Survey2009 en 75Cidades

8/22/2019 Survey2009 en 75Cidades

1/89

Survey on perception

of quality of life

in 75 European cities

EN

Flash Eurobarometer March 2010


2/89

Foreword

Cities are the vibrating pulse o our society. Since 1998, we have been working withMember States on collecting statistical data that will give us means o comparing

Europes cities. The survey results you will nd in the ollowing pages useully

complement these quantitative data. As in 2004 and in 2007, the inhabitants

interviewed were given the opportunity to express their views on the quality o lie

in their home city.

The survey was carried out in 75 cities and shows that, on the whole, citizens

are satised with the quality o a number o services, in particular in the areas o

transport, health and cultural acilities. The quality o public spaces and green areas

also meets with general satisaction.

But there are some less positive aspects. In many cities citizens believe it is dicult

to nd a job or afordable housing. A majority o inhabitants consider poverty as a problem in their home city. These

ndings can be attributed to the present crisis as people start to really eel the repercussions. Many towns are acing

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 o citizens.

This survey also enables us to measure variations in the extent to which citizens are aware o 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 o air and noise pollution.

This complex mix o challenges conrms the need to act on several ronts as part o an integrated urban approach

that alone can guarantee sustainable towns. In arriving at viable solutions there is a need to combine investment in

inrastructure (transport, housing, centres o learning, cultural acilities), 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 ofers a avourable ramework or tackling all these

challenges simultaneously and or best meeting the needs o Europes citizens.

Johannes Hahn

European Commissioner

responsible for regional policy


3/89

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERALREGIONAL POLICYPolicy developmentUrban development, territorial cohesion

Survey on perceptions of quality of life

in 75 European cities

March 2010

Fieldwork: November 2009

page 1


4/89

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]

[email protected]

(statistical questions)


5/89

page 3

Contents

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

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

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

1.1 Health care, employment opportunities and housing costs ......................................... 10

Health care services................................................................................................................. 10

Employment opportunities .................................................................................................... 12

Housing costs ........................................................................................................................... 16

1.2 Poverty and financial difficulties ..................................................................................... 18

Poverty at city level.................................................................................................................. 18

1.3 The presence of foreigners................................................................................................ 20The 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 ones neighbourhood..................................................................................... 26

1.5 Cities most important problems ..................................................................................... 28

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

2.1 Clean and healthy cities .................................................................................................... 30Air 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 ........................................................................................ 44Satisfaction with public spaces markets and pedestrian areas ...................................... 46

Satisfaction with the beauty of streets and buildings in ones 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 citys facilities............................................................................ 56

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

5.1 Frequency of using public transport ............................................................................... 58

5.2 Means of commuting and commuting time ................................................................... 60Means of transport for commuting ....................................................................................... 60


6/89

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


7/89

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 peoples opinions

on a range of urban issues. Earlier surveys were conducted in 2004 and 20061. These perception

surveys allow for comparisons between perceptions and real data from various statistical sources onissues 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 City Country CityAntwerpen Lietuva VilniusBrussel/Bruxelles Luxembourg (G.D.) Luxembourg

Belgi/Belgique

Lige BudapestBurgas

MagyarorszgMiskolcBulgaria

Sofia Malta VallettaOstrava Amsterdamesk RepublikaPraha GroningenAalborg

Nederland

RotterdamDanmarkKbenhavn GrazBerlin

sterreichWien

Dortmund BiaystokEssen GdaskHamburg KrakwLeipzig

Polska

WarszawaMnchen Braga

Deutschland

Rostock*Portugal

LisboaEesti Tallinn Bucuretiire/Ireland Dublin Cluj-Napoca

Athina

Romnia

Piatra NeamEllda Irakleio Slovenija LjubljanaBarcelona BratislavaMadrid

SlovenskoKosice

Mlaga Helsinki

Espaa

OviedoSuomi/Finland

OuluBordeaux MalmLille

SverigeStockholm

Marseille BelfastParis CardiffRennes Glasgow

France

Strasbourg LondonBologna ManchesterNapoli

United Kingdom

Newcastle

Palermo Hrvatska ZagrebRoma AnkaraTorino Antalya

Italia

Verona DiyarbakrKypros / Kbrs Lefkosia

Trkiye

stanbulLatvija Riga * Frankfurt an der Oder was included in earlier reports

and has now been replaced by Rostock.

This Flash Eurobarometer survey (No

277) was conducted by Gallup Hungary. In each city, 500

randomly selected citizens (aged 15 and older) were interviewed. This constituted a representative

profile of the wider population; the respondents were taken from all areas of the designated cities. In

1For 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)2www.urbanaudit.org

page 5
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_156_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/urban/audit/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/urban/audit/index_en.htmhttp://www.urbanaudit.org/http://www.urbanaudit.org/http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/urban/audit/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_156_en.pdf


8/89

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 reports annex.

Compared with previous surveys, Flash Eurobarometer No

277 introduced new questions to assess

peoples 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, togetherwith 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.


9/89

Main findings

Health care, jobs and housing

Of the 75 cities surveyed, residents of north-western European cities were most satisfied withhealth 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 morethan 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 reasonablypriced 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 cityoutnumbered 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 68cities, 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 wellintegrated 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 Europeancapitals 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 astrong 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 theirneighbourhood 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 educationalfacilities.

