)
Stockholm (SE)
Torino (IT)
London (UK)
Irakleio (EL)
Marseille (FR)
Lefkosia (CY)
København (DK)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Kosice (SK)
Warszawa (PL)
Paris (FR)
Essen (DE)
Roma (IT)
Valletta (MT)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Bratislava (SK)
Lisboa (PT)
Kraków (PL)
Białystok (PL)
Gdansk (PL)
Athinia (EL)
Burgas (BG)
İstanbul (TR)
Ankara (TR)
Antalya (TR)
Liège (BE)
Miskolc (HU)
Budapest (HU)
Vilnius (LT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Palermo (IT)
Sofia (BG)
Bucureşti (RO)
Riga (LV)
Napoli (IT)
Rather satisfied
Rather unsatisfied
Not at all satisfied
DK/NA
5 03
6 14
31 7
36
52
8 1 12
43
36
16
5 2
43
35
15
8 1
44
32
15
8 2
39
37
16
6 3
42
34
16
7 1
37
38
17
8 1
51
23
19
5 3
36
38
19
8 1
52
21
9
7
13
42
30
21
7 2
46
25
15
6
10
38
31
15
3
13
57
12
24
6 1
40
29
19
7 5
36
33
14
4
14
44
24
18
11 2
41
27
15
3
14
50
18
17
2
15
45
22
18
2
13
38
29
16
9
9
38
28
21
10 3
51
15
25
7 3
41
25
17
6
13
34
30
19
3
13
43
22
25
10 1
48
16
14
3
20
46
17
22
2
13
46
17
19
2
17
41
22
15
5
17
48
14
15
5
17
50
13
26
10 2
41
21
32
5 2
36
25
10
7
23
47
13
12
9
20
35
25
15
7
19
47
13
21
1
18
41
18
28
10 3
39
20
32
8 3
45
13
22
6
14
40
17
14
13
17
34
22
20
10
15
40
14
16
13
16
36
19
25
6
17
34
19
23
6
18
37
16
20
5
22
39
14
25
7
17
39
13
25
4
20
38
13
18
7
26
35
15
21
9
21
39
10
24
12
15
33
16
38
11 3
34
14
24
6
23
37
11
30
6
17
38
10
20
12
22
36
11
23
7
24
37
9
21
9
25
37
9
19
18
21
30
12
23
12
23
27
15
33
15
11
25
16
36
12
11
26
15
40
10
9
23
18
44
6
10
32
9
23
10
27
29
11
35
10
16
31
8
33
10
19
27
11
37
21
10
20
12
18
22
29
29
3
31
17
21
20
11
26
25
19
23
7
44
10
16
20
10
20
24
29
25
3
45
40
0
20
49
40
60
47
80
Helsinki (FI)
Oulu (FI)
Groningen (NL)
Luxembourg (LU)
Cardiff (UK)
Amsterdam (NL)
Aalborg (DK)
Rotterdam (NL)
München (DE)
Lille (FR)
Newcastle (UK)
Rennes (FR)
Dublin (IE)
Bordeaux (FR)
Glasgow (UK)
Oviedo (ES)
Malmö (SE)
Manchester (UK)
Dortmund (DE)
Ostrava (CZ)
Braga (PT)
Leipzig (DE)
Hamburg (DE)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Verona (IT)
Tallinn (EE)
Belfast (UK)
Praha (CZ)
Bologna (IT)
Rostock (DE)
Strasbourg (FR)
Berlin (DE)
Madrid (ES)
Barcelona (ES)
Wien (AT)
Antwerpen (BE)
Málaga (ES)
Zagreb (HR)
Ljubljana (SI)
Graz (AT)
Stockholm (SE)
Torino (IT)
London (UK)
Irakleio (EL)
Marseille (FR)
Lefkosia (CY)
København (DK)
Cluj‐Napoc (RO)
Kosice (SK)
Warszawa (PL)
Paris (FR)
Essen (DE)
Roma (IT)
Valletta (MT)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Bratislava (SK)
Lisboa (PT)
Kraków (PL)
Białystok (PL)
Gdansk (PL)
Athinia (EL)
Burgas (BG)
İstanbul (TR)
Ankara (TR)
Antalya (TR)
Liège (BE)
Miskolc (HU)
Budapest (HU)
Vilnius (LT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Palermo (IT)
Sofia (BG)
Bucureşti (RO)
Riga (LV)
Napoli (IT)
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 55
General satisfaction with a city’s facilities Overall, however, a positive picture emerged in terms of city dwellers’ satisfaction with the various
types of facilities that cities provide. In a majority of the surveyed cities (e.g. Newcastle, Oviedo and
Ostrava), at least three-quarters of respondents reported being satisfied with at least four of the six
items listed in the survey, while this proportion dropped below 50% in just 11 cities (e.g. Valetta and
Iraklion). Finally, the proportion of respondents who were satisfied with just one, or even none, of the
types of facilities listed in the survey remained below 10% in more than two-thirds of surveyed cities.
Interestingly, cities where many respondents expressed their satisfaction with each one of the facilities
listed in the survey were also the ones where respondents were more likely to agree that their city
spent its resources in a responsible way – as illustrated in the scatter plot below. For example, a large
majority (64%) of respondents in Groningen expressed their satisfaction with each one of the facilities
listed in the survey and a similar proportion (63%) thought that their city spent its resources in a
responsible way.
Correlation between “satisfaction with a city’s facilities and amenities” and “responsible
management”
Correlation between “satisfaction with a city’s facilities and
amenities” and “responsible management”
% 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
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% satisfied with all six facilities and amenities
90
100
page 57
5. Satisfaction with public transport
5.1 Frequency of using public transport When city dwellers were asked how frequently they used their city’s public transport, Nicosia stood
out from the pack with 84% of respondents saying they never used public transport. In the remaining
cities, however, this proportion ranged from less than 5% in Paris, Helsinki and Prague to about 50%
in Braga and Palermo (47% and 53%, respectively).
