You are on page 1of 89

EN

Survey on perception of quality of life in 75 European cities

Flash Eurobarometer

March 2010

Foreword
Cities are the vibrating pulse of our society. Since 1998, we have been working with Member States on collecting statistical data that will give us means of comparing Europes cities. The survey results you will find in the following pages usefully complement these quantitative data. As in 2004 and in 2007, the inhabitants interviewed were given the opportunity to express their views on the quality of life in their home city. The survey was carried out in 75 cities and shows that, on the whole, citizens are satisfied with the quality of a number of services, in particular in the areas of transport, health and cultural facilities. The quality of public spaces and green areas also meets with general satisfaction. But there are some less positive aspects. In many cities citizens believe it is difficult to find a job or affordable housing. A majority of inhabitants consider poverty as a problem in their home city. These findings can be attributed to the present crisis as people start to really feel the repercussions. Many towns are facing increasing social polarisation. They are marked by social divisions that are bringing about geographical imbalances. These problems have a clear impact on the well-being of citizens. This survey also enables us to measure variations in the extent to which citizens are aware of issues linked to climate change. Some towns are apparently more advanced than others. I also note the serious concerns expressed by European citizens on questions of air and noise pollution. This complex mix of challenges confirms the need to act on several fronts as part of an integrated urban approach that alone can guarantee sustainable towns. In arriving at viable solutions there is a need to combine investment in infrastructure (transport, housing, centres of learning, cultural facilities), measures to aid socio-economic development (such as aid to small and medium-sized enterprises, urban regeneration) and measures that promote social inclusion. For me, this is the occasion to stress that European cohesion policy offers a favourable framework for tackling all these challenges simultaneously and for best meeting the needs of Europes citizens.

Johannes Hahn European Commissioner responsible for regional policy

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY Policy development Urban development, territorial cohesion

Survey on perceptions of quality of life in 75 European cities

March 2010 Fieldwork: November 2009

page 1

The content of this brochure does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutions of the European Union. This survey has been contracted to Gallup-Hungary in the context of a Framework Contract with the Directorate-General Communication (European Commission). The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

This study complements the work which is carried out in the context of the European Urban Audit.

For more information on the Urban Audit http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/urban/audit/index_en.htm http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu (after choosing the language, click data and then urban audit) Mailbox: regio-urban-territorial@ec.europa.eu And estat-urban-audit@ec.europa.eu (statistical questions)

Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Main findings ......................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Perceptions about social reality...................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Health care, employment opportunities and housing costs......................................... 10 Health care services................................................................................................................. 10 Employment opportunities .................................................................................................... 12 Housing costs ........................................................................................................................... 16 1.2 Poverty and financial difficulties ..................................................................................... 18 Poverty at city level.................................................................................................................. 18 1.3 The presence of foreigners................................................................................................ 20 The presence of foreigners is good for the city .................................................................... 20 Integration of foreigners......................................................................................................... 21 1.4 Feelings of safety and trust............................................................................................... 22 People can be trusted .............................................................................................................. 22 Feeling safe in the city............................................................................................................. 24 Feeling safe in ones neighbourhood..................................................................................... 26 1.5 Cities most important problems ..................................................................................... 28 2. Pollution and climate change.......................................................................................................... 30 2.1 Clean and healthy cities .................................................................................................... 30 Air quality and air pollution ................................................................................................... 30 Noise is a major problem........................................................................................................ 32 Clean cities................................................................................................................................ 34 2.2 Cities committed to fight climate change ...................................................................... 39 3. Administrative services and city spending .................................................................................... 42 Resources spent in a responsible way................................................................................... 42 4. Satisfaction with cities infrastructure .......................................................................................... 44 Satisfaction with cultural facilities ........................................................................................ 44 Satisfaction with public spaces markets and pedestrian areas ...................................... 46 Satisfaction with the beauty of streets and buildings in 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................................................................... 60 Means of transport for commuting ....................................................................................... 60

page 3

Length of time to commute .................................................................................................... 64 5.3 Satisfaction with public transport................................................................................... 66 Satisfaction with public transport ......................................................................................... 66 Reasons for not using public transport ................................................................................ 68 6. A comparison with the results of the 2006 perception survey..................................................... 69

Introduction
This Perception survey on quality of life in European cities was conducted in November 2009 to measure local perceptions in 75 cities in the EU, Croatia and Turkey. The European Commission (DG Regional Policy) has been using such surveys for several years to get a snapshot of peoples opinions on a range of urban issues. Earlier surveys were conducted in 2004 and 2006 1 . These perception surveys allow for comparisons between perceptions and real data from various statistical sources on issues such as urban security, unemployment and air quality (e.g. the Urban Audit 2 ). This perception survey included all capital cities of the countries concerned, together with between one and six more cities in the larger countries. This resulted in the following 75 cities being selected:
Country Belgi/Belgique Bulgaria esk Republika Danmark Deutschland City Antwerpen Brussel/Bruxelles Lige Burgas Sofia Ostrava Praha Aalborg Kbenhavn Berlin Dortmund Essen Hamburg Leipzig Mnchen Rostock* Tallinn Dublin Athina Irakleio Barcelona Madrid Mlaga Oviedo Bordeaux Lille Marseille Paris Rennes Strasbourg Bologna Napoli Palermo Roma Torino Verona Lefkosia Riga Country Lietuva Luxembourg (G.D.) Magyarorszg Malta Nederland sterreich Polska City Vilnius Luxembourg Budapest Miskolc Valletta Amsterdam Groningen Rotterdam Graz Wien Biaystok Gdask Krakw Warszawa Braga Lisboa Bucureti Cluj-Napoca Piatra Neam Ljubljana Bratislava Kosice Helsinki Oulu Malm Stockholm Belfast Cardiff Glasgow London Manchester Newcastle Zagreb Ankara Antalya Diyarbakr stanbul

Portugal Romnia Slovenija Slovensko Suomi/Finland Sverige United Kingdom

Eesti ire/Ireland Ellda Espaa

France

Italia

Hrvatska Trkiye

Kypros / Kbrs Latvija

* Frankfurt an der Oder was included in earlier reports and has now been replaced by Rostock.