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

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

Pollution / climate change

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

In all Italian cities in this study, a large majority of respondents agreed that air pollution was amajor 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


10/89

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

There was a strong correlation between the perceived levels of air pollution and perceptions aboutwhether 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 citywas a healthy place to live.

Administrative services

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

All surveyed German cities (except Munich) were at the bottom of the ranking relating toadministrative 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 citizensefficiently.

City infrastructure

In a majority of cities (54 of 75), at least three-quarters of respondents were satisfied with theirown citys 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 marketsand pedestrian areas. Many cities at the higher end of the ranking (where most respondents were

satisfied with their citys 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 ofrespondents expressed satisfaction.

Nonetheless, in almost all cities, respondents were more likely to be satisfied with their citysmarkets 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 75listed 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 citys sports facilities theproportion of dont 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 fourof 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 rathersatisfied with their citys 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.

Europes capitals were among the cities with the highest proportions of respondents who usedpublic transport to commute for example, 90% in London, 56% in Bratislava and 52% in Sofia.

Commuting times were the longest in Europes capitals and large cities (i.e. those with more than500,000 inhabitants).

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


11/89

page 9


12/89

1. Perceptions about social reality

1.1 H ea l t h ca r e, em p l o y m en t op po r t u n i t i es an d hou si n g co st s

H ea l t h ca r e ser v i c es 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 fairlysatisfied 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 ratherorvery

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 citys 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% ofLondoners and 79% of Parisians were ratherorvery 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 citys 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 satisfiedwith 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 satisfiedwith 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 satisfiedcompared to 9% of very satisfied respondents.

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


13/89

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

5458

6252

3855

3545

4339

3454

4448

4223

4539

3731

4431

42363233

3945

3634

2228

2432

2226

37202021

311413

1919

1425

1916

2611

2514

1223

1516

216

131091314

1291113

114

74

9710

4136

3240

5537

5746

4852

5636

4440

4663

4247

5055

4255

44505452

4538

4848

5852

5546

5752

3956

5452

4258

605252

5544

5051

4052

3848

4937

4441

3548

4042

423936

38353331

3238

3436

3030

24

24

2235

25

336

579

71010

47

58

7

8611

1010

612

1211

1013

101113

715

1916

131818

1917

1815

2123

15192224

21182025

1730

212526

242626

22242425

323133

2626

29

11

21

21

22

12

2211

222

23

14

2

421

13

52

34

24

73

511

43

4

127

5410

714

77

1612

138

1311

1215

1812

15151522

1514

1922

2121

2322

2532

2828

32

3532

42

54

2432

412

84

83

6

362

43

53

44

844

84

645

6

33

56

25

2323

62

65

129

410

311

87

39

1015

101111

36

34

810

Groningen(NL)Graz(AT)Newcastle(UK)Antwerpen(BE)Lige(BE)Wien(AT)Bordeaux(FR)Luxembourg(LU)Rotterdam(NL)Lille(FR)Marseille(FR)Mnchen(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)Kbenhavn(DK)Bologna(IT)London(UK)Paris(FR)Praha(CZ)Antalya(TR)Oulu(FI)Kosice(SK)Malm(SE)

Ankara(TR)Barcelona(ES)Torino(IT)Helsinki(FI)Braga(PT)Ljubljana(SI)stanbul(TR)Madrid(ES)Mlaga(ES)Diyarbakir(TR)Lisboa(PT)Zagreb(HR)Bratislava(SK)Biaystok(PL)Valletta(MT)Miskolc(HU)Dublin(IE)Lefkosia(CY)Roma(IT)Tallinn(EE)Gdask(PL)Krakw(PL)Irakleio(EL)ClujNapoc(RO)Budapest(HU)Riga(LV)PiatraNeam (RO)Vilnius(LT)Sofia(BG)Napoli(IT)Warszawa(PL)Palermo(IT)Athinia(EL)Bucureti(RO)Burgas(BG)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Groningen(NL)Graz(AT)

Newcastle(UK)Antwerpen(BE)

Lige(BE)Wien(AT)

Bordeaux(FR)Luxembourg(LU)

Rotterdam(NL)Lille(FR)

Marseille(FR)Mnchen(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)

Kbenhavn(DK)Bologna(IT)

London(UK)Paris(FR)

Praha(CZ)Antalya(TR)

Oulu(FI)Kosice(SK)

Malm(SE)

Ankara(TR)Barcelona(ES)Torino(IT)

Helsinki(FI)Braga(PT)

Ljubljana(SI)stanbul(TR)

Madrid(ES)Mlaga(ES)

Diyarbakir(TR)Lisboa(PT)

Zagreb(HR)Bratislava(SK)Biaystok(PL)Valletta(MT)Miskolc(HU)

Dublin(IE)Lefkosia(CY)

Roma(IT)Tallinn(EE)

Gdask(PL)Krakw(PL)Irakleio(EL)

ClujNapoc(RO)Budapest(HU)

Riga(LV)PiatraNeam (RO)

Vilnius(LT)Sofia(BG)

Napoli(IT)Warszawa(PL)

Palermo(IT)Athinia(EL)

Bucureti(RO)Burgas(BG)

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

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

Base: all respondents, % by city

page 11


14/89

Emp l o ym en t o p p or t u n i t i es

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 jobcities ranked from most posi tive to least posit ive