The largest proportions of “frequent public transport users”, on the other hand, were found in Paris,
London, Prague, Stockholm and Budapest – there, at least three-quarters of respondents took a bus,
metro or another means of public transport in their city at least once a week (between 75% and 86%).
Furthermore, between 44% and 59% of respondents in these capital cities used public transport every
single day of the week.
A majority of Europe’s capitals were ranked in the highest third of this ranking (i.e. cities with the
most “frequent public transport users”). Several capitals were listed in the previous paragraphs
(Stockholm, London etc.), but the top third also included cities such as Riga (73% of “frequent public
transport users”), Warsaw (70%), Madrid (73%) and Lisbon (64%).
Strikingly, two of Europe’s capitals, Rome and Amsterdam were ranked among cities where less than
half of respondents took a bus, metro or another means of public transport in their city at least once a
week (41% and 44%, respectively). In Rome, 45% of respondents said they used public transport less
than once a month or never. The corresponding proportion for Amsterdam was lower – at 32%.
In Nicosia, Oulu, Palermo and Braga, on the other hand, two-thirds or more respondents used public
transport in their city less than once a month (or never). It was noted above that 84% of respondents in
Nicosia never used public transport – however, this proportion was five times smaller in Oulu (17% –
the corresponding proportions for Palermo and Braga were, respectively, 43% and 47%). In Oulu,
about half of respondents (48%) said that although they used public transport, this was less than once a
month.
Frequency of using public transport
Frequency of using public transport
Every day
At least once a week
At least once a month
Less than once a month
Never
6 6 2
27
59
6 5
11
34
44
8 4
12
28
49
5 5
14
37
39
8
8
9
26
49
3
12
11
30
43
6
8
13
38
35
7
7
13
31
42
6
9
12
32
41
5
12
13
29
41
10
10
8
23
48
6
9
14
24
46
5
10
16
28
42
13
11
7
22
47
11
13
6
24
45
9
13
9
29
40
10
11
9
24
45
10
11
11
27
41
9
14
11
23
43
14
9
12
27
37
11
15
10
24
40
16
8
12
30
33
5
12
20
34
29
7
16
15
32
30
11
15
12
29
34
10
15
13
26
37
14
13
11
26
36
12
16
13
34
26
11
11
19
33
27
13
14
16
28
30
13
14
17
32
25
11
14
18
32
24
11
12
20
29
27
16
12
16
36
20
18
18
10
24
29
7
19
22
24
29
11
13
23
30
23
10
17
21
31
21
11
14
23
30
21
15
20
14
33
18
9
19
22
30
20
11
19
20
27
23
17
22
13
27
22
6
15
31
31
17
14
15
22
30
18
24
14
16
23
23
15
20
19
33
13
12
23
19
21
24
28
11
16
24
21
19
21
15
17
28
15
20
21
24
20
17
25
15
25
19
12
20
25
29
15
15
21
21
30
13
31
18
9
24
18
18
21
19
22
20
32
13
14
21
20
23
20
15
22
18
25
16
18
26
14
22
22
17
17
22
13
24
24
23
16
24
24
13
20
19
20
21
21
27
12
20
25
17
16
21
38
13
13
20
17
29
21
13
18
19
40
16
12
18
13
39
21
13
15
12
27
27
19
17
9
42
20
12
15
11
24
29
22
19
5
47
20
9
10
14
53
14
13
13
8
17
48
20
11
4
84
4 4 2 6
Paris (FR)
London (UK)
Praha (CZ)
Stockholm (SE)
Budapest (HU)
Helsinki (FI)
Riga (LV)
Barcelona (ES)
Madrid (ES)
Kraków (PL)
Bucureşti (RO)
Warszawa (PL)
Wien (AT)
Miskolc (HU)
Sofia (BG)
Cluj‐Napoca (RO)
Tallinn (EE)
Kosice (SK)
Bratislava (SK)
Lisboa (PT)
Zagreb (HR)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
München (DE)
Berlin (DE)
Gdańsk (PL)
Białystok (PL)
Ostrava (CZ)
Newcastle (UK)
İstanbul (TR)
Rennes (FR)
Athinia (EL)
Glasgow (UK)
Ankara (TR)
Antwerpen (BE)
Vilnius (LT)
Hamburg (DE)
Graz (AT)
Strasbourg (FR)
Luxembourg (LU)
Belfast (UK)
Dublin (IE)
Rostock (DE)
Bordeaux (FR)
København (DK)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Torino (IT)
Cardiff (UK)
Leipzig (DE)
Bologna (IT)
Burgas (BG)
Ljubljana (SI)
Manchester (UK)
Amsterdam (NL)
Málaga (ES)
Liège (BE)
Rotterdam (NL)
Roma (IT)
Marseille (FR)
Antalya (TR)
Dortmund (DE)
Malmö (SE)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Oviedo (ES)
Essen (DE)
Napoli (IT)
Lille (FR)
Irakleio (EL)
Valletta (MT)
Aalborg (DK)
Verona (IT)
Groningen (NL)
Braga (PT)
Palermo (IT)
Oulu (FI)
Lefkosia (CY)
0
20
40
60
80
DK/NA
Paris (FR)
London (UK)
Praha (CZ)
Stockholm (SE)
Budapest (HU)
Helsinki (FI)
Riga (LV)
Barcelona (ES)
Madrid (ES)
Kraków (PL)
Bucureşti (RO)
Warszawa (PL)
Wien (AT)
Miskolc (HU)
Sofia (BG)
Cluj‐Napoca (RO)
Tallinn (EE)
Kosice (SK)
Bratislava (SK)
Lisboa (PT)
Zagreb (HR)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
München (DE)
Berlin (DE)
Gdańsk (PL)
Białystok (PL)
Ostrava (CZ)
Newcastle (UK)
İstanbul (TR)
Rennes (FR)
Athinia (EL)
Glasgow (UK)
Ankara (TR)
Antwerpen (BE)
Vilnius (LT)
Hamburg (DE)
Graz (AT)
Strasbourg (FR)
Luxembourg (LU)
Belfast (UK)
Dublin (IE)
Rostock (DE)
Bordeaux (FR)
København (DK)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Torino (IT)
Cardiff (UK)
Leipzig (DE)
Bologna (IT)
Burgas (BG)
Ljubljana (SI)
Manchester (UK)
Amsterdam (NL)
Málaga (ES)
Liège (BE)
Rotterdam (NL)
Roma (IT)
Marseille (FR)
Antalya (TR)
Dortmund (DE)
Malmö (SE)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Oviedo (ES)
Essen (DE)
Napoli (IT)
Lille (FR)
Irakleio (EL)
Valletta (MT)
Aalborg (DK)
Verona (IT)
Groningen (NL)
Braga (PT)
Palermo (IT)
Oulu (FI)
Lefkosia (CY)
100
Q4C. How often do you use public transport in [CITY NAME]?
