Upload
cboengiu
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
1/89
Survey on perception
of quality of life
in 75 European cities
EN
Flash Eurobarometer March 2010
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
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]
(statistical questions)
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
5/89
page 3
C o n t e n t s
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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
7/89
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
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.
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
9/89
Main f in d in gs
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 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 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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
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.
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
11/89
page 9
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
12/89
1. Pe r cep t ion s a bou t s oc ia l r ea l it y
1.1 H e a l t h c a r e , e m p l o y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t ie s a n d h o u s in g c o st s
H ea lt h ca r e s er v icesThere 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 ratheror 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 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 ratheror 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 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)
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
13/89
S a t is f a ct i o n wi t h h e a l t h c a r e s e r v ic e s ( o f fe r e d b y d o c t o r s a n d h o sp i t a l s )
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
Q 1. G en e r a l l y s p eak i n g , p lea s e t e l l m e i f yo u a r e v e r y s a t i s f ied , r a t h e r s a t i s fi ed , r a t h e r u n s a t i s fi ed
o r n o t a t a l l s a t i s fi ed w i t h ea ch o f t h e f o ll o w in g i s s u es :
Base: all respondents, % by city
page 11
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
14/89
Em p lo y m en t o p p or t u n it ie s
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 positive to least positive
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
15/89
I t i s e a sy t o f in d a g o o d j o b 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
Q 2 . I w i ll r ead y o u a f ew s t a t em en t s . P lea s e t e l l m e w h e t h e r y o u s t r o n g l y ag r ee , s o m ew h a t a g r ee ,
s o m ew h a t d i s ag r ee o r s t r o n g ly d i s agr ee w i t h each o f t h e s e s t a t em en t s ?
Base: all respondents, % by city
page 13
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
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 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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
17/89
I t i s e a sy t o f in d a g o o d j o b 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
Q 2 . I w i ll r ead y o u a f ew s ta t em en t s . P l ea s e t e l l m e w h e t h e r y o u s t r o n g l y ag r ee , s o m ew h a t a g r ee ,
s o m ew h a t d i s ag r ee o r s t r o n g ly d i sag r ee w i t h each o f t h e s e s t a t em en t s ?
Base: all respondents, % by city
page 15
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
18/89
H o u s in g co s t s
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 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 or somewhatdisagreed 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 find good housing at a reasonable price
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
19/89
I t is e a sy t o fi n d g o o d h o u s i n g a t a r e a so n a b l e p r i ce
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)
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA
Q 2 . I w i ll r ead y o u a f ew s ta t em en t s . P l ea s e t e l l m e w h e t h e r y o u s t r o n g l y agr ee , s o m ew h a t a g r ee ,
s o m ew h a t d i s ag r ee o r s t r o n g ly d i s agr ee w i t h each o f t h e s e s t a t em en t s ?
Base: all respondents, % by city
page 17
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
20/89
1. 2 Pover t y an d f ina n c ia l d i f f icu l t i e s
P o v e r t y a t c it y l ev e l
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
somewhator strongly 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 Diyarbakir somewhator strongly
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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
21/89
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
22/89
Correlation between perceptions about job opportunities and poverty
Co r r e l a t io n b e t w e e n p e r c e p t i o n s a b o u t jo b o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d p o v e r t y
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 pr e sen ce o f fo re ign ers
T h e p r e s e n c e o f f o r e i g n e r s i s g o o d f o r t h e c it 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 or somewhatagreed 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 or somewhatagree 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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
23/89
equivalent number in Nicosia: 47%-48% of respondents in those cities strongly or somewhatagreed
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.
In t eg r a t io n o f fo r e ig 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 or somewhatagreed 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
somewhator 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 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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
24/89
Co r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t w o s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t f o r e ig n e r s
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 F ee li n g s o f s a f e t y a n d t r u s t
P e o p le c a n b e t r u s t e d
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 somewhator strongly 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%).
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
25/89
G en e r a lly s p e a k in g , m o s t p e o p l e i n t h e c it y ca n b e t r u s t e d
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)
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA
Q 2 . I w i ll r e a d y o u a f e w s t a t e m e n t s . P l e a s e t e l l m e w h e t h e r y o u s t r o n g l y a g r e e , s o m e w h a t a g r e e ,
s o m e w h a t d i s a g r e e o r s t r o n g ly d i s a g r e e w it h e a c h o f t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s ?
Base: all respondents, % by city
page 23
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
26/89
Fee l in g sa fe in th e c i 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 or neverdid 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 neverfelt 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 theyrarely or neverfelt 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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
27/89
R e s p o n d e n t s fe e l s a fe in t h e c it y
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
Q 3 . Fo r e a c h o f t h e f o ll o w in g s t a t e m e n t s , p l e a s e t e l l m e , i f t h is a l w a y s , s o m e t i m e s , r a r e l y o r n e v e r
h a p p e n s t o y ou ?
Base: all respondents, % by city
page 25
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
28/89
Correlation between trust in people and feeling safe in the city
Cor re la t ion be tween t rus t in peo p le and fee l ing s a fe in the c i ty
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
%
alwaysfeelingsafeintheircity
%agreeingthatmostpeopleinthecitycanbetrusted
Correlationcoefficient:rxy
= .828
Fe e li n g s a f e i n o n e s n e i g h b o u r h o o d
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 or neverfelt 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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
29/89
R e s p o n d e n t s f ee l s a f e i n t h e i r n e i gh b o u r h o o d
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
Q 3 . Fo r e a c h o f t h e f o ll o w in g s t a t e m e n t s , p l e a s e t e l l m e , i f t h i s a l w a ys , s o m e t i m e s , r a r e l y o r n e v e r
h a p p e n s t o y o u ?