15/89

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

2314

1613

111414

1211

85

1310

47

64

1088

76

856

313

93

109

25445

355

3

4345

4214

21122

546

2

212

13

112

12

0213

1100

3843

4041

423836

3838

4043

3232

3733

3335

282929

3031

293128

3121

2429

2122

2925

252523

242121

24

21211918

1719

1816

1616151515

121210

14

131312

1310

121211

1210

119

84

75

33

1418

2124

232321

183032

2922

2429

2624

2924

19282828

33123232

2726

2826

2036

2939

3229

3426

2932

4132

3129

294649

3423

5032

4544

1630

2722

272233

4732

2847

2235

3033

3344

20121524

20

89

108

6 1716

61310

72022

1625

2519

1524

1130

23

9913

1134

2416

314010

2025

253023

3242

27

1223

1834

4029

1736

3818

4120

3462

4854

47

475526

2650

4830

5244

464445

4269

7171

7075

1717

1315

18 812

279

1117

131314

91314

2320

255

13

214421

246

1724

1210

2422

715

131716

315

2221

2814

115

1511

2115

1018

565

315

11927

135

1010

138

131211

53

107

32

Stockholm(SE)Kbenhavn(DK)Praha(CZ)Mnchen(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)Malm(SE)Manchester(UK)Wien(AT)Irakleio(EL)Krakw(PL)

Groningen(NL)Antwerpen(BE)Aalborg(DK)Graz(AT)Antalya(TR)Newcastle(UK)Strasbourg(FR)Burgas(BG)Bucureti(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)ClujNapoc(RO)Marseille(FR)Madrid(ES)Leipzig(DE)Ostrava(CZ)Valletta(MT)Berlin(DE)Biaystok(PL)Dortmund(DE)Barcelona(ES)Zagreb(HR)Dublin(IE)stanbul(TR)Budapest(HU)

PiatraNeam (RO)Lisboa(PT)Lige(BE)Rostock(DE)Ankara(TR)Tallinn(EE)Oviedo(ES)Vilnius(LT)Roma(IT)Braga(PT)Torino(IT)Kosice(SK)Mlaga(ES)Diyarbakir(TR)Riga(LV)Miskolc(HU)Napoli(IT)Palermo(IT)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Stockholm(SE)Kbenhavn(DK)

Praha(CZ)Mnchen(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)

Malm(SE)Manchester(UK)

Wien(AT)Irakleio(EL)Krakw(PL)

Groningen(NL)Antwerpen(BE)Aalborg(DK)

Graz(AT)Antalya(TR)

Newcastle(UK)Strasbourg(FR)

Burgas(BG)Bucureti(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)ClujNapoc(RO)

Marseille(FR)Madrid(ES)Leipzig(DE)

Ostrava(CZ)Valletta(MT)

Berlin(DE)Biaystok(PL)

Dortmund(DE)Barcelona(ES)

Zagreb(HR)Dublin(IE)

stanbul(TR)Budapest(HU)

PiatraNeam (RO)Lisboa(PT)Lige(BE)

Rostock(DE)Ankara(TR)Tallinn(EE)Oviedo(ES)Vilnius(LT)

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

Mlaga(ES)Diyarbakir(TR)

Riga(LV)Miskolc(HU)

Napoli(IT)Palermo(IT)

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA

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

somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements?


page 13


16/89

In the cities where respondents were the most pessimistic about job opportunities, a large majority of

respondents strongly disagreedthat 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, arelative 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 20thposition 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


17/89

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

75717170

69625554

5250

48484747

4645

4444

424241

40

4038

36343434

3231303030

292726262525

2525242423232322

20202019181817171616

1615

131312

11111010109998876

6

2012

1524

201622

2722

3230

2822

2730

3335

3344

2932

20

2923

3429

2744

262629

4728

4632

3347

3239

262419

263234

2824

2245

2929

5031

2349

2821

2924

3230

4128

3221

3632

1812

3324

1429

23

18

37

53

41213

1011

1012

1214

1310

912

118

2115

22

1716

161821

152121

2312

3019

2412

1325

25

333329

2421

2431

3232

1525

3516

1938

1829

36

3728

2838

2129

3140

2940

4331

2941

3843

42

38

01

10

351

62

34

12

22

21

01

51

9

42

45

132

510

51

72

32

14

4

768

93

36

10132

541

4141

314

410

611

48

316

28

145

813

235

11

12

210

73

369

313

55

1015

111311

812

53

1010

1121

1114

65

161213

1055

1527

1315

7

91320

1721

17131313

1822

1415

288

1524

12

1423

219

222524

1324

1117

4421

151717

18

27

Palermo(IT)Riga(LV)Miskolc(HU)Napoli(IT)

Diyarbakir(TR)Zagreb(HR)Lisboa(PT)stanbul(TR)Vilnius(LT)Ankara(TR)Dublin(IE)Tallinn(EE)Budapest(HU)PiatraNeam (RO)Braga(PT)Kosice(SK)Roma(IT)Torino(IT)Mlaga(ES)Athinia(EL)Biaystok(PL)Bucureti(RO)

Marseille(FR)Valletta(MT)Ostrava(CZ)ClujNapoc(RO)Antalya(TR)Barcelona(ES)Glasgow(UK)Burgas(BG)Belfast(UK)Oviedo(ES)Irakleio(EL)Madrid(ES)Verona(IT)Lige(BE)Rostock(DE)Lille(FR)Oulu(FI)