Base: all respondents, % by city
page 59
5.2 Means of commuting and commuting time Means of transport for commuting [Note: all proportions in this section refer to respondents who travel to work or to an educational
establishment (sample sizes ranged from 200 in Antwerp to 419 in Copenhagen).]
In line with the results in the previous section, the proportion of respondents who used public
transport to go to work or college ranged from less than one-tenth in Nicosia and Oulu (4% and 7%,
respectively) to two-thirds in Paris and Prague (66%-67%). Once again Europe’s capitals were found
among cities with the highest proportions of respondents who used public transport to commute – for
example, 60% in London, 56% in Bratislava and 52% in Sofia.
Nicosia and Oulu, on the other hand, were cities where only a minority of respondents used public
transport to commute (4% and 7%, respectively). However, while 91% of respondents in Nicosia
travelled by car (or motorbike) and just 5% walked or cycled to work, almost equal proportions of
respondents in Oulu drove a car or walked/cycled to work (45% and 48%, respectively). For a more
detailed analysis of the results for the latter means of transport, see page 62.
Means of transport mostly used to go to work or training place
Means of transport mostly used to go to work or training place
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)
Gdańsk (PL)
Berlin (DE)
Hamburg (DE)
München (DE)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Rennes (FR)
Vilnius (LT)
Newcastle (UK)
Torino (IT)
Burgas (BG)
Rostock (DE)
Leipzig (DE)
Roma (IT)
Athinia (EL)
Bordeaux (FR)
Glasgow (UK)
Ljubljana (SI)
Dublin (IE)
Lille (FR)
Dortmund (DE)
Bologna (IT)
Marseille (FR)
Manchester (UK)
Graz (AT)
Strasbourg (FR)
Essen (DE)
Rotterdam (NL)
Antalya (TR)
Liège (BE)
Belfast (UK)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Napoli (IT)
Luxembourg (LU)
Oviedo (ES)
Malmö (SE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Cardiff (UK)
Málaga (ES)
Valletta (MT)
Antwerpen (BE)
Verona (IT)
København (DK)
Palermo (IT)
Irakleio (EL)
Braga (PT)
Aalborg (DK)
Groningen (NL)
Oulu (FI)
Lefkosia (CY)
Biking/Walking
Car/Motorbike
Other
DK/NA
13
17
67
27
6
66
34
6
60
24
15
60
19
19
60
27
12
59
30
9
59
31
13
56
31
14
55
29
16
54
28
16
54
33
10
54
38
8
54
20
22
53
34
13
53
39
6
52
38
10
52
33
12
52
24
19
50
26
22
50
29
19
49
34
16
49
15
35
48
41
11
48
39
13
46
40
16
44
43
12
44
33
23
43
38
20
42
34
24
40
20
36
40
41
21
36
51
12
36
51
13
34
50
16
34
34
26
33
46
22
32
44
22
32
58
8
32
53
14
31
50
17
31
51
15
30
44
26
29
52
18
29
59
12
29
62
8
29
52
19
29
56
14
28
59
14
27
34
38
27
37
34
27
58
12
27
43
27
26
37
32
25
60
14
25
57
16
24
41
31
24
62
12
24
60
16
23
29
48
23
30
45
22
26
48
22
59
19
18
57
24
18
63
13
18
48
32
18
65
17
17
18
65
15
71
14
15
68
16
14
63
25
11
46
41
11
27
63
9
45
48
7
91
4 5
0
20
40
60
80
3
2
0
1
2
2
2
0
1
0
1
2
1
5
0
2
6
3
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
Paris (FR)
Praha (CZ)
Warszawa (PL)
Riga (LV)
London (UK)
Budapest (HU)
Bucureşti (RO)
Bratislava (SK)
Miskolc (HU)
Kosice (SK)
Barcelona (ES)
Madrid (ES)
Ostrava (CZ)
Ankara (TR)
Wien (AT)
Tallinn (EE)
Kraków (PL)
Sofia (BG)
İstanbul (TR)
Helsinki (FI)
Cluj‐Napoca (RO)
Zagreb (HR)
Stockholm (SE)
Lisboa (PT)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Białystok (PL)
Gdańsk (PL)
Berlin (DE)
Hamburg (DE)
München (DE)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Rennes (FR)
Vilnius (LT)
Newcastle (UK)
Torino (IT)
Burgas (BG)
Rostock (DE)
Leipzig (DE)
Roma (IT)
Athinia (EL)
Bordeaux (FR)
Glasgow (UK)
Ljubljana (SI)
Dublin (IE)
Lille (FR)
Dortmund (DE)
Bologna (IT)
Marseille (FR)
Manchester (UK)
Graz (AT)
Strasbourg (FR)
Essen (DE)
Rotterdam (NL)
Antalya (TR)
Liège (BE)
Belfast (UK)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Napoli (IT)
Luxembourg (LU)
Oviedo (ES)
Malmö (SE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Cardiff (UK)
Málaga (ES)
Valletta (MT)
Antwerpen (BE)
Verona (IT)
København (DK)
Palermo (IT)
Irakleio (EL)
Braga (PT)
Aalborg (DK)
Groningen (NL)
Oulu (FI)
Lefkosia (CY)
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 61
Although the proportion of respondents who used a car or motorbike to travel to work or college was
nowhere close to the figure for Nicosia (91%), in about half of the surveyed cities, a car or motorbike
was the dominant mode of transport. Respondents in Nicosia (see above), Palermo (71%), Iraklion
(68%) and Verona (65%) were the most likely to select “car” or “motorbike” as a response.
