Groupe Chronos

Almost weekly, it seems, an organization releases its annual "best cities" list. These lists rank everything from the best cities for young professionals or working mothers, to the best cities for urban gardening or entrepreneurs. A number of organizations tackle the bigger, broader challenge of ranking the world's most liveable cities.

What determines if a city is "liveable"? The criteria used for such rankings vary wildly, reflecting an organization's biases or specific audience. No matter how much the rankings use independent data or scientific methods, subjectivity always seeps in. Indeed, the mere decision about which criteria to use is subjective. More importantly, what one person feels makes a city liveable, may drive another person mad (See for instance : One neighbour's garden is another neighbour's blight). So, "most liveable cities" lists are not one-size-fits-all. It's not surprising, then, that, as a quick Internet search will prove, ranking the world's most liveable cities spurs considerable debate among planners, economists, civic boosters, and others.

Three of the most popular "best cities" rankings are those by The Economist Intelligence Unit, Mercer Consulting, and Monocle magazine (2009), with the rankings in these three lists garnering much attention every year. The cities ranked by these organizations in 2010 (Monocle's figures date from 2009) highlight how liveable cities can vary based on the criteria used, as well as the weight of those criteria. Only one city - Vienna - made all three lists. In fact, 22 different cities were mentioned in the three top-10 lists. This variation stems from the criteria and scoring systems used by each organization, as well as the purpose of each organization's list.

For example, The Economist scored 140 cities on a scale from 1 to 100 based on 30 factors spread across five areas: stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure. Meanwhile, Mercer's Quality of Living Survey scored 215 cities based on 39 factors, including safety, education, hygiene, recreation, public transportation, and political-economic stability. Mercer rates cities against New York City, which is given a baseline score of 100. Monocle magazine, which quickly admits the subjectivity of its rankings, used criteria such as international connectivity, public transportation, days of sunshine per year, medical care, architecture and urban design, safety/crime, access to natural areas, and business conditions.

Another criterion used by Monocle in the 2009 list is the number of chain stores in a city. The magazine noted that first-place Zurich has maintained a diverse and independent retail sector and praised fifth-ranked Helsinki for having no Starbucks. Monocle, an upscale lifestyle magazine, presumably targets its readership with its list. Meanwhile, Mercer's survey is conducted to help governments and major companies place employees on international assignments, so the emphasis tends to be on safety, infrastructure, and the local economy. The Economist Intelligence Unit issues its list for a more general audience.

The Economist Intelligence Unit
1. Vancouver
2. Vienna
3. Melbourne
4. Toronto
5. Calgary
6. Helsinki
7. Sydney
8. Perth
8. Adelaide
10. Auckland

Mercer
1. Vienna
2. Zurich
3. Geneva
4. Vancouver
4. Auckland
6. Dusseldorf
7. Munich
7. Frankfurt
9. Bern
10. Sydney

Monocle magazine
1. Zurich
2. Copenhagen
3. Tokyo
4. Munich
5. Helsinki
6. Stockholm
7. Vienna
8. Paris
9. Melbourne
10. Berlin

Despite the differing target audiences of each list, some readers still ask "liveable for whom?" As urban development scholar Joel Kotkin noted in a column in August 2009, the cities at the top of these lists tend to be among the world's most expensive, with high taxes and stagnant job markets. "For the average person seeking to make money and improve his or her economic status, it usually pays not to settle in one of the world's 'most liveable' cities," Kotkin wrote. Comments made on the three organizations' websites illustrate just how much the concept of "liveability" varies. For example, commentors on EIU's website questioned several cities in the top 10 given their unaffordable housing and low wages.

So, if "most liveable cities" lists vary so greatly and cause so much debate, why should planners take note? Regardless of the criteria used, the source of those criteria, the weight placed on each criterion, or the ultimate lists that result, the factors that all organizations use to rank the world's most liveable cities read straight from a planning textbook. Aspects deemed to make a city "liveable" include the built environment, clusters and the local economy, housing, natural environment and open spaces, entrepreneurship, talent attraction, transportation and infrastructure, society and politics, sustainability, and quality-of-place amenities.

This highlights the significant influence - and the significant responsibility - a planner has on daily life. Indeed, whether a planner focuses on transportation or housing or the environment, the role of the planner in shaping every city worldwide is immense. Planning - more than any other profession - lies at the heart of what makes a city liveable.

As an economic development and strategy consultant, Meredith Whitten works with communities across the United States to enhance their economic vitality by focusing on business retention, talent attraction, entrepreneurship and innovation, and quality of place. Previously, she worked for the Texas Department of Transportation, the Wilderness Society and the Sunset Advisory Commission. She hold an MSc in regional and urban planning from the LSE and a master's degree in public affairs from the LBJ School at the University of Texas at Austin. Her bachelor's degree is in journalism, from the University of Texas at Austin. She is currently based in Austin, Texas.