Ljubljana(SI)Gdansk(PL)Manchester(UK)Newcastle(UK)Bordeaux(FR)Bologna(IT)Krakw(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)Malm(SE)Aalborg(DK)Helsinki(FI)Essen(DE)Wien(AT)Graz(AT)Praha(CZ)Rennes(FR)Luxembourg(LU)Kbenhavn(DK)Antwerpen(BE)Groningen(NL)Mnchen(DE)Stockholm(SE)Hamburg(DE)Amsterdam(NL)

Rotterdam(NL)0 20 40 60 80 100

Palermo(IT)Riga(LV)

Miskolc(HU)Napoli(IT)

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

stanbul(TR)Vilnius(LT)

Ankara(TR)Dublin(IE)

Tallinn(EE)Budapest(HU)

PiatraNeam (RO)Braga(PT)

Kosice(SK)Roma(IT)

Torino(IT)Mlaga(ES)Athinia(EL)

Biaystok(PL)Bucureti(RO)

Marseille(FR)Valletta(MT)Ostrava(CZ)

ClujNapoc(RO)Antalya(TR)

Barcelona(ES)Glasgow(UK)

Burgas(BG)Belfast(UK)Oviedo(ES)Irakleio(EL)Madrid(ES)Verona(IT)

Lige(BE)Rostock(DE)

Lille(FR)Oulu(FI)

Ljubljana(SI)Gdansk(PL)Manchester(UK)

Newcastle(UK)Bordeaux(FR)

Bologna(IT)Krakw(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)Malm(SE)Aalborg(DK)

Helsinki(FI)Essen(DE)Wien(AT)Graz(AT)

Praha(CZ)Rennes(FR)

Luxembourg(LU)Kbenhavn(DK)Antwerpen(BE)Groningen(NL)Mnchen(DE)

Stockholm(SE)Hamburg(DE)

Amsterdam(NL)

Rotterdam(NL)

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree DK/NA

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


page 15


18/89

H ous i n g c o st s

About two-thirds of respondents living in Leipzig, Aalborg, Braga and Oulu strongly orsomewhat

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 aslim 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 orsomewhatdisagreed 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 disagreedthat

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 disagreedwith 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 f ind good housing at a reasonable price


19/89

It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price

2923

221617

1221

821

1412111314

161416

1212

171718

121112

108

138

16812

86

114

8711

3

558

53

64

22

54

23213

63

744

24

3343

11212100

4244

4448

42

4433

4530

3738

373533

303231

3433

2826

23

292928

2930

2529

1926

2225

2721

2822

2218

24

212117

202217

192021

1717

181617

171512

1410

1312

1412

1311109

9988

656

2

1716

1627

20

222224

2132

3026

331820

2323

2221

1720

14

282227

2327

2421

2132

2134

3122

3032

2719

37

292630

3635

3137

3729

4326

2622

3428

4420

3327

3731

3612

4835

2132

2228

2035

4141

2319

35

87

66

159

239

89

1218

2312

2522

1927

1822

29271726

2134

3429

2337

1816

2721

2535

4830

373142

3428

3424

2423

2547

4150

3236

3056

3846

4145

3667

2645

6054

6455

64534448

6577

81111

31617

914

49

1216

817

1019

611

1512

1822

31217

1314

49

1511

915

211917

149

57

8173

61112

1617

2610

614

814

1877

1210

57

135

10643

486

375

71

Leipzig(DE)Aalborg(DK)Braga(PT)Oulu(FI)Dortmund(DE)Oviedo(ES)Newcastle(UK)Mlaga(ES)Diyarbakir(TR)Berlin(DE)Essen(DE)Groningen(NL)Rostock(DE)Miskolc(HU)Belfast(UK)Biaystok(PL)Antalya(TR)Cardiff(UK)Manchester(UK)PiatraNeam (RO)Vilnius(LT)Riga(LV)

Ankara(TR)Valletta(MT)Tallinn(EE)Glasgow(UK)Ostrava(CZ)Irakleio(EL)Palermo(IT)Burgas(BG)Malm(SE)ClujNapoc(RO)Rotterdam(NL)Madrid(ES)Sofia(BG)Lige(BE)Gdansk(PL)Athinia(EL)Dublin(IE)Bordeaux(FR)

Praha(CZ)Budapest(HU)stanbul(TR)Lille(FR)Barcelona(ES)Krakw(PL)Graz(AT)Kosice(SK)Antwerpen(BE)Rennes(FR)Napoli(IT)Torino(IT)Lefkosia(CY)Wien(AT)Verona(IT)Strasbourg(FR)Bucureti(RO)Bruxelles/Brussel(BE)Warszawa(PL)Kbenhavn(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)Mnchen(DE)Roma(IT)Paris(FR)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Leipzig(DE)Aalborg(DK)

Braga(PT)Oulu(FI)

Dortmund(DE)Oviedo(ES)Newcastle(UK)Mlaga(ES)

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

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

Belfast(UK)Biaystok(PL)

Antalya(TR)Cardiff(UK)

Manchester(UK)PiatraNeam (RO)

Vilnius(LT)Riga(LV)

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

Glasgow(UK)Ostrava(CZ)Irakleio(EL)

Palermo(IT)Burgas(BG)Malm(SE)

ClujNapoc(RO)Rotterdam(NL)

Madrid(ES)Sofia(BG)Lige(BE)

Gdansk(PL)Athinia(EL)

Dublin(IE)Bordeaux(FR)

Praha(CZ)Budapest(HU)stanbul(TR)

Lille(FR)Barcelona(ES)

Krakw(PL)Graz(AT)

Kosice(SK)Antwerpen(BE)