A more detailed look at commuting methods showed that a motorbike was predominantly used in
Italian, Spanish and Greek cities. For example, 19% of respondents in Palermo, 14% in Iraklion and
13% in Barcelona said they usually used their motorbike to get to work.
In eight cities, a relative majority of respondents – at least – said they usually walked or cycled to
work or college. Respondents in Copenhagen and Groningen were the most likely to select this
response (65% and 63%, respectively). In Graz, Malmo, Oulu, Amsterdam and Oviedo, between 38%
and 48% of respondents walked or cycled to work.
Additionally, Groningen, Copenhagen and Amsterdam could be defined as “cycling cities”. In
Groningen and Copenhagen, 60% respondents cycled to work or college. The corresponding
proportion for Amsterdam was 46%. In Nicosia and the Turkish cities – Ankara, Istanbul and
Diyarbakir – no respondents selected this response. On the other hand, respondents who walked to
their work or place of education were most frequently found in Oviedo (48%), Diyarbakir (36%) and
Antalya (31%).
Means of transport mostly used to go to work or training place–car/motorbike and
biking/walking
Means of transport mostly used to go to work or training place –
car/motorbike and biking/walking
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)
Gdańsk (PL)
Rotterdam (NL)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Stockholm (SE)
Rennes (FR)
Białystok (PL)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Tallinn (EE)
Kraków (PL)
Ostrava (CZ)
Hamburg (DE)
Antalya (TR)
Essen (DE)
Zagreb (HR)
München (DE)
Warszawa (PL)
Burgas (BG)
Wien (AT)
Graz (AT)
Sofia (BG)
Madrid (ES)
Berlin (DE)
Bratislava (SK)
Miskolc (HU)
Malmö (SE)
Bucureşti (RO)
Cluj‐Napoca (RO)
Kosice (SK)
Oviedo (ES)
Barcelona (ES)
Budapest (HU)
Groningen (NL)
Praha (CZ)
Amsterdam (NL)
Helsinki (FI)
Riga (LV)
İstanbul (TR)
Ankara (TR)
Diyarbakir (TR)
London (UK)
København (DK)
Lisboa (PT)
Paris (FR)
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 Neamț (RO)
Rotterdam (NL)
Ljubljana (SI)
Burgas (BG)
Braga (PT)
Málaga (ES)
München (DE)
Berlin (DE)
Leipzig (DE)
Helsinki (FI)
Rostock (DE)
Ankara (TR)
Rennes (FR)
Hamburg (DE)
İstanbul (TR)
Cluj‐Napoca (RO)
London (UK)
Cardiff (UK)
Bologna (IT)
Dublin (IE)
Paris (FR)
Bordeaux (FR)
Verona (IT)
Kosice (SK)
Belfast (UK)
Irakleio (EL)
Barcelona (ES)
Białystok (PL)
Luxembourg (LU)
Torino (IT)
Zagreb (HR)
Riga (LV)
Glasgow (UK)
Miskolc (HU)
Athinia (EL)
Palermo (IT)
Marseille (FR)
Liège (BE)
Manchester (UK)
Valletta (MT)
Newcastle (UK)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Wien (AT)
Bratislava (SK)
Vilnius (LT)
Sofia (BG)
Strasbourg (FR)
Budapest (HU)
Lille (FR)
Gdańsk (PL)
Napoli (IT)
Stockholm (SE)
Madrid (ES)
Kraków (PL)
Bucureşti (RO)
Roma (IT)
Ostrava (CZ)
Dortmund (DE)
Tallinn (EE)
Praha (CZ)
Warszawa (PL)
Lefkosia (CY)
2 91
Walking
60
60
48
48
46
3 48
38
10 48
37
8 45
37
4 41
28
10 38
36
0
36
35
19
16
34
21
14
32
1
31
29
3 32
31
1
30
25
2 27
15
11 26
26
0
26
25
0
25
24
1
23
17
7 24
17
6 23
18
4 22
10 12 22
13
9 22
22
0
22
21
8
13
14 6 20
19
0 19
19
1 18
9 10 19
19
4 15
7 12 19
18
5 14
5 12 17
8 9 17
9 8 17
16
1 16
16
2 15
16
0 16
16
0 16
16
1 15
6 11 16
5 11 16
3 12 16
15
1 15
15
2 13
3 11 14
2 12 14
14
1 13
2 12 14
6 8 14
2 11 14
13
0 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
0
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 63
5 6
3 63
Length of time to commute [Note: all proportions in this section refer to respondents who travel to work or to an educational
establishment]
6
City dwellers were also asked how long it usually took them to travel to their work or educational
establishment. Not surprisingly, commuting times were the longest in Europe’s capitals and large
cities (i.e. those with more than 500,000 inhabitants).
In Paris, Stockholm, Rotterdam, Prague, Warsaw, Bucharest, Budapest and London, at least half of
respondents answered that they spent over 30 minutes per day to go to their workplace or educational
establishment (between 50% and 65%). Additionally, respondents in London and Budapest were most
likely to report a commuting time of more than one hour (23% and 32%, respectively).