This Flash Eurobarometer survey (No 277) was conducted by Gallup Hungary. In each city, 500 randomly selected citizens (aged 15 and older) were interviewed. This constituted a representative profile of the wider population; the respondents were taken from all areas of the designated cities. In
1

For more details see: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_156_en.pdf (Flash EB 196) and http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/urban/audit/index_en.htm (also in French and German) 2 www.urbanaudit.org
page 5

total, more than 37,500 interviews were conducted between 30 October and 10 November 2009. More details on the survey methodology are included in the main findings 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, together with a question on perceptions about the most important issues of cities. Finally, new question statements were added, such as poverty is a problem in this city, this city is a healthy place to live and generally speaking, most people in this city can be trusted. In most charts, the 75 cities have been ranked according to their respondents perceptions about quality of life from most positive to least positive. Note that due to rounding, the percentages shown in the charts and tables do not always add up exactly to the totals mentioned in the text.

Main findings
Health care, jobs and housing Of the 75 cities surveyed, residents of north-western European cities were most satisfied with health care services: at least 80% of respondents in those cities said they were content. The levels of satisfaction were considerably lower in many southern and eastern European cities. The picture in regard to job opportunities was rather bleak: there were only six cities where more than half of respondents agreed that it was easy to find a good job. Apart from 10 cities, respondents held a pessimistic view about the availability of reasonably priced housing; many cities where respondents held such a view were capitals and/or large cities.

Poverty / economic situation Except for nine cities, respondents who thought that poverty was a problem in their city outnumbered those who believed it was not an issue. Despite those prevailing views about poverty, it was rare for more than half of respondents in any of the cities to admit that they have financial difficulties themselves.

Immigration / presence of foreigners Opinions about the presence of foreigners in the surveyed cities were generally positive: in 68 cities, a slim majority of interviewees, at least, agreed that their presence was beneficial. However, in almost all cities, the proportion who agreed that foreigners in their city were well integrated was lower than the proportion who agreed that their presence was good for the city.

Safety and trust As to whether people could be trusted, the picture across cities was mixed. In about one-third, less than half agreed that most of their fellow citizens were trustworthy. Several eastern European capitals were at the lower end of the scale. In most Nordic cities, about two-thirds of respondents always felt safe in their city. There was a strong correlation between the proportion of respondents who agreed that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted and the proportion who always felt safe in their city. Respondents across all surveyed cities were more likely to say they always felt safe in their neighbourhood than they were to say that they always felt safe in their city.

Main issues facing city dwellers When asked to list the three main issues facing their city, respondents typically opted for job creation/reducing unemployment, availability/quality of health services and educational facilities. Job creation and reducing unemployment appeared among the three most significant problems that respondents cities faced in 64 of the 75 surveyed cities. The need to improve the quality/availability of health services appeared among the top three problems in 54 cities.

Pollution / climate change There appears to have been an improvement in the situation regarding air and noise pollution in European cities. In all Italian cities in this study, a large majority of respondents agreed that air pollution was a major problem. A large number of cities in that same situation were capitals and/or large cities (with at least 500,000 inhabitants). In most cities, more than half of respondents agreed that noise was a major problem in their city this proportion ranged from 51% in Rotterdam and Strasbourg to 95% in Athens.
page 7

As with the results for air and noise pollution, a majority of cities seemed to have made progress in terms of cleanliness in the past few years. There was a strong correlation between the perceived levels of air pollution and perceptions about whether a city was healthy to live in or not - the same cities appeared at the higher and lower ends of the rankings. Cities where respondents were more likely to agree that there was a commitment to fight climate change were also the ones where respondents were somewhat more likely to agree that their city was a healthy place to live.

Administrative services In roughly one in three of the surveyed cities, a slim majority of respondents at least thought that their city spent its resources in a responsible way. All surveyed German cities (except Munich) were at the bottom of the ranking relating to administrative services the proportion of respondents who disagreed that resources were spent responsibly in their city ranged from 52% in Leipzig to 73% in Dortmund. There was a strong correlation between the proportion of respondents who agreed that resources were spent in a responsible way and those who felt that administrative services helped citizens efficiently.

City infrastructure In a majority of cities (54 of 75), at least three-quarters of respondents were satisfied with their own 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 markets and 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 of respondents expressed satisfaction. Nonetheless, in almost all cities, respondents were more likely to be satisfied with their citys markets and pedestrian areas than they were to be satisfied with the outlook of the streets and buildings in their neighbourhood. A majority of citizens were satisfied with parks and gardens in their cities except in 7 of the 75 listed cities. Similarly, a majority of citizens were satisfied with outdoor recreational facilities in all cities except for 9 of the 75. Many citizens found it difficult to estimate their satisfaction with their citys sports facilities the proportion 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 four of the six items listed in the survey, while this proportion dropped below 50% in just 11 cities.

Public transport In about half of the surveyed cities roughly two-thirds of respondents said they were very or rather satisfied with their 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 used public 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 than 500,000 inhabitants). In eight cities, a relative majority of respondents at least said they usually walked or cycled to work or college.

page 9

1. Perceptions about social reality


1.1 Health care, employment opportunities and housing costs Health care services
There is a large variation, across cities in the EU, in the level of satisfaction with health care services offered by doctors and hospitals. The total level of satisfaction (i.e. the sum of very and fairly satisfied citizens) ranged from less than 40% in Athens, Bucharest and Burgas to more than 90% in cities such as Groningen, Antwerp, Vienna and Bordeaux. A detailed look at the ranking showed that residents of western European cities were most satisfied with health care services: at least 80% of respondents in those cities said they were rather or very satisfied with health care services provided by doctors and hospitals in their city. Furthermore, not more than 1 in 20 respondents in these cities said they were not at all satisfied. For example, 92% of interviewees in Bordeaux said they were content with the services provided by the 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% of Londoners and 79% of Parisians were rather or very satisfied with health care services provided by doctors and hospitals in their respective cities (compared to, for example, 91% in Rotterdam or 88% in Essen). However, Dublin was the real outlier among western European cities: a slim majority (57%) of Dubliners expressed their satisfaction with the 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 satisfied with health care services provided by doctors and hospitals in their city (between 2% and 4%). Satisfaction levels were considerably lower in many southern and eastern European cities. In the 10 cities at the bottom of the ranking, satisfaction with health care services dropped below 50% and ranged from 34% in Burgas to 44% in Vilnius, Piatra Neamt and Riga. Furthermore, in these 10 cities, respondents who were not at all satisfied with health services provided by doctors and hospitals in their city largely outnumbered those who were very satisfied. For example, 32% of respondents in Athens answered they were not at all satisfied compared to 9% of very satisfied respondents.
Satisfaction with health care services(offered by doctors and hospitals)

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


Very satisfied Rather satisfied 54 58 62 52 Rather unsatisfied Not at all satisfied 41 36 32 40 DK/NA