Rennes(FR)Napoli(IT)Torino(IT)

Lefkosia(CY)Wien(AT)

Verona(IT)Strasbourg(FR)

Bucureti(RO)Bruxelles/Brussel(BE)

Warszawa(PL)Kbenhavn(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)

Mnchen(DE)Roma(IT)Paris(FR)



somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements?


page 17


20/89

1.2 Pover t y an d f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i es

Pover t y a t c i t y l ev el

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

somewhatorstrongly disagreedthat 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 aproblem 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 Diyarbakirsomewhatorstrongly

agreedthat 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 rangedfrom 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


21/89

Poverty is a problem

271414

1023

1212

1011

1614

128

12101111

815

12911

11109

676

1013

610

57

512

766

5912

479

46

44

97

11788

46

844

32

84

235

3435

334

1

4248

4749

303938

3937

3031

3235

31333232

3426

293129

282929

3028

2824

212722

2624

2619

232423

2419

1624

2018

2219

2121

1518

13171414

1715

111514

1515

911

141210

1010

107

774

3

1627

2731

283437

3335

3039

3236

3337

3635

442628

3432

343632

4346

3936

2846

3444

4249

3847

4351

4334

2647

454346

3952

4532

3622

2927

3835

32

32 4949

4134

254948

4137

4224

5323

3921

1715

569

610

109

11720

8181219101416

1130

2622

24

20212814

1220

2531

1527

1814

1823

1821

1720

3244

1917

2820

3322

204335

5342

4837

3945

45 1930

3647

5834

3141

4541

6132

6450

6770

78

11534

1054

711

486

95

1086

33

655

742

8775

76

86

132

856

39

63

711

28

31

112

52

544

52

4143

521

36

4442

3112

4

2

Aalborg(DK)Oulu(FI)Praha(CZ)Oviedo(ES)Valletta(MT)Bratislava(SK)Luxembourg(LU)Kbenhavn(DK)Groningen(NL)Lefkosia(CY)Stockholm(SE)Warszawa(PL)Mnchen(DE)Gdansk(PL)Rennes(FR)Cardiff(UK)Krakw(PL)Helsinki(FI)Antalya(TR)ClujNapoc(RO)Bologna(IT)Verona(IT)

Newcastle(UK)Ljubljana(SI)Irakleio(EL)Ostrava(CZ)Amsterdam(NL)Wien(AT)Biaystok(PL)Burgas(BG)Graz(AT)Manchester(UK)Kosice(SK)Malm(SE)Mlaga(ES)Belfast(UK)Strasbourg(FR)Bordeaux(FR)Madrid(ES)Rostock(DE)PiatraNeam (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)Bucureti(RO)Dublin(IE)Tallinn(EE)Napoli(IT)

Glasgow(UK)Antwerpen(BE)Lille(FR)Torino(IT)Palermo(IT)stanbul(TR)Paris(FR)Dortmund(DE)Berlin(DE)Marseille(FR)Bruxelles/Brussel(BE)Athinia(EL)Lige(BE)Diyarbakir(TR)Lisboa(PT)Budapest(HU)Riga(LV)Miskolc(HU)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Aalborg(DK)Oulu(FI)

Praha(CZ)Oviedo(ES)

Valletta(MT)Bratislava(SK)

Luxembourg(LU)Kbenhavn(DK)

Groningen(NL)Lefkosia(CY)

Stockholm(SE)Warszawa(PL)Mnchen(DE)

Gdansk(PL)Rennes(FR)Cardiff(UK)Krakw(PL)Helsinki(FI)

Antalya(TR)ClujNapoc(RO)

Bologna(IT)Verona(IT)

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

Ostrava(CZ)Amsterdam(NL)

Wien(AT)Biaystok(PL)

Burgas(BG)Graz(AT)

Manchester(UK)Kosice(SK)

Malm(SE)Mlaga(ES)Belfast(UK)

Strasbourg(FR)Bordeaux(FR)

Madrid(ES)Rostock(DE)

PiatraNeam (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)

Bucureti(RO)Dublin(IE)

Tallinn(EE)Napoli(IT)

Glasgow(UK)Antwerpen(BE)Lille(FR)

Torino(IT)Palermo(IT)stanbul(TR)

Paris(FR)Dortmund(DE)

Berlin(DE)Marseille(FR)

Bruxelles/Brussel(BE)Athinia(EL)

Lige(BE)Diyarbakir(TR)

Lisboa(PT)Budapest(HU)

Riga(LV)Miskolc(HU)

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree DK/NA

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


page 19


22/89

Correlation between perceptions about job oppor tunities and poverty

Correlation between perceptions about job opportunities and poverty

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

%

disagreeing

thatpovertyisaproblem

inthecity

%agreeingitiseasytofindagoodjobinthecity

Correlationcoefficient:rxy= .544

[N.B. A correlation coefficient summarises the strength of the (linear) relationship between two measures. While

a correlation of -1 or 1 indicates a perfect correlation, a coefficient of 0 indicates that there is no correlation

between two measures. A positive correlation means that as one measure gets larger, the other gets larger too

(i.e. the higher the score on variable A, the higher the score is for variable B). A negative correlation means that

as one measure gets larger the other gets smaller.]

1.3 The p r esen ce o f f o r ei gn er s

The p r esence of f o r ei gn er s i s good f o r t h e c i t y

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 orsomewhatagreed 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 offoreigners 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 orsomewhatagree 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


23/89

equivalent number in Nicosia: 47%-48% of respondents in those cities strongly orsomewhatagreed

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, while80% 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.