Some of Europe’s smaller cities were found at the top of this ranking (e.g. Iraklion, Oviedo, Oulu,
Braga, Luxemburg, Verona and Burgas) – in these cities, less than a sixth of respondents needed more
than 30 minutes to commute to their workplace or educational institution (between 12% and 16%) and
at least a quarter of them needed not more than 10 minutes (between 25% and 36%).
Not surprisingly, in smaller cities where many respondents walked to work, a significant number did
not need much time to commute (e.g. in Oviedo or Diyarbakir). Nonetheless, the time to commute
does not appear to be directly related to the mode of transport. Although commuting times were the
longest in Europe’s capitals – which were also the cities where a majority of respondents commuted
by public transport, there were some examples of cities with a more dominant use of car/motorbike or
bicycle where commuting times were equally long: for example, 52% of respondents in Dublin said
they drove their car to work and a similar proportion (48%) said they needed at least 30 minutes to
reach their workplace. Similarly, 48% of interviewees in Amsterdam walked or cycled to their
workplace and a similar proportion said that they usually spent 30 minutes or more to go to work.
Minutes per day spent to go to work or training place
Minutes per day spent to go to work or training place
Less than 10 minutes
Between 30-45 minutes
Between 10-20 minutes
Between 20-30 minutes
Between 45-60 minutes
More than 60 minutes
6 3 3
18
36
35
9 31
22
39
27
7 2 3
19
41
26
8 5 2
13
37
36
9 4 2
20
40
26
7 6 3
19
39
26
12 2 1
21
39
25
5 2
10
25
40
18
8 5 5
18
38
25
6 3
9
25
35
22
6 5 6
18
40
24
5 1
13
24
37
19
5 4
11
18
46
16
3
9
7
22
38
20
4 4
13
20
32
27
6 4
11
27
35
17
4 6
11
20
36
23
5 2
16
24
31
23
7 5
10
13
33
32
4 7
13
26
31
19
5 6
14
20
40
16
5
8
13
31
29
14
8 4
15
31
28
14
6 4
17
20
36
16
8
6
14
27
27
19
7
6
15
25
34
14
10 4
15
29
33
10
8
7
13
30
27
15
7
10
12
14
38
19
7
7
15
22
35
14
10
7
12
23
30
18
7
11
12
26
34
10
7
7
17
26
32
12
12
5
14
22
33
14
8
6
17
23
31
15
10
9
13
22
30
17
5
10
17
22
31
15
10 4
19
24
27
17
8
10
15
29
26
12
8
6
19
21
30
16
8
10
15
27
29
11
9
10
15
26
26
14
10 4
20
32
23
11
5
9
20
21
31
14
5
8
21
27
24
14
8
10
18
24
29
12
9
11
17
21
29
13
6
11
21
27
24
11
8
13
18
28
22
11
11
15
13
25
20
16
12
12
15
20
29
12
13
12
15
22
24
15
10
13
15
15
26
19
9
15
15
22
26
13
9
11
20
27
23
10
11
11
19
27
22
10
12
11
18
23
23
13
15
13
13
18
26
15
14
12
16
23
23
11
13
14
17
19
24
13
8
12
25
25
18
12
9
13
23
19
21
15
14
17
15
19
25
10
12
17
18
21
19
13
15
15
18
23
17
12
18
15
15
21
21
10
8
16
24
21
22
9
12
13
25
25
18
6
12
19
20
18
19
12
17
17
17
22
18
8
17
18
21
18
20
7
15
19
22
21
16
7
19
20
23
17
13
7
32
19
15
16
9
10
23
25
17
15
13
7
Irakleio (EL)
Oviedo (ES)
Oulu (FI)
Braga (PT)
Luxembourg (LU)
Verona (IT)
Burgas (BG)
Białystok (PL)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Palermo (IT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Graz (AT)
Bologna (IT)
Valletta (MT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Kosice (SK)
Aalborg (DK)
Málaga (ES)
Antalya (TR)
Bordeaux (FR)
Rennes (FR)
Lisboa (PT)
Ljubljana (SI)
Lille (FR)
Marseille (FR)
Strasbourg (FR)
Tallinn (EE)
Vilnius (LT)
Napoli (IT)
Rostock (DE)
Antwerpen (BE)
Bratislava (SK)
Cluj‐Napoca (RO)
Liège (BE)
København (DK)
Dortmund (DE)
Essen (DE)
München (DE)
Barcelona (ES)
Leipzig (DE)
Newcastle (UK)
Belfast (UK)
Wien (AT)
Torino (IT)
Helsinki (FI)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Roma (IT)
Hamburg (DE)
Riga (LV)
Athinia (EL)
Ostrava (CZ)
Malmö (SE)
Ankara (TR)
Gdańsk (PL)
Cardiff (UK)
Zagreb (HR)
Groningen (NL)
İstanbul (TR)
Manchester (UK)
Glasgow (UK)
Madrid (ES)
Berlin (DE)
Miskolc (HU)
Sofia (BG)
Dublin (IE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Kraków (PL)
Paris (FR)
Stockholm (SE)
Rotterdam (NL)
Praha (CZ)
Warszawa (PL)
Bucureşti (RO)
Budapest (HU)
London (UK)
0
20
40
60
80
Irakleio (EL)
Oviedo (ES)
Oulu (FI)
Braga (PT)
Luxembourg (LU)
Verona (IT)
Burgas (BG)
Białystok (PL)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Palermo (IT)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Graz (AT)
Bologna (IT)
Valletta (MT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Kosice (SK)
Aalborg (DK)
Málaga (ES)
Antalya (TR)
Bordeaux (FR)
Rennes (FR)
Lisboa (PT)
Ljubljana (SI)
Lille (FR)
Marseille (FR)
Strasbourg (FR)
Tallinn (EE)
Vilnius (LT)
Napoli (IT)
Rostock (DE)
Antwerpen (BE)
Bratislava (SK)
Cluj‐Napoca (RO)
Liège (BE)
København (DK)
Dortmund (DE)
Essen (DE)
München (DE)
Barcelona (ES)
Leipzig (DE)
Newcastle (UK)
Belfast (UK)
Wien (AT)
Torino (IT)
Helsinki (FI)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Roma (IT)
Hamburg (DE)
Riga (LV)
Athinia (EL)
Ostrava (CZ)
Malmö (SE)
Ankara (TR)
Gdańsk (PL)
Cardiff (UK)
Zagreb (HR)
Groningen (NL)
İstanbul (TR)
Manchester (UK)
Glasgow (UK)
Madrid (ES)
Berlin (DE)
Miskolc (HU)
Sofia (BG)
Dublin (IE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Kraków (PL)
Paris (FR)
Stockholm (SE)
Rotterdam (NL)
Praha (CZ)
Warszawa (PL)
Bucureşti (RO)
Budapest (HU)
London (UK)
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 65
5.3 Satisfaction with public transport Satisfaction with public transport The total level of satisfaction with public transport (i.e. the sum of “very” and “fairly” satisfied
citizens) ranged from 12% in Palermo to 93% in Helsinki, while the proportion of respondents who
said they were very satisfied ranged from virtually no-one in Palermo and Naples (1%-2%) to 53% in
Vienna.