Base: all respondents, % by city
page 27
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
30/89
Correlation between feeling safe in cities and neighbourhoods
C o r r e l a t io n b e t w e e n f e e li n g s a f e i n c i t ie s a n d n e i g h b o u r h o o d s
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
Correlationcoefficient:rxy
= .897
1.5 Ci t ie s m o s t i m p o r t a n t p r o b l e m 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 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 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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
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)
JobscreationEducation
RoadsEssen(DE)
JobscreationEducation
HealthservicesHamburg(DE)
EducationJobscreationUrbansafety
Leipzig(DE)Jobscreation
EducationRoads
Mnchen(DE)Education
JobscreationUrbansafetyRostock(DE)
JobscreationEducation
HealthservicesTallinn(EE)
JobscreationHealthservicesSocialservices
Athinia(EL)Healthservices
AirpollutionJobscreation
Irakleio(EL)Roads
HealthservicesJobscreation
Barcelona(ES)Jobscreation
HealthservicesUrbansafety
Madrid(ES)Jobscreation
HealthservicesUrbansafety
P e r c e p t i o n s a b o u t c i t ie s m o s t im p o r t a n t p r o b l e m s (three most mentioned issues)
Q5 . Am o n g th e fo l lo win g i s su e s , wh ic h a r e t h e t h re e m o s t im p o r t a n t fo r y o u r c i t y ?
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)
JobscreationUrbansafety
HealthservicesMarseille(FR)JobscreationUrbansafety
Education
Paris(FR)HousingJobscreation
EducationRennes(FR)
JobscreationEducation
HealthservicesStrasbourg(FR)
JobscreationAirpollution
EducationDublin(IE)
JobscreationHealthservices
EducationBologna(IT)
JobscreationAirpollutionUrbansafety
Napoli(IT)JobscreationAirpollution
HealthservicesPalermo(IT)
JobscreationAirpollution
HealthservicesRoma(IT)
JobscreationAirpollution
PublictransportTorino(IT)
JobscreationAirpollutionUrbansafety
Verona(IT)Airpollution
JobscreationUrbansafetyLefkosia(CY)
PublictransportHealthservices
AirpollutionRiga(LV)
JobscreationHealthservicesSocialservices
Vilnius(LT)Jobscreation
HealthservicesUrbansafety
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
JobscreationUrbansafety
Graz(AT)Jobscreation
EducationAirpollution
Biaystok(PL)Jobscreation
HealthservicesRoads
Gdask(PL)Healthservices
RoadsJobscreation
Krakw(PL)Healthservices
RoadsJobscreation
Warszawa(PL)Healthservices
RoadsPublictransport
Braga(PT)Jobscreation
HealthservicesEducation
Lisboa(PT)Healthservices
JobscreationUrbansafetyLjubljana(SI)
HealthservicesJobscreation
HousingBratislava(SK)
RoadsAirpollution
HealthservicesKosice(SK)
JobscreationUrbansafetyAirpollutionHelsinki(FI)
HealthservicesEducation
PublictransportOulu(FI)
HealthservicesJobscreation
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)
HealthservicesEducation
JobscreationGlasgow(UK)
HealthservicesEducation
Jobscreation
London(UK)HealthservicesEducation
JobscreationManchester(UK)
EducationHealthservices
JobscreationNewcastle(UK)Healthservices
JobscreationEducation
Burgas(BG)Airpollution
HealthservicesJobscreation
Sofia(BG)Airpollution
RoadsHealthservices
Zagreb(HR)Jobscreation
HealthservicesHousing
Bucureti(RO)Healthservices
EducationAirpollution
ClujNapoc(RO)Jobscreation
HealthservicesEducation
PiatraNeam (RO)Jobscreation
HealthservicesEducation
Ankara(TR)Healthservices
EducationJobscreation
Antalya(TR)Healthservices
EducationJobscreation
Diyarbakir(TR)Education
JobscreationHealthservices
stanbul(TR)Healthservices
JobscreationEducation
page 29
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
32/89
2 . P o llu t i o n a n d c lim a t e c h a n ge
2 . 1 Clean a n d h ea l th y c it i e s
A ir q u a lit y a n d a ir p o llu t io n
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 citys main problems. Respondents in those four cities
were also the most likely to somewhator 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 somewhator 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, abouttwo-thirds of respondents somewhator 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
7/31/2019 Survey March 2010_Field Work November 2009
33/89
Ai r p o l lu t i o n i s a m a j o r p r o b l e m
3528
3619
27
2836
1120
1815
2018
2115
1320
2718
1228
13
1095
172120
135
13101213
1010
147
157
8578
73
96
45
109
457657
6555
335
43333444
22
4647
3950
41
3931
5544
4447
414237
4343
3426
3340
2236
383842
2925
2329
3625
272322
2423
1824
1623
21232018
1821
1518
1918
1314
191715
151513
14151414
131311
1212119
75
33
41
1318
1524
21
1617
2421
312526
2720
2732
3023
2432
2233
343234
3427
2827
402831
2537
352728
4227
23
323426
4532
4334
4648
452525
3446
292729
40
4436
3035
3634
404246
3635
3118
189
198
43
86
7
1115
68
79
911
1414
1014
2117
1526
14
14171617
2727
2318
2930
3526
2333
3921
4046
363446
2641
3141
272431
4949
4330
4947
5038
2841
474246
494242
3949
5158
7174
8373
88
2431
4
72
47
1542
82222
722
4