I n t eg r a t i o n o f f o r e i g n er s

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 goodfor their city this can easily be seen on the scatter plot below.

The proportion of respondents who strongly orsomewhatagreed that foreigners in their city were well

integrated ranged from 20% in Athens to 67% in Antalya. Other cities at the higher end of this ranking

were Groningen, Cluj-Napoca, Cardiff, Kosice, Braga and Luxembourg; in these cities, roughly two-

thirds (65%-66%) of respondents agreed that foreigners were well integrated.

More than three-quarters of respondents in Athens disagreed that foreigners in their city were well

integrated: 25% somewhatdisagreed and 52% strongly disagreed. A majority of respondents

somewhatorstrongly 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 dont 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 citys 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


24/89

Correlation between two statements about foreigners

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

%

agreeingthatforeignersarewellintegrated

%agreeingthatthepresenceofforeignersisgood

Correlationcoefficient:rxy

= .503

1.4 Feel i n gs o f sa fe t y an d t r u s t

Peop l e can be t r us ted

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 somewhatagreed only 6% inAalborg 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 Aalborgs: 59% of people living in Istanbul strongly

disagreed and 26% somewhatdisagreed 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 somewhatorstrongly agreed that most oftheir 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 disagreedthat most of their fellow citizens could be trusted. In Sofia,Bucharest and Athens, about half of respondents expressed strong disagreement (48%-50%).


25/89

Generally speaking, most people in the city can be trusted

342627

2422

3124

2131

2726

2426

2035

1830

2030

1817

13

131515

1217

2012

781111

2527

611

1810

17

151310

2014

623

1010

55

817

1112

516

65

1514

79

86

154557

36

35

4

566261

6465

5662

6352

5555

5654

5943

5945

5444

5657

60

585656

585146

535857

5454

3836

5650

4249

42

434547

3643

4931

4240

4444

4031

3635

4130

3939

2829

3532

3332

22323029

242420

1916

10

47

59

9

88

710

12101213

119

1910

151113

1819

172115

241720

1924

1515

1815162224

1720

16

202022

2125

2722

2124

2328

322327

2529

2130

32262729

2828

3024

3836

322229

2225

2326

22

013

13

323

23

248

38

4118

54

3 48

510

87

85

1061616

912

1413

11

101115

141415

222119

1914

1528

1325

2025

1811

2729

252123

2035

1219

2641

374850

4859

44

732

43

644

65

675

267

364

5

9 46

367

83

151111

65

83

98

14

13116

8544

67

99

51

132

697

155

25

108

124

1410

8765

28

2

Aalborg(DK)Rostock(DE)Groningen(NL)Oviedo(ES)Luxembourg(LU)Leipzig(DE)Oulu(FI)Mnchen(DE)Stockholm(SE)Braga(PT)Hamburg(DE)Graz(AT)Essen(DE)Kbenhavn(DK)Newcastle(UK)Helsinki(FI)Belfast(UK)Dortmund(DE)Glasgow(UK)Cardiff(UK)Wien(AT)Berlin(DE)

Amsterdam(NL)Mlaga(ES)Malm(SE)Madrid(ES)Verona(IT)Biaystok(PL)Rennes(FR)Barcelona(ES)Antwerpen(BE)Bordeaux(FR)Rotterdam(NL)PiatraNeam (RO)Dublin(IE)Strasbourg(FR)Bologna(IT)Manchester(UK)Lille(FR)Valletta(MT)

Gdansk(PL)Krakw(PL)Ljubljana(SI)ClujNapoc(RO)Palermo(IT)Lisboa(PT)Diyarbakir(TR)Marseille(FR)London(UK)Bruxelles/Brussel(BE)Lige(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)Bucureti(RO)Athinia(EL)Sofia(BG)stanbul(TR)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Aalborg(DK)Rostock(DE)

Groningen(NL)Oviedo(ES)

Luxembourg(LU)Leipzig(DE)Oulu(FI)

Mnchen(DE)Stockholm(SE)

Braga(PT)Hamburg(DE)

Graz(AT)Essen(DE)

Kbenhavn(DK)Newcastle(UK)

Helsinki(FI)Belfast(UK)

Dortmund(DE)Glasgow(UK)

Cardiff(UK)Wien(AT)

Berlin(DE)

Amsterdam(NL)Mlaga(ES)Malm(SE)Madrid(ES)Verona(IT)

Biaystok(PL)Rennes(FR)

Barcelona(ES)Antwerpen(BE)

Bordeaux(FR)Rotterdam(NL)

PiatraNeam (RO)Dublin(IE)

Strasbourg(FR)Bologna(IT)

Manchester(UK)Lille(FR)

Valletta(MT)

Gdansk(PL)Krakw(PL)Ljubljana(SI)

ClujNapoc(RO)Palermo(IT)

Lisboa(PT)Diyarbakir(TR)

Marseille(FR)London(UK)

Bruxelles/Brussel(BE)Lige(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)Bucureti(RO)

Athinia(EL)Sofia(BG)

stanbul(TR)



somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements?Base: all respondents, % by city

page 23


26/89

Feel i n g sa f e i n t h e ci t y

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 andLuxembourg (both 73%). Not more than 1 in 20 respondents in the aforementioned cities rarely or

neverfelt 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 orneverdid 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 orneverfelt this way. That

citys 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 orneverfelt 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 ci ty