In about half of the surveyed cities roughly two-thirds of respondents answered that they were very or
rather satisfied with their city’s public transport. Cities such as Strasbourg, Stockholm, Hamburg,
Newcastle and Groningen joined Helsinki and Vienna at the higher end of the ranking with
satisfaction levels above 80%. In most of those cities, a majority of respondents also used public
transport at least once a week (see section 5.1). In Groningen, however, just 24% were “frequent
public transport users” and 9% used it to go their work or educational institution – nonetheless, 83% of
respondents were very or fairly satisfied with public transport in Groningen.
In Roma, Naples, Nicosia and Palermo, on the other hand, at least half of respondents were dissatisfied
with their city’s public transport (between 50% and 74%). A slim majority (55%) of respondents in
Nicosia were not at all satisfied with their city’s public transport. This is in accordance with the
finding that – in the views of its inhabitants – public transport was Nicosia’s major problem (see
section 1.5).
In some cities, a considerable proportion of respondents found it difficult to answer this question about
their city’s public transport (e.g. 39% in Braga and 28% in Vilnius) – more than half of respondents
who gave a “don’t know” response never used their city’s public transport.
When comparing the results of the 2006 and 2009 perception surveys, the largest increase in
satisfaction with public transport was seen in Bratislava: in 2009, 58% of its respondents said they
were rather or very satisfied with the city’s public transport, vs. 30% in 2006 (+28 percentage points).
The largest decrease in satisfaction was observed in Miskolc (55% in 2009 from 73% in 2006; -18
percentage points).
Satisfaction with public transport
Satisfaction with public transport
Very satisfied
Rather satisfied
Rather unsatisfied
Not at all satisfied
DK/NA
Helsinki (FI)
4 11
51
42
5 22
Wien (AT)
37
53
51 5
Strasbourg (FR)
53
36
Rennes (FR)
42 6
45
43
7 2 4
Stockholm (SE)
50
37
7 2 4
Hamburg (DE)
47
39
Rostock (DE)
6 1 7
40
47
9 23
München (DE)
44
42
Bordeaux (FR)
5 3 8
52
33
6 4 7
Newcastle (UK)
41
43
5 2 11
Groningen (NL)
49
34
4 2
Paris (FR)
11
61
22
11 3 4
København (DK)
55
27
5 3 10
Rotterdam (NL)
52
30
10 3 5
Luxembourg (LU)
47
35
7 2 8
Leipzig (DE)
44
38
9 3 7
Amsterdam (NL)
55
27
5 4
9
Praha (CZ)
53
29
6 2 10
Oviedo (ES)
64
18
8 3 8
Antwerpen (BE)
43
38
8 2 9
Malmö (SE)
63
18
13
6 2
Dortmund (DE)
45
34
4 4
14
Madrid (ES)
56
22
4 8
10
Belfast (UK)
44
34
14
7 3
Białystok (PL)
61
16
10
6
8
Glasgow (UK)
46
31
9
6
9
Cardiff (UK)
49
28
14
6 4
48
Lille (FR)
29
11
9 3
59
Kraków (PL)
17
6 7
11
Zagreb (HR)
37
39
7 6
12
48
London (UK)
28
10 4 10
Cluj‐Napoca (RO)
55
21
5 5
15
47
Graz (AT)
28
14
8 3
Aalborg (DK)
48
27
6 4
16
Barcelona (ES)
60
14
14
10 4
Ostrava (CZ)
48
24
13
4
12
Tallinn (EE)
49
23
8
6
15
Málaga (ES)
56
14
10 4
16
Dublin (IE)
46
24
6
8
18
Berlin (DE)
43
25
11
9
11
Ljubljana (SI)
55
13
11
13
9
Diyarbakir (TR)
44
24
10
6
16
Warszawa (PL)
54
14
15
6
11
51
Gdańsk (PL)
17
6
11
15
Marseille (FR)
47
20
13
6
14
51
Bologna (IT)
16
13
6
15
54
Lisboa (PT)
12
18
4
13
Liège (BE)
49
17
12
5
17
45
Essen (DE)
20
9
10
16
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
47
18
6 7
22
51
Oulu (FI)
14
12
6
17
44
Riga (LV)
21
13
9
14
Manchester (UK)
44
20
8
17
13
42
Ankara (TR)
20
10
16
13
İstanbul (TR)
46
14
12
10
17
Athinia (EL)
42
19
26
5
10
45
Piatra Neamț (RO)
15
26
5
11
Burgas (BG)
39
19
15
7
20
45
Bratislava (SK)
12
17
6
21
44
Kosice (SK)
12
12
11
22
43
Miskolc (HU)
12
18
7
21
45
Torino (IT)
9
24
14
10
34
Antalya (TR)
19
28
6
17
36
Vilnius (LT)
14
24
14
12
29
Valletta (MT)
21
24
15
13
Irakleio (EL)
34
14
39
7 5
37
Braga (PT)
12
8
14
30
Budapest (HU)
42
6
10
17
26
39
Bucureşti (RO)
7
25
8
21
37
Verona (IT)
9
14
15
28
Sofia (BG)
34
9
15
20
30
32
Roma (IT) 3
14
25
33
Napoli (IT) 2
26
16
55
12
Lefkosia (CY) 4
13
14
38
36
Palermo (IT) 1 11
0
20
40
60
80
Helsinki (FI)
Wien (AT)
Strasbourg (FR)
Rennes (FR)
Stockholm (SE)
Hamburg (DE)
Rostock (DE)
München (DE)
Bordeaux (FR)
Newcastle (UK)
Groningen (NL)
Paris (FR)
København (DK)
Rotterdam (NL)
Luxembourg (LU)
Leipzig (DE)
Amsterdam (NL)
Praha (CZ)
Oviedo (ES)
Antwerpen (BE)
Malmö (SE)
Dortmund (DE)
Madrid (ES)
Belfast (UK)
Białystok (PL)
Glasgow (UK)
Cardiff (UK)
Lille (FR)
Kraków (PL)
Zagreb (HR)
London (UK)
Cluj‐Napoca (RO)
Graz (AT)
Aalborg (DK)
Barcelona (ES)
Ostrava (CZ)
Tallinn (EE)
Málaga (ES)
