data jungle adventures

The Global Liveability Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) publishes annual reports on liveability rankings to evaluate the living standards of various cities (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012). This ranking is based on five categories, namely, stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure. The Index uses 30 indicators to measure those five categories of liveability with 26 of the indicators are based on the “judgement of in-house expert country analysts and a field correspondent based in each city”.

2024 report results

The Economist explores the bottom-ranking cities on the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) Global Livability Index, particularly focusing on Damascus, Syria. For 11 consecutive years, Damascus has been rated the least livable city due to ongoing instability, severe economic crisis, frequent blackouts, and the aftermath of the 2023 earthquake. The article also discusses other cities in the Middle East and Africa, such as Tripoli, Algiers, Lagos, and Harare, which consistently rank low on the index due to a combination of conflict, economic hardship, and social challenges.

Damascus: For 11 consecutive years, Damascus, the capital of Syria, has been ranked as the least livable city in the world. Its overall score is nearly ten points lower than the next worst city, Tripoli, due to ongoing conflict, economic collapse, frequent blackouts, and the devastation caused by a major earthquake in 2023 .

Tripoli, Libya: Following Damascus, Tripoli ranks just above as one of the least livable cities, reflecting the severe impact of long-term conflict and instability on daily life and infrastructure.

Sub-Saharan Africa: Cities like Lagos (42.2), Harare (43.8), and Algiers (42.0) are also ranked among the least livable, with Lagos, for instance, suffering from poor infrastructure, instability, and socio-economic challenges .

These figures illustrate the stark contrast in livability within the Middle East and Africa, highlighting the severe challenges faced by cities affected by conflict and poor governance compared to the relative stability and prosperity in Gulf states.

The article highlights the broader regional issues contributing to these rankings, such as high unemployment rates, poor educational outcomes, and high crime rates. It contrasts these with the more stable and prosperous cities in the Gulf region, like Abu Dhabi and Dubai, which consistently rank among the most livable in the Middle East and Africa ( with a score of 81.7), benefiting from significant investments in healthcare, education, and infrastructure. The piece underscores the disparity between cities in the same region, reflecting the diverse socio-economic landscapes across the Middle East and Africa.

Liveability of Riyadh City

Riyadh has made impressive strides in becoming more livable, reflecting the broader goals of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030. The city’s transformation is evident not only in its expanding green spaces and infrastructure but also in significant cultural and socio-economic shifts.

The Green Riyadh project is a cornerstone of this transformation, aiming to plant 7.5 million trees by 2030, significantly increasing green coverage from 1.5% to 9%. This will help reduce temperatures by up to 2°C and improve air quality, benefiting the city’s residents.

Culturally, Riyadh is becoming more inclusive, with initiatives that encourage mixed-gender public activities, breaking down traditional social barriers. This is supported by projects like King Salman Park, which will be the largest city park globally, providing cultural, sports, and recreational facilities for all .

Economically, these developments are expected to generate a $19 billion return by 2030, reflecting the city’s commitment to sustainable growth. This combination of environmental, cultural, and socio-economic initiatives is helping Riyadh set a new standard for urban development in the region.

Index criticsm

The Economist’s Index for Liveability has been criticized for favoring certain cities while overlooking key factors that impact residents’ daily lives. Additionally, the index’s reliance on subjective assessments and lack of transparency in its methodology have raised concerns about its accuracy and relevance.

1. Bias in Indicator Selection and Weighting: The index tends to favor cities in temperate climates, giving disproportionate weight (25%) to subjective factors like “humidity/temperature” and “climate discomfort.” Conversely, crucial aspects such as education receive less emphasis and are only weighed at 10%, while factors like “sporting and cultural availability” and “food and drink” are given more weight.
2. Lack of Local Resident Perspective: The index is largely designed for Western expatriates, often using surveys filled out by in-house staff rather than actual city residents. This approach neglects the perspectives of local inhabitants, missing out on a deeper, more authentic understanding of liveability from those who experience the city daily.
3. Opaque Methodology and Subjective Assessments: The methodology behind the index lacks transparency, with a heavy reliance on subjective judgments made by in-house analysts and correspondents. There is little information provided on why certain categories were chosen, how indicators are weighted, or the qualifications of those making these assessments.
4. Missing Key Liveability Factors: The index overlooks significant aspects that affect daily life, such as housing affordability, traffic congestion, walkability, public transit, bike paths, and access to essential services. Additionally, it does not consider cities’ environmental sustainability, which is increasingly critical to urban liveability.
5. Focus on Static Indicators Over Policy Progress: The index tends to focus on static infrastructure indicators that are unlikely to change year-to-year, rather than considering progress in policy changes that could enhance liveability.

Conclusion

While the Economist’s liveability index offers valuable insights, its limitations, such as biases in indicator selection and a lack of local perspectives, highlight the need for a more nuanced approach. For cities like Riyadh, a tailored assessment that considers unique cultural and environmental factors is essential to truly capture the liveability experience for its residents.

Featured image credit to: istockphoto.com