27/89

Respondents feel safe in the city

Always Sometimes Rarely Never

8479

7877

76

7373

696767

6564

636363

61616160606059

595958

57565655

545353525251515150

4949

484847474747

45454444

424241414141

39363635

3434343333323232313030

252020

14

1419

2120

19

2123

253030

3133

292928

2329

27313234

32

2929333639

3632

3636

29394143

3737

304242

302841

3837

4036

3237

3446

3246

3130

4840

4425

5144

3533

3236

5536

3237

3546

36303042

1112

4

23

422

13

66

78

78

36

57

785

63

68

66

964

49

67

65

967

99

97

12816

714

714

138

159

188

1118

1213

148

1616

1822

1115

2011

17

10101

31

211

21

123

83

44

22

2

332

222

434

9332

36

1124

121736

65

121110

44

105

1415

36

1021

411

121920

155

1319

131212

2229

3927

Oviedo(ES)Groningen(NL)Aalborg(DK)Oulu(FI)Mnchen(DE)PiatraNeam (RO)Luxembourg(LU)Bordeaux(FR)Kbenhavn(DK)Helsinki(FI)Amsterdam(NL)Stockholm(SE)Rostock(DE)Ljubljana(SI)Wien(AT)Zagreb(HR)Verona(IT)Graz(AT)ClujNapoc(RO)Essen(DE)Hamburg(DE)Leipzig(DE)

Dortmund(DE)Mlaga(ES)Biaystok(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)Malm(SE)

Antwerpen(BE)Diyarbakir(TR)Krakw(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)Lige(BE)Bucureti(RO)Sofia(BG)stanbul(TR)Athinia(EL)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Oviedo(ES)Groningen(NL)

Aalborg(DK)Oulu(FI)

Mnchen(DE)PiatraNeam (RO)Luxembourg(LU)

Bordeaux(FR)Kbenhavn(DK)

Helsinki(FI)Amsterdam(NL)

Stockholm(SE)Rostock(DE)Ljubljana(SI)

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

Graz(AT)ClujNapoc(RO)

Essen(DE)Hamburg(DE)

Leipzig(DE)

Dortmund(DE)Mlaga(ES)Biaystok(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)Malm(SE)

Antwerpen(BE)Diyarbakir(TR)Krakw(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)Lige(BE)

Bucureti(RO)Sofia(BG)

stanbul(TR)Athinia(EL)

DK/NA

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

happens to you?Base: all respondents, % by city

page 25


28/89

Correlation between trust in people and feeling safe in the city

Correlation between trust in people and feeling safe in the city

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

%

alwaysfeelingsafeintheircity

%agreeingthatmostpeopleinthecitycanbetrusted


= .828

Feel i n g sa f e i n one s ne i ghb ou r hood

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 ones

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 neverfelt 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

neverfelt 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 orneverfelt 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


29/89

Respondents feel safe in theirneighbourhood

Always Sometimes Rarely Never

9191919089

89888888878787

848483838282

80797978

7776767675757474747473

72717170707069

68676767676666

6564636362

61606060595958

565554535352

504948

46464644

3838

33

788

79

8911

101112

10121315

1417

1418

1613

19

191918

21192022

1820

192122

1921

1826

2524

242425

2120

3025

2223

27252730

2825

23222325

2237

2734

3821

3431

2530

2927

3238

3532

111

20

21

0111

121

11

12

24

42

332

2232

44

234

36

33

35

544

57

25

106

7966

67

81198

104

87

512

712

617

910

99

1113

00001

11

100

232

120

201

41

113

1322

42

632

72

9222

244

77

24

28

33

54

57

98

99

114

1154

1588

217

1615

1314

1321

Rostock(DE)Aalborg(DK)Mnchen(DE)Leipzig(DE)Oviedo(ES)Essen(DE)Dortmund(DE)Groningen(NL)Hamburg(DE)Oulu(FI)Berlin(DE)Luxembourg(LU)Graz(AT)Bordeaux(FR)Kbenhavn(DK)PiatraNeam (RO)Stockholm(SE)Wien(AT)Helsinki(FI)Ljubljana(SI)Zagreb(HR)Amsterdam(NL)

Rotterdam(NL)Biaystok(PL)ClujNapoc(RO)Dublin(IE)Lille(FR)Braga(PT)Belfast(UK)Mlaga(ES)Rennes(FR)Antalya(TR)Strasbourg(FR)Malm(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)Lige(BE)Krakw(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)stanbul(TR)Praha(CZ)Vilnius(LT)Riga(LV)Bucureti(RO)Athinia(EL)Burgas(BG)Sofia(BG)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Rostock(DE)Aalborg(DK)

Mnchen(DE)Leipzig(DE)Oviedo(ES)

Essen(DE)Dortmund(DE)Groningen(NL)

Hamburg(DE)Oulu(FI)

Berlin(DE)Luxembourg(LU)

Graz(AT)Bordeaux(FR)

Kbenhavn(DK)PiatraNeam (RO)

Stockholm(SE)Wien(AT)

Helsinki(FI)Ljubljana(SI)

Zagreb(HR)Amsterdam(NL)

Rotterdam(NL)Biaystok(PL)ClujNapoc(RO)

Dublin(IE)Lille(FR)

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

Strasbourg(FR)Malm(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)

Lige(BE)Krakw(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)stanbul(TR)

Praha(CZ)Vilnius(LT)

Riga(LV)Bucureti(RO)

Athinia(EL)Burgas(BG)

Sofia(BG)

DK/NA

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


30/89

Correlation between feeling safe in cit ies and neighbourhoods

Correlation between feeling safe in cities and neighbourhoods

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

%alwaysfeelingsafeintheirownneighbourhood

%always feelingsafeintheircity


= .897

1.5 Ci t i e s m o st im p o r t a n t p r o b l em s

The chart on the following page shows for each city respondents views about the three majorissues 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 ofhealth 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 selectedurban 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 ofair 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


31/89

problems in their city selected by 45% of respondents. Each of these topics will be discussed in more

detail in the following chapters.