Dublin (IE)
Berlin (DE)
Ljubljana (SI)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Warszawa (PL)
Gdańsk (PL)
Marseille (FR)
Bologna (IT)
Lisboa (PT)
Liège (BE)
Essen (DE)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Oulu (FI)
Riga (LV)
Manchester (UK)
Ankara (TR)
İstanbul (TR)
Athinia (EL)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Burgas (BG)
Bratislava (SK)
Kosice (SK)
Miskolc (HU)
Torino (IT)
Antalya (TR)
Vilnius (LT)
Valletta (MT)
Irakleio (EL)
Braga (PT)
Budapest (HU)
Bucureşti (RO)
Verona (IT)
Sofia (BG)
Roma (IT)
Napoli (IT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Palermo (IT)
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 67
Reasons for not using public transport In order to understand better why certain city dwellers were dissatisfied with public transport and/or
were not using it, relevant respondents were asked to explain why they never used their city’s public
transport. Some caution should, nevertheless, be exercised when interpreting the results as in some
cities very few respondents did not use public transport; as such, not many respondents answered this
question.
Respondents – who never used public transport – were presented with a list of 10 possible reasons for
not using public transport (e.g. not frequent enough, not adapted to the required itinerary, too
expensive or not safe). Nevertheless, many respondents named “another” reason for not using public
transport in their city – this proportion ranged from 31% in Palermo and Marseilles to 86% in Paris.
“Other” reasons for not using public transport, for example, could have been limited mobility:
respondents simply might have been unable to use public transport in their city because they could not
move around easily (e.g. many of the older respondents gave “other” reasons for not using public
transport). Other respondents might not have experienced a need to use public transport, as other
methods (e.g. car or bicycle) were sufficient and convenient to move around in their city.
Of the reasons listed in the survey, those linked to insufficient infrastructure – i.e. public transport not
being frequent enough, not adapted to itineraries and not easy to access – were mentioned most
frequently. Respondents in Rennes and Bologna were the most likely to complain that public transport
was not adapted to their itinerary (31% and 28%, respectively). In Ljubljana, Iraklion, Helsinki,
Nicosia and Graz, at least of quarter of respondents gave this reason for not using public transport
(25%-27%).
Respondents living in Nicosia were also most likely to mention an insufficient frequency of public
transport as a reason for not using such facilities (37%). In Palermo and Manchester, about a fifth of
respondents complained about this issue (22% and 19%, respectively).
The proportions of respondents who said they never used public transport because it was not easy to
access from where they lived or to where they needed to go were the highest in Helsinki (20%),
Aalborg (19%), Dublin, Berlin, Stockholm and Ljubljana (all 17%).
Furthermore, complaints about variations in time schedules and unreliable schedules were most
frequently mentioned by respondents in Nicosia (23%), Manchester (19%), Palermo (18%) and Roma
(16%). In Manchester (again), Munich, Miskolc, Budapest and Berlin, respondents were the most
likely to say that public transport was too expensive (between 16% and 21%). Prague stood out with
one-third (32%) of respondents who felt that public transport was too congested and 20% who said it
was unsafe.
Finally, respondents who simply did not like using public transport were most frequently found in
some French cities included in this study: Marseilles (33%), Bordeaux (28%) and Lille (26%).
6. A comparison with the results of the 2006 perception survey
In the annex, 15 charts are shown that summarize the results of the current survey in comparison with
those of the previous perception survey (conducted in 2006).
The greatest increases in the proportion of respondents who agreed that good jobs were easy to find
were seen in Stockholm and Malmo (respectively, +18 and +17 percentage points). These same cities
were identified as the ones that had seen the largest increases in the proportion of interviewees who
agreed that there was a responsible management of resources in their city and agreed that
administrative services had helped them efficiently (between +17 and +26 percentage points).