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

21 3 4 12 22 3 21 5 38 55 323 55 37 5 12 35 57 22 4 45 46 5 22 43 48 31 5 39 52 32 4 34 56 6 22 54 36 5 24 44 44 7 13 48 40 9 12 42 46 7 24 23 63 10 2 1 45 42 10 2 2 39 47 4 2 8 37 50 7 3 4 31 55 51 8 44 42 8 4 3 31 55 7 2 6 42 44 8 4 3 36 50 6 2 6 32 54 11 12 33 52 10 1 4 39 45 10 3 3 45 38 6 5 5 36 48 12 2 3 34 48 12 3 4 22 58 11 4 4 28 52 10 2 8 24 55 13 4 4 32 46 10 7 4 22 57 11 3 8 26 52 13 5 4 37 39 7 11 6 20 56 15 4 4 20 54 19 3 5 21 52 16 4 6 31 42 13 12 3 14 58 18 7 3 13 60 18 5 5 19 52 19 4 6 19 52 17 10 2 14 55 18 7 5 25 44 15 14 2 19 50 21 7 3 16 51 23 7 2 26 40 15 16 3 11 52 19 12 6 25 38 22 13 2 14 48 24 8 6 12 49 21 13 5 23 37 18 11 12 15 44 20 12 9 16 41 25 15 4 21 35 17 18 10 6 48 30 12 3 13 40 21 15 11 10 42 25 15 8 9 42 26 15 7 13 39 24 22 3 14 36 26 15 9 12 38 26 14 10 9 35 22 19 15 11 33 24 22 10 13 31 24 21 11 11 32 25 21 11 4 38 32 23 3 7 34 31 22 6 4 36 33 25 3 9 30 26 32 4 7 30 26 28 8 10 24 29 28 10
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)

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues: Base: all respondents, % by city
page 11

Employment opportunities

Although satisfaction with health services was generally high, a less rosy picture emerged when respondents were asked about job opportunities in their cities. More than half of respondents agreed that that it was easy to find a good job in only six cities: Stockholm (61% in total agreed), Copenhagen (57%), Prague (56%), Munich (54%), Amsterdam (53%) and Warsaw (52%). However, even in these locations, less than a quarter of respondents expressed strong agreement (between 11% and 23%). In most cities (62 of 75), respondents who disagreed that it was easy to find a good job outnumbered those who agreed with the statement. For example, while a slim majority (53%) of respondents in Essen disagreed that good jobs were easy to find in their city, only half as many (25%) agreed that this was the case. It should be noted, however, that in several cities a large proportion of mostly retired respondents did not express an opinion on this topic (e.g. 20% in Manchester, 27% in Rotterdam and 44% in Antwerp). For a more detailed discussion of the results of the cities where respondents were the most pessimistic about job opportunities in their city, see page 14.
It is easy to find a good jobcities ranked from most positive to least positive

It is easy to find a good job cities ranked from most positive to least positive
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA

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)

17 8 14 38 23 17 9 18 43 14 13 10 21 40 16 15 8 24 41 13 18 6 23 42 11 8 17 23 38 14 12 16 21 36 14 27 6 18 38 12 9 13 30 38 11 11 10 32 40 8 17 7 29 43 5 13 20 22 32 13 13 22 24 32 10 14 16 29 37 4 9 25 26 33 7 13 25 24 33 6 14 19 29 35 4 23 15 24 28 10 20 24 19 29 8 25 11 28 29 8 5 30 28 30 7 13 23 28 31 6 21 9 33 29 8 44 9 12 31 5 21 13 32 28 6 24 11 32 31 3 6 34 27 21 13 17 24 26 24 9 24 16 28 29 3 12 31 26 21 10 10 40 20 22 9 24 10 36 29 2 22 20 29 25 5 7 25 39 25 4 15 25 32 25 4 13 30 29 23 5 17 23 34 24 3 16 32 26 21 5 3 42 29 21 5 15 27 32 24 3 22 12 41 21 4 21 23 32 21 3 28 18 31 19 4 14 34 29 18 5 11 40 29 17 4 5 29 46 19 2 15 17 49 18 1 11 36 34 16 4 21 38 23 16 2 15 18 50 16 1 10 41 32 15 1 18 20 45 15 2 5 34 44 15 2 6 62 16 12 5 5 48 30 12 4 3 54 27 10 6 15 47 22 14 2 11 47 27 13 2 9 55 22 1 13 27 26 33 2 12 13 26 47 1 13 5 50 32 3 10 10 48 28 1 12 10 30 47 1 12 13 52 22 2 11 8 44 35 1 12 13 46 30 2 10 12 44 33 0 11 11 45 33 2 9 5 42 44 1 8 3 69 20 3 4 10 71 12 1 7 7 71 15 1 5 3 70 24 03 2 75 20 03
0 20 40 60 80 100

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)

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % by city
page 13

In the cities where respondents were the most pessimistic about job opportunities, a large majority of respondents strongly disagreed that it was easy to find a good job in their city: 75% in Palermo, 71% in Riga and Miskolc, 70% in Naples and 69% in Diyarbakir. Other cities where more than half of respondents expressed their strong disagreement were Vilnius (52%), Istanbul (54%), Lisbon (55%) and Zagreb (62%). Moreover, in the other surveyed cities in Italy, Hungary, Turkey and Portugal, a relative majority of interviewees - at least disagreed strongly that good jobs were easy to find (e.g. 44% in Rome, 46% in Braga and 50% in Ankara in Bologna, however, just 33% strongly disagreed). A comparison with results of the previous perception survey showed that Naples and Palermo scored the lowest in both surveys: in 2006 and in 2009, just 3% of respondents in these two Italian cities agreed that it was easy to find a good job. Similarly, only a small change was observed in the proportion of respondents agreeing with this statement in Diyarbakir and Miskolc; Riga, however, has experienced a 28 percentage point decrease in the proportion of respondents who thought that good jobs were easy to find (8% in 2009, compared to 36% in 2006). Other cities where respondents were considerably less optimistic about job opportunities in 2009 than in 2006 included Dublin (-50 percentage points), Tallinn (-24), Verona (-21), Cardiff (-21), Vilnius (-20) and Glasgow (-20). In only a few cities were respondents more optimistic in 2009 than in 2006. The greatest increase in the proportion of respondents who agreed that good jobs were easy to find was seen in Stockholm from 20th position in 2006 (43%) to top place in 2009 (61%); an increase of 18 percentage points. Comparable increases in respondents likelihood to agree with the statements were observed in Malmo (+17 percentage points) and Hamburg (+15).
It is easy to find a good job

It is easy to find a good job ranked from most negative to least negative (% strongly diagree)
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree 75 71 71 70 69 Somewhat agree Strongly agree 12 15 DK/NA

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

302 20 7 1 10 5 1 7 303 24 4 3 3 20 5 6 12 16 62 13 1 9 22 55 6 3 10 27 54 13 11 2 22 52 10 3 5 32 50 4 5 12 30 48 12 1 10 28 48 15 2 14 22 47 2 11 13 27 47 10 2 13 30 46 9 2 11 33 45 12 1 8 35 44 11 0 12 33 44 8 1 5 44 42 5 3 21 29 42 1 10 15 32 41 10 9 22 20 40 4 11 17 29 40 21 2 16 23 38 4 11 16 34 36 14 5 18 29 34 6 13 21 27 34 2 5 15 44 34 16 5 21 26 32 12 10 21 26 31 13 5 23 29 30 12 1 10 47 30 7 5 30 28 30 2 5 19 46 29 15 3 24 32 27 27 12 2 33 26 13 1 13 47 26 15 4 25 32 25 4 7 25 39 25 9 7 33 26 25 13 6 33 24 25 20 8 29 19 24 17 9 24 26 24 21 3 21 32 23 17 3 24 34 23 13 6 31 28 23 13 10 32 24 22 13 13 32 22 20 18 2 15 45 20 22 5 25 29 20 14 4 35 29 19 15 1 16 50 18 28 4 19 31 18 8 14 38 23 17 15 1 18 49 17 24 3 29 28 16 12 14 36 21 16 14 4 37 29 16 23 10 28 24 15 21 6 28 32 13 9 11 38 30 13 22 4 21 41 12 25 8 29 28 11 24 3 31 32 11 13 16 40 21 10 24 2 29 36 10 11 8 40 32 10 17 14 43 18 9 44 5 31 12 9 21 8 29 33 9 15 13 41 24 8 17 23 38 14 8 17 5 43 29 7 18 11 42 23 6 27 12 38 18 6
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)

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % by city
page 15

Housing costs About two-thirds of respondents living in Leipzig, Aalborg, Braga and Oulu strongly or somewhat agreed that it was easy to find good housing at a reasonable price in their respective cities (between 64% and 71%). In six other cities Dortmund, Oviedo, Newcastle, Malaga, Diyarbakir and Berlin a slim majority of interviewees agreed (between 51% and 59%). In all other cities, respondents had a less optimistic view about housing in their city; the proportion of respondents who strongly or somewhat disagreed that it was easy to find good housing at a reasonable price ranged from less than a quarter in some of the above-mentioned cities (Leipzig, Aalborg and Braga between 20% and 24%) to almost 9 in 10 respondents in Luxembourg, Munich and Rome (88%-89%) and virtually all respondents in Paris (96%). About three-quarters of Parisians (77%) and two-thirds of Romans (65%) strongly disagreed that reasonably priced housing was easy to find in their respective cities; this proportion, however, was lower in Munich and Luxembourg (48% and 53%, respectively). Other cities where more than half of respondents strongly disagreed with this statement were Zagreb (67%), Ljubljana (64%), Lisbon (64%), London (60%), Bucharest (56%), Bologna (55%), Helsinki (54%). A large number of cities positioned in the lowest third of this ranking were capitals and/or large cities (with at least 500,000 inhabitants). Several of these were listed in the previous paragraphs (Rome, Lisbon, etc.), but the lowest third also included cities such as Stockholm, Marseilles and Brussels. The most important exception among these large capital cities was Berlin, which was ranked in the top 10 of cities where at least half of respondents agreed that it was easy to find reasonably priced housing in their city; none of the others in the top 10 were capitals and most of the cities had less than 500,000 inhabitants (such as Leipzig, Braga or Oulu). Contrary to the negative change, from 2006 to 2009, in city dwellers perceptions about job opportunities in their city, not many of the surveyed cities have seen a decrease in the proportion of respondents who agreed that it was easy to find reasonably priced good housing. In fact, in one-third of the cities, this proportion has even increased by 10 percentage points or more.
It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price

It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price


Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA

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)

29 42 17 3 8 23 44 16 5 11 22 44 16 8 11 16 48 27 7 3 17 42 20 6 16 12 44 22 6 17 21 33 22 15 9 8 45 24 9 14 21 30 21 23 4 14 37 32 9 9 12 38 30 8 12 11 37 26 9 16 13 35 33 12 8 14 33 18 18 17 16 30 20 23 10 14 32 23 12 19 16 31 23 25 6 12 34 22 22 11 12 33 21 19 15 17 28 17 27 12 17 26 20 18 18 18 23 14 22 22 12 29 28 29 3 11 29 22 27 12 12 28 27 17 17 10 29 23 26 13 8 30 27 21 14 13 25 24 34 4 8 29 21 34 9 16 19 21 29 15 8 26 32 23 11 12 22 21 37 9 8 25 34 18 15 6 27 31 16 21 11 21 22 27 19 4 28 30 21 17 8 22 32 25 14 7 22 27 35 9 11 18 19 48 5 3 24 37 30 7 5 21 29 37 8 5 21 26 31 17 8 17 30 42 3 5 20 36 34 6 3 22 35 28 11 6 17 31 34 12 4 19 37 24 16 2 20 37 24 17 2 21 29 23 26 5 17 43 25 10 4 17 26 47 6 2 18 26 41 14 3 16 22 50 8 2 17 34 32 14 1 17 28 36 18 3 15 44 30 7 6 12 20 56 7 3 14 33 38 12 7 10 27 46 10 4 13 37 41 5 4 12 31 45 7 2 14 36 36 13 4 12 12 67 5 3 13 48 26 10 3 11 35 45 6 4 10 21 60 4 3 9 32 54 3 1 9 22 64 4 1 9 28 55 8 2 8 20 64 6 1 8 35 53 3 2 6 41 44 7 1 5 41 48 5 06 23 65 7 02 19 77 1
0 20 40 60 80 100

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)

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % by city
page 17

1.2 Poverty and financial difficulties

Poverty at city level Respondents in Prague, Luxembourg, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Warsaw and Nicosia were not only among the most likely to agree that it was easy to find a good job in their respective cities, they were also among the most likely to disagree that their city has a problem with poverty. Similarly, Miskolc, Riga, Lisbon, Diyarbakir and Liege were not only found at the bottom of the ranking in terms of perceptions about job opportunities, but they were also among the most likely to agree that poverty was a problem. Nevertheless, the correlation between perceptions about these two topics was relatively weak (a correlation coefficient of .544) as illustrated in the scatter plot on page 20. Half or more respondents in Aalborg, Oulu, Prague, Oviedo, Valletta, Bratislava and Luxembourg somewhat or strongly disagreed that poverty was a problem in their city (between 50% and 69%). In Groningen and Copenhagen, just less than half of respondents disagreed with this statement (48%49%). These nine cities were the only ones where respondents who did not think that poverty was a problem outnumbered those who believed it was an issue in their city (the level of agreement ranged from 21% in Aalborg to 46% Luxembourg).

About 9 in 10 interviewees in Miskolc, Riga, Budapest, Lisbon and Diyarbakir somewhat or strongly agreed that poverty was a problem in their city (between 87% and 93%). Furthermore, in each of these cities at least half of respondents strongly agreed that poverty constituted a problem: ranging from 50% in Lisbon to 78% in Miskolc. Other cities were a majority of interviewees strongly agreed with the statement were Athens (61%), Istanbul (58%) and Zagreb (53%). There was not only a large variation between European cities in respondents perceptions about poverty being an issue in their city, but also between cities within some countries. For example, in Germany, the proportion of respondents who thought that poverty was a problem in their city ranged from 48% in Munich to 79% in Dortmund and 82% in Berlin. Similarly, while 85% of respondents in Athens agreed that poverty was a problem, this proportion was 60% in Iraklion.
Poverty is a problem

Poverty is a problem
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree DK/NA

Aalborg(DK) 27 42 16 5 11 Oulu(FI) 14 48 27 6 5 Praha(CZ) 14 47 27 9 3 Oviedo(ES) 10 49 31 6 4 Valletta(MT) 23 30 28 10 10 Bratislava(SK) 12 39 34 10 5 Luxembourg(LU) 12 38 37 9 4 Kbenhavn(DK) 10 39 33 11 7 Groningen(NL) 11 37 35 7 11 Lefkosia(CY) 16 30 30 20 4 Stockholm(SE) 14 31 39 8 8 Warszawa(PL) 12 32 32 18 6 Mnchen(DE) 8 35 36 12 9 Gdansk(PL) 12 31 33 19 5 Rennes(FR) 10 33 37 10 10 Cardiff(UK) 11 32 36 14 8 Krakw(PL) 11 32 35 16 6 Helsinki(FI) 8 34 44 11 3 Antalya(TR) 15 26 26 30 3 ClujNapoc(RO) 12 29 28 26 6 Bologna(IT) 9 31 34 22 5 Verona(IT) 11 29 32 24 5 Newcastle(UK) 11 28 34 20 7 Ljubljana(SI) 10 29 36 21 4 Irakleio(EL) 9 29 32 28 2 Ostrava(CZ) 6 30 43 14 8 Amsterdam(NL) 7 28 46 12 7 Wien(AT) 6 28 39 20 7 Biaystok(PL) 10 24 36 25 5 Burgas(BG) 13 21 28 31 7 Graz(AT) 6 27 46 15 6 Manchester(UK) 10 22 34 27 8 Kosice(SK) 5 26 44 18 6 Malm(SE) 7 24 42 14 13 Mlaga(ES) 5 26 49 18 2 Belfast(UK) 12 19 38 23 8 Strasbourg(FR) 7 23 47 18 5 Bordeaux(FR) 6 24 43 21 6 Madrid(ES) 6 23 51 17 3 Rostock(DE) 5 24 43 20 9 PiatraNeam(RO) 9 19 34 32 6 Sofia(BG) 12 16 26 44 3 Leipzig(DE) 4 24 47 19 7 Rotterdam(NL) 7 20 45 17 11 Braga(PT) 9 18 43 28 2 Hamburg(DE) 4 22 46 20 8 Roma(IT) 6 19 39 33 3 Barcelona(ES) 4 21 52 22 1 Essen(DE) 4 21 45 20 11 Ankara(TR) 9 15 32 43 2 London(UK) 7 18 36 35 5 Zagreb(HR) 11 13 22 53 2 Vilnius(LT) 7 17 29 42 5 Bucureti(RO) 8 14 27 48 4 Dublin(IE) 8 14 38 37 4 Tallinn(EE) 4 17 35 39 5 Napoli(IT) 6 15 32 45 2 Glasgow(UK) 8 11 32 45 4 Antwerpen(BE) 4 15 49 19 14 Lille(FR) 4 14 49 30 3 Torino(IT) 3 15 41 36 5 Palermo(IT) 2 15 34 47 2 stanbul(TR) 8 9 25 58 1 Paris(FR) 4 11 49 34 3 Dortmund(DE) 2 14 48 31 6 Berlin(DE) 3 12 41 41 4 Marseille(FR) 5 10 37 45 4 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 3 10 42 41 4 Athinia(EL) 4 10 24 61 2 Lige(BE) 3 10 53 32 3 Diyarbakir(TR) 5 7 23 64 1 Lisboa(PT) 3 7 39 50 1 Budapest(HU) 3 7 21 67 2 Riga(LV) 4 4 17 70 4 Miskolc(HU) 1 3 15 78 2
0 20 40 60 80 100

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)

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % by city
page 19

Correlation between perceptions about job opportunities and poverty


Correlation between perceptions about job opportunities and poverty
100 90

Correlationcoefficient: rxy =.544

%disagreeingthatpovertyisaprobleminthecity

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

%agreeingitiseasytofindagoodjobinthecity

[N.B. A correlation coefficient summarises the strength of the (linear) relationship between two measures. While a correlation of -1 or 1 indicates a perfect correlation, a coefficient of 0 indicates that there is no correlation between two measures. A positive correlation means that as one measure gets larger, the other gets larger too (i.e. the higher the score on variable A, the higher the score is for variable B). A negative correlation means that as one measure gets larger the other gets smaller.]

1.3 The presence of foreigners


The presence of foreigners is good for the city City dwellers opinions about the presence of foreigners in their city were generally positive: in 68 cities (out of 75), a slim majority of interviewees, at least, strongly or somewhat agreed that the presence of foreigners was good for their city. Respondents living in Luxembourg or Stockholm were the most likely to think that the presence of foreigners was beneficial to their cities: 92% and 88%, respectively, of respondents in these cities agreed with the statement (48% and 55%, respectively, strongly agreed). Other cities where respondents were very likely to see their presence as being useful were Cracow, Gdansk, Piatra Neamt, Burgas, Copenhagen and Paris in these cities more than 8 in 10 respondents agreed (between 81% and 84%). Respondents in Nicosia, on the other hand, were the least likely to strongly or somewhat agree that the presence of foreigners was good (7% strongly agreed and 24% somewhat agreed), while about two-thirds of them disagreed with the statement (41% strongly disagreed and 24% somewhat disagreed). Respondents who disagreed with the statement outnumbered those who agreed in just two other cities: Athens (40% agreed vs. 56% disagreed) and Liege (41% agreed vs. 48% disagreed). Ostrava, Ankara and Antwerp were also found at the bottom of this ranking, although in those cities, more respondents thought that the presence of foreigners was a good thing for their city than the

equivalent number in Nicosia: 47%-48% of respondents in those cities strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement. About 4 in 10 interviewees in Antwerp and Ankara disagreed that the presence of foreigners was good for their cities; however, this proportion was only 32% in Ostrava in this city, a fifth of respondents could not, or did not want to answer this question. As with the results presented in previous sections, views about the presence of foreigners did not only vary between cities in Europe, but also between cities within a specific country. For example, while 80% of respondents in Amsterdam agreed that the presence of foreigners was beneficial for their city, this proportion dropped to 61% in Rotterdam. In some other countries, however, a more uniform picture emerged; for example, it was noted above that both Liege and Antwerp were found at the bottom of the ranking (41% and 47%, respectively, agreed), but Brussels did not score much higher just 54% agreed that the presence of foreigners was good for their city. Integration of foreigners Although many city dwellers appeared to agree that the presence of foreigners in their city was advantageous (see previous section), they were less likely to agree that those foreigners were well integrated. In almost all surveyed cities, the proportion of respondents who agreed that foreigners in their city were well integrated was lower than the proportion who agreed that their presence was good for their city this can easily be seen on the scatter plot below. The proportion of respondents who strongly or somewhat agreed that foreigners in their city were well integrated ranged from 20% in Athens to 67% in Antalya. Other cities at the higher end of this ranking were Groningen, Cluj-Napoca, Cardiff, Kosice, Braga and Luxembourg; in these cities, roughly twothirds (65%-66%) of respondents agreed that foreigners were well integrated. More than three-quarters of respondents in Athens disagreed that foreigners in their city were well integrated: 25% somewhat disagreed and 52% strongly disagreed. A majority of respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed in 13 other cities (e.g. 64% in Vienna, 58% in Barcelona); however, Athens was the only city where a majority of respondents strongly disagreed. Many respondents found it difficult to express an opinion about the integration of foreigners in their city: the proportion of 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

Correlation between two statements about foreigners


100 90

Correlationcoefficient: rxy =.503

%agreeingthatforeignersarewellintegrated

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

%agreeingthatthepresenceofforeignersisgood

1.4 Feelings of safety and trust


People can be trusted When city dwellers were asked whether they thought that, generally speaking, most people living in their city could be trusted, there was, once more, a large variation. Aalborg was found at the top of the ranking with 34% of respondents who strongly agreed and 56% that somewhat agreed only 6% in Aalborg disagreed that most people could be trusted. Istanbul was found at the bottom of the ranking with results that were almost a mirror image of Aalborgs: 59% of people living in Istanbul strongly disagreed and 26% somewhat disagreed that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted only 14% agreed with the statement. A very high level of trust was also measured in Rostock, Groningen and Oviedo; in these three cities, 88% of respondents agreed that, generally speaking, most people living in their city could be trusted. Nevertheless, even in those cities, only about a quarter of respondents strongly agreed with the statement (between 24% and 27%). The largest proportions of strongly agree responses were in Aalborg (see above), Newcastle, Belfast, Glasgow, Stockholm and Leipzig (between 30% and 35%). In about one-third of cities, less than half of interviewees somewhat or strongly agreed that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted. Several capital cities of eastern European countries joined Istanbul at the lower end of the scale; these included Sofia, Bucharest, Budapest, Riga, Prague, Bratislava, Zagreb and Warsaw. In these capitals, between 21% and 41% of respondents agreed that, generally speaking, most people living in their city could be trusted; however, at least half of respondents thought the opposite (between 50% and 71%). Other cities where at least half of interviewees disagreed with this statement were Naples, Athens, Iraklion, Miskolc, Ostrava, Nicosia, Ankara and Antalya (between 50% and 75%). It was noted above that Newcastle had the largest proportion of strongly agree responses 35%. The largest proportion of strongly disagree responses, however, was almost twice that figure: 59% of respondents in Istanbul strongly disagreed that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted. In Sofia, Bucharest and Athens, about half of respondents expressed strong disagreement (48%-50%).

Generally speaking, most people in the city can be trusted


Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA

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)

34 56 4 2 4 26 62 7 24 27 61 50 7 24 64 9 13 22 65 9 32 31 56 8 14 24 62 8 3 3 21 63 7 3 6 31 52 10 2 4 27 55 12 3 4 26 55 10 2 6 24 56 12 3 5 26 54 13 2 6 20 59 11 4 7 35 43 9 8 5 18 59 19 32 30 45 10 8 6 20 54 15 4 7 30 44 11 11 3 18 56 13 8 6 17 57 18 5 4 13 60 19 4 5 13 58 17 3 9 15 56 21 4 4 15 56 15 8 6 12 58 24 5 3 17 51 17 10 6 20 46 20 8 7 12 53 19 7 8 7 58 24 8 3 8 57 15 5 15 11 54 15 10 11 11 54 18 6 11 25 38 15 16 6 27 36 16 16 5 6 56 22 9 8 11 50 24 12 3 18 42 17 14 9 10 49 20 13 8 17 42 16 11 14 15 43 20 10 13 13 45 20 11 11 10 47 22 15 6 20 36 21 14 8 14 43 25 14 5 6 49 27 15 4 23 31 22 22 4 10 42 21 21 6 10 40 24 19 7 5 44 23 19 9 5 44 28 14 9 8 40 32 15 5 17 31 23 28 1 11 36 27 13 13 12 35 25 25 2 5 41 29 20 6 16 30 21 25 9 6 39 30 18 7 5 39 32 11 15 15 28 26 27 5 14 29 27 29 2 7 35 29 25 5 9 32 28 21 10 8 33 28 23 8 6 32 30 20 12 15 22 24 35 4 4 32 38 12 14 5 30 36 19 10 5 29 32 26 8 7 24 22 41 7 3 24 29 37 6 6 20 22 48 5 3 19 25 50 2 5 16 23 48 8 4 10 26 59 2
0 20 40 60 80 100

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)

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % by city
page 23

Feeling safe in the city The proportion of respondents who answered that they always felt safe in their city was highest in Oviedo (84%). Other cities where respondents were more likely to say they always felt safe in their city were Groningen (79%), Aalborg (78%), Oulu (77%), Munich (76%), Piatra Neamt and Luxembourg (both 73%). Not more than 1 in 20 respondents in the aforementioned cities rarely or never felt safe in their city (between 1% and 5%). Similarly, in most other surveyed cities in the Nordic countries (e.g. Copenhagen and Helsinki), about two-thirds of respondents always felt safe in their city (between 64% and 67%), while less than 1 in 20 respondents rarely or never did so (3%-4%). There was, however, one exception: only half (49%) of respondents in Malmo said they always felt safe and one-tenth (9%) rarely or never felt this way. That 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 or never felt safe in their city; this proportion was somewhat lower in Athens and Bucharest (44% and 37%, respectively). The scatter plot below shows a strong correlation between the proportion of respondents who agreed that most of their fellow citizens could be trusted and the proportion who always felt safe in their city. In other words, cities where a large majority felt that most people in their city could be trusted were also characterised by a large proportion of respondents who always felt safe in their city cities in this group included Oviedo, Luxembourg and Stockholm. There were, nevertheless, a few outliers worth mentioning: although Brussels, Liege, London, Manchester and Lisbon had average scores for the proportion of respondents who generally trusted their fellow citizens (between 49% and 60%), respondents in these cities were among the least likely to always feel safe in their city (between 30% and 35%).

Respondents feel safe in the city

Respondents feel safe in the city


Always Sometimes Rarely Never DK/NA

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

84 79 78 77 76 73 73 69 67 67 65 64 63 63 63 61 61 61 60 60 60 59 59 59 58 57 56 56 55 54 53 53 52 52 51 51 51 50 49 49 48 48 47 47 47 47 45 45 44 44 42 42 41 41 41 41 39 36 36 35 34 34 34 33 33 32 32 32 31 30 30 25 36 20 30 20 30 14 42
20 40

14 1 1 19 1 0 21 11 20 20 19 41 21 23 23 31 25 4 2 30 21 30 21 31 12 33 31 29 6 1 29 6 2 28 7 3 23 8 8 29 7 3 27 8 4 31 3 4 32 6 2 34 5 2 32 7 2 29 7 3 29 8 3 33 5 2 36 6 2 39 32 36 6 2 32 8 4 36 6 3 36 6 4 29 9 9 39 6 3 41 4 3 43 4 2 37 9 3 37 6 6 30 7 11 42 6 2 42 5 4 30 9 12 28 6 17 41 7 3 38 9 6 37 9 6 40 9 5 36 7 12 32 12 11 37 8 10 34 16 4 46 7 4 32 14 10 46 7 5 31 14 14 30 13 15 48 8 3 40 15 6 44 9 10 25 18 21 51 8 4 44 11 11 35 18 12 33 12 19 32 13 20 36 14 15 55 8 5 36 16 13 32 16 19 37 18 13 35 22 12 46 11 12 15 22 20 29 11 39 17 27
60 80 100

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)

Q3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? Base: all respondents, % by city
page 25

Correlation between trust in people and feeling safe in the city


Correlation between trust in people and feeling safe in the city
100 90 80

Correlationcoefficient: rxy =.828

%alwaysfeelingsafeintheircity

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

%agreeingthatmostpeopleinthecitycanbetrusted

Feeling safe in ones neighbourhood Not surprisingly, a strong correlation was observed between a more general feeling of safety (at a city level discussed in the previous section) and the more specific feeling of being safe in 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 never felt safe. Each of the German cities included in this study were placed at the higher end of this scale where about 9 in 10 respondents always felt safe in their neighbourhood: 91% of interviewees in Rostock and Munich, 90% in Leipzig, 89% in Essen, 88% in Dortmund and Hamburg and 87% in Berlin always felt safe in the area where they lived. Other cities that belonged to this group were Aalborg (91%), Oviedo (89%), Groningen (88%), Oulu and Luxembourg (both 87%). Respondents living in Sofia, on the other hand, were the most likely to answer that they rarely or never felt safe in their neighbourhood (13% rarely and 21% never). In Athens, Burgas, Bucharest, Riga, Vilnius, Prague, Istanbul and Naples more than a fifth of interviewees rarely or never felt safe in the area where they lived (between 22% and 27%). While the proportion of respondents who always felt safe in their neighbourhood has decreased from 2006 to 2009 in most of the aforementioned cities, the current result for Naples represented a 21 percentage point improvement over 2006 (31% in 2006 vs. 52% in 2009). Other cities that have seen an increase in the proportion of interviewees who always felt safe in their area included the German cities (e.g. Berlin: +21 percentage points; Essen: +16; Munich: +8), Gdansk (+18) and Dublin (+15).
Respondents feel safe in their neighbourhood

Respondents feel safe in theirneighbourhood


Always Sometimes Rarely Never DK/NA

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

91 91 91 90 89 89 88 88 88 87 87 87 84 84 83 83 82 82 80 79 79 78 77 76 76 76 75 75 74 74 74 74 73 72 71 71 70 70 70 69 68 67 67 67 67 66 66 65 64 63 63 62 61 60 60 60 59 59 58 56 55 54 53 53 52 50 49 48 46 46 46 44 38 38 33 32
20 40

7 1 0 8 1 0 8 1 0 7 20 9 0 1 8 21 9 11 11 0 10 11 11 1 0 12 1 0 10 12 12 2 3 13 12 15 1 1 14 12 17 1 0 14 22 18 2 0 16 41 13 4 4 19 21 19 31 19 31 18 23 21 21 19 23 20 32 22 22 18 4 4 20 42 19 2 6 21 3 3 22 4 2 19 3 7 21 6 2 18 3 9 26 32 25 32 24 5 2 24 5 2 24 4 4 25 4 4 21 5 7 20 7 7 30 22 25 5 4 22 10 2 23 6 8 27 7 3 25 9 3 27 6 5 30 6 4 28 6 5 25 7 7 23 8 9 22 11 8 23 9 9 25 8 9 22 10 11 37 4 4 27 8 11 34 7 5 38 5 4 21 12 15 34 7 8 31 12 8 25 6 21 30 17 7 29 9 16 27 10 15 32 9 13 38 9 14 35 11 13 13 21
60 80 100

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)

Q3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? Base: all respondents, % by city
page 27

Correlation between feeling safe in cities and neighbourhoods


Correlation between feeling safe in cities and neighbourhoods
100 90

%alwaysfeelingsafeintheirownneighbourhood

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Correlationcoefficient: rxy =.897

%alwaysfeelingsafeintheircity

1.5 Cities most important problems


The chart on the following page shows for each city respondents views about the three major issues facing their city, chosen from a list of 10 potential problems (e.g. housing conditions, job creation/reducing unemployment, education, urban safety and air pollution). A first glance showed that job creation/reducing unemployment, quality/availability of health services and education were among the three most important problems in the largest number of cities. In 64 (out of 75) cities, job creation and reducing unemployment appeared among the three most significant problems that respondents cities faced. In these cities, the proportion of respondents who selected this problem ranged from 33% in Copenhagen to 78% in Miskolc. In Naples, Malaga, Rostock, Bialystok and Braga, between 70% and 73% of respondents selected this problem note that respondents in these cities were among the least likely to agree that it was easy to find a good job in their city (see section 1.1). The need to improve the quality/availability of health services appeared among the top three problems in 54 cities; respondents in Lisbon, Braga, Dublin, Helsinki and Oulu were the most likely to select this issue (between 62% and 67%). Education and training was chosen as one of the main issues in 39 cities; respondents in Diyarbakir, Berlin, Hamburg and Belfast were the most likely to mention this challenge for their city (between 58% and 61%). It was noted earlier that respondents in Paris and Luxembourg were among the most likely to think that reasonably priced housing was difficult to find in their city. Not surprisingly, the availability of good housing also appeared among the three most important problems identified by inhabitants of those cities (51% and 39%, respectively, mentioned this problem). Other cities where housing conditions appeared among the most important problems were Bordeaux, Stockholm, Ljubljana and Zagreb (between 31% and 41%). Earlier in this chapter (section 1.4), feelings of safety and trust in European cities were discussed these results showed a large variation between cities. A similar disparity was also seen in the proportion of respondents who selected urban safety as a priority issue for their city; this was one of the top three problems in 23 cities, with the proportion selecting urban safety ranging from 27% in Kosice to 52% in Rotterdam. Other regularly mentioned issues were air pollution, road infrastructure and public transport. The problem of air pollution appeared among the top three of the most mentioned problems in 21 cities; respondents in Burgas, Sofia and Ostrava were the most likely to select this issue (between 55% and 63%). Road infrastructure was chosen as one of the main problems in 11 cities, while public transport appeared among the top three of most important problems in four cities. A problematic road infrastructure was most frequently mentioned by respondents in Sofia (51%) and respondents in the surveyed Polish cities: Gdansk (49%), Cracow (45%), Warsaw (44%) and Bialystok (38%). Respondents in Nicosia were the most likely to identify public transport as one of the most important

problems in their city selected by 45% of respondents. Each of these topics will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters.
Perceptions about cities most important problems (three most mentioned issues)
Antwerpen(BE) Urbansafety Roads Airpollution Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Urbansafety Jobscreation Education Lige(BE) Urbansafety Jobscreation Airpollution Ostrava(CZ) Airpollution Jobscreation Urbansafety Praha(CZ) Airpollution Noise Urbansafety Aalborg(DK) Healthservices Education Jobscreation Kobenhavn(DK) Healthservices Education Jobscreation Berlin(DE) Jobscreation Education Urbansafety Dortmund(DE) Jobscreation Education Roads Essen(DE) Jobscreation Education Healthservices Hamburg(DE) Education Jobscreation Urbansafety Leipzig(DE) Jobscreation Education Roads Mnchen(DE) Education Jobscreation Urbansafety Rostock(DE) Jobscreation Education Healthservices Tallinn(EE) Jobscreation Healthservices Socialservices Athinia(EL) Healthservices Airpollution Jobscreation Irakleio(EL) Roads Healthservices Jobscreation Barcelona(ES) Jobscreation Healthservices Urbansafety Madrid(ES) Jobscreation Healthservices Urbansafety 47 30 30 45 37 35 50 43 33 55 40 32 43 38 34 49 47 40 39 38 33 68 59 Mlaga(ES) Jobscreation Healthservices Education Oviedo(ES) Jobscreation Healthservices Education Bordeaux(FR) Jobscreation Housing Healthservices Lille(FR) Jobscreation Urbansafety Healthservices Marseille(FR) Jobscreation Urbansafety Education Paris(FR) Housing Jobscreation Education Rennes(FR) Jobscreation Education Healthservices Strasbourg(FR) Jobscreation Airpollution Education Dublin(IE) Jobscreation Healthservices Education Bologna(IT) Jobscreation Airpollution Urbansafety Napoli(IT) Jobscreation Airpollution Healthservices Palermo(IT) Jobscreation Airpollution Healthservices Roma(IT) Jobscreation Airpollution Publictransport Torino(IT) Jobscreation Airpollution Urbansafety Verona(IT) Airpollution Jobscreation Urbansafety Lefkosia(CY) Publictransport Healthservices Airpollution Riga(LV) Jobscreation Healthservices Socialservices Vilnius(LT) Jobscreation Healthservices Urbansafety Luxembourg(LU) Education Jobscreation Housing 72 Budapest(HU) Jobscreation Healthservices Airpollution Miskolc(HU) Jobscreation Urbansafety Healthservices Valletta(MT) Airpollution Healthservices Roads Amsterdam(NL) Education Urbansafety Healthservices Groningen(NL) Education Jobscreation Healthservices Rotterdam(NL) Urbansafety Education Healthservices Wien(AT) Education Jobscreation Urbansafety Graz(AT) Jobscreation Education Airpollution Biaystok(PL) Jobscreation Healthservices Roads Gdask(PL) Healthservices Roads Jobscreation Krakw(PL) Healthservices Roads Jobscreation Warszawa(PL) Healthservices Roads Publictransport Braga(PT) Jobscreation Healthservices Education Lisboa(PT) Healthservices Jobscreation Urbansafety Ljubljana(SI) Healthservices Jobscreation Housing Bratislava(SK) Roads Airpollution Healthservices Kosice(SK) Jobscreation Urbansafety Airpollution Helsinki(FI) Healthservices Education Publictransport Oulu(FI) Healthservices Jobscreation Education Malm(SE) Jobscreation Healthservices Urbansafety Stockholm(SE) Housing 78 Jobscreation 49 Healthservices 40 Belfast(UK) Education 45 Healthservices 37 Jobscreation 31 Cardiff(UK) Healthservices 46 Education 39 Jobscreation 38 Glasgow(UK) Healthservices 44 Education 41 Jobscreation 40 London(UK) Healthservices 52 Education 41 Jobscreation 38 Manchester(UK) Education 48 Healthservices 46 Jobscreation 45 Newcastle(UK) Healthservices 41 Jobscreation 41 Education 38 Burgas(BG) Airpollution 71 Healthservices 60 Jobscreation 38 Sofia(BG) Airpollution 52 Roads 49 Healthservices 44 Zagreb(HR) Jobscreation 53 Healthservices 45 Housing 43 Bucureti(RO) Healthservices 