47

3030

453735

5043

33

5540

32

433834

4947

40

3938

33

6859

34

6651

31

6051

29

5952

35

6950

31

5043

34

7251

36

5544

34

5247

38

4544

39

5446

41

5948

37

Antwerpen(BE)Urbansafety

RoadsAirpollutionBruxelles/Brussel(BE)

UrbansafetyJobscreation

EducationLige(BE)

UrbansafetyJobscreationAirpollutionOstrava(CZ)Airpollution

JobscreationUrbansafety

Praha(CZ)Airpollution

NoiseUrbansafety

Aalborg(DK)HealthservicesEducation

JobscreationKobenhavn(DK)

HealthservicesEducation

JobscreationBerlin(DE)

JobscreationEducation

UrbansafetyDortmund(DE)


RoadsEssen(DE)


HealthservicesHamburg(DE)

EducationJobscreationUrbansafety

Leipzig(DE)Jobscreation

EducationRoads

Mnchen(DE)Education

JobscreationUrbansafetyRostock(DE)


HealthservicesTallinn(EE)

JobscreationHealthservicesSocialservices

Athinia(EL)Healthservices

AirpollutionJobscreation

Irakleio(EL)Roads

HealthservicesJobscreation

Barcelona(ES)Jobscreation

HealthservicesUrbansafety

Madrid(ES)Jobscreation


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

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

72

4539

6548

40

523736

513937

5038

34

5141

36

5142

35

4744

39

6363

48

423837

733935

623836

4939

33

623937

4842

29

4544

35

6959

38

5346

31

4744

39

Mlaga(ES)Jobscreation

HealthservicesEducationOviedo(ES)

JobscreationHealthservices

EducationBordeaux(FR)

JobscreationHousing

HealthservicesLille(FR)


HealthservicesMarseille(FR)JobscreationUrbansafety

Education

Paris(FR)HousingJobscreation

EducationRennes(FR)


HealthservicesStrasbourg(FR)

JobscreationAirpollution

EducationDublin(IE)

JobscreationHealthservices

EducationBologna(IT)

JobscreationAirpollutionUrbansafety

Napoli(IT)JobscreationAirpollution

HealthservicesPalermo(IT)


HealthservicesRoma(IT)


PublictransportTorino(IT)

JobscreationAirpollutionUrbansafety

Verona(IT)Airpollution

JobscreationUrbansafetyLefkosia(CY)

PublictransportHealthservices

AirpollutionRiga(LV)

JobscreationHealthservicesSocialservices

Vilnius(LT)Jobscreation


Luxembourg(LU)Education

JobscreationHousing

50

4639

7849

40

4537

31

463938

444140

524138

484645

4141

38

7160

38

5249

44

534543

5644

38

7067

43

6251

37

4545

33

303029

4427

23

6646

40

6459

53

Budapest(HU)Jobscreation

HealthservicesAirpollutionMiskolc(HU)JobscreationUrbansafety

HealthservicesValletta(MT)Airpollution

HealthservicesRoads

Amsterdam(NL)Education

UrbansafetyHealthservicesGroningen(NL)

EducationJobscreation

Healthservices

Rotterdam(NL)UrbansafetyEducation

HealthservicesWien(AT)Education


Graz(AT)Jobscreation

EducationAirpollution

Biaystok(PL)Jobscreation

HealthservicesRoads

Gdask(PL)Healthservices

RoadsJobscreation

Krakw(PL)Healthservices

RoadsJobscreation

Warszawa(PL)Healthservices

RoadsPublictransport

Braga(PT)Jobscreation


Lisboa(PT)Healthservices

JobscreationUrbansafetyLjubljana(SI)


HousingBratislava(SK)

RoadsAirpollution

HealthservicesKosice(SK)

JobscreationUrbansafetyAirpollutionHelsinki(FI)


PublictransportOulu(FI)


Education

54

4638

414040

5857

52

554946

5351

47

494442

474644

535250

6351

39

56

5138

6747

31

553737

5252

34

6459

32

5352

44

5150

35

6161

52

504847

Malm(SE)Jobscreation

HealthservicesUrbansafetyStockholm(SE)

HousingJobscreation

HealthservicesBelfast(UK)

EducationHealthservices

JobscreationCardiff(UK)


JobscreationGlasgow(UK)


Jobscreation

London(UK)HealthservicesEducation

JobscreationManchester(UK)

EducationHealthservices

JobscreationNewcastle(UK)Healthservices


Burgas(BG)Airpollution


Sofia(BG)Airpollution

RoadsHealthservices

Zagreb(HR)Jobscreation

HealthservicesHousing

Bucureti(RO)Healthservices

EducationAirpollution

ClujNapoc(RO)Jobscreation

HealthservicesE

Documents

Survey2009 en 75Cidades