Iraklion, on the other hand, was regularly found among the cities that had seen the largest decrease in
such positive perceptions when comparing the results of the current survey with those of 2006.
page 69
Annex 1 (in English only)
Comparison 2009/2006
It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price
(% agree) 2006-2009
2009
2006
Diff:
Riga (LV)
42
32
Vilnius (LT)
44
28
Cluj‐Napoca (RO)
33
25
Valletta (MT)
40
25
Piatra Neamț (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
Gdańsk (PL)
30
7
Stockholm (SE)
15
6
Lefkosia (CY)
20
6
Kosice (SK)
22
5
København (DK)
17
5
Strasbourg (FR)
5
19
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
Verona (IT)
‐3
19
Roma (IT)
‐3
6
Wien (AT)
‐3
20
Amsterdam (NL)
‐4
8
Ljubljana (SI)
‐5
10
‐5
Hamburg (DE)
16
Ostrava (CZ)
‐5
38
‐6
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
17
‐8
Liège (BE)
32
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you
strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly
disagree with each of these statements?
Base: all respondents, % of ”Strongly and somewhat agree” by city
page 71
Difficulties in paying bills at the end of the month
(% never) 2006-2009
2009
2006
Diff:
Helsinki (FI)
67
18
Gdańsk (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)
2
45
Malmö (SE)
77
2
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 Neamț (RO)
‐1
60
Budapest (HU)
‐1
44
Zagreb (HR)
‐1
53
Marseille (FR)
‐2
49
Cluj‐Napoca (RO)
‐2
61
Sofia (BG)
‐2
40
‐2
Wien (AT)
72
Rotterdam (NL)
‐2
62
‐2
Lille (FR)
52
‐3
Dublin (IE)
54
‐3
Miskolc (HU)
40
‐3
Valletta (MT)
26
‐4
München (DE)
66
‐4
Tallinn (EE)
56
‐5
Groningen (NL)
62
‐5
Leipzig (DE)
61
‐5
Praha (CZ)
65
‐7
Bordeaux (FR)
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
20
40
60
80
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
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
Gdańsk (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 Neamț (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
20
40
60
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
80
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, % of ”Strongly and somewhat agree” by city
page 73
Respondents feel safe in the city (% always)
2009
2006
2006-2009
Napoli (IT)
36
Bordeaux (FR)
69
Gdańsk (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 Neamț (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
20
40
60
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
80
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
Respondents feel safe in their neighbourhood
(% always) 2006-2009
2009
2006
Napoli (IT)
52
Berlin (DE)
87
Hamburg (DE)
88
Leipzig (DE)
90
Gdańsk (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 Neamț (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
20
40
60
80
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 75
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
Gdańsk (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 Neamț (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
20
40
60
80
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
Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you
strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly
disagree with each of these statements?
Base: all respondents, % of ”’Strongly and somewhat disagree” by city
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
Gdańsk (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 Neamț (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
20
40
60
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
80
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, % of ”Strongly and somewhat disagree” by city
page 77
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
Gdańsk (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 Neamț (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
20
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
40
60
80
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, % of ”Strongly and somewhat agree” by city
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 Neamț (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)
0
56
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
‐4
Gdańsk (PL)
44
Riga (LV)
‐6
14
‐6
Lefkosia (CY)
29
‐6
Essen (DE)
25
‐6
Manchester (UK)
50
‐7
Vilnius (LT)
13
‐7
Barcelona (ES)
34
‐8
Palermo (IT)
15
‐8
Athinia (EL)
15
‐8
Irakleio (EL)
54
‐9
Liège (BE)
31
‐10
Wien (AT)
49
‐11
København (DK)
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
20
40
60
80
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, % of ”Strongly and somewhat agree” by city
page 79
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
Gdańsk (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 Neamț (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
20
40
60
80
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
Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you
strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly
disagree with each of these statements?
Base: all respondents, % of ”Strongly and somewhat agree” by city
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)
Gdańsk (PL)
Malmö (SE)
Oviedo (ES)
Piatra Neamț (RO)
Aalborg (DK)
Torino (IT)
Paris (FR)
Marseille (FR)
Rennes (FR)
Athinia (EL)
Stockholm (SE)
Antalya (TR)
Ostrava (CZ)
Praha (CZ)
Glasgow (UK)
Amsterdam (NL)
Wien (AT)
Newcastle (UK)
Antwerpen (BE)
Lisboa (PT)
Groningen (NL)
Tallinn (EE)
Helsinki (FI)
Liège (BE)
København (DK)
Hamburg (DE)
Graz (AT)
Vilnius (LT)
München (DE)
Diyarbakir (TR)
Dortmund (DE)
Verona (IT)
Leipzig (DE)
Rotterdam (NL)
Lille (FR)
Bologna (IT)
Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)
Irakleio (EL)
Oulu (FI)
Zagreb (HR)
Riga (LV)
Roma (IT)
Palermo (IT)
Lefkosia (CY)
Napoli (IT)
Valletta (MT)
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
20
40
60
80
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, % of ”Very and rather satisfied” by city
page 81
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 Neamț (RO)
88
Kraków (PL)
83
Warszawa (PL)
85
Glasgow (UK)
90
Torino (IT)
85
Budapest (HU)
54
Paris (FR)
82
Strasbourg (FR)
84
Gdańsk (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
Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied,
rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each
of the following issues:
Base: all respondents, % of ”Very and rather satisfied” by city
Satisfaction with sport facilities (% satisfied)
2006-2009
2009
2006
Warszawa (PL)
51
Białystok (PL)
46
Bratislava (SK)
47
Dublin (IE)
71
Gdańsk (PL)
46
Ljubljana (SI)
59
Kraków (PL)
47
Luxembourg (LU)
79
Kosice (SK)
53
Madrid (ES)
63
Piatra Neamț (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
20
40
60
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
80
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, % of ”Very and rather satisfied” by city
page 83
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
Gdańsk (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 Neamț (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
20
40
60
80
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
Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied,
rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each
of the following issues:
Base: all respondents, % of ”Very and rather satisfied” by city
page 85
For further information, please refer to:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.htm
http://www.urbanaudit.org
http://www.urbact.eu/en/home/index
The texts of this publication do not bind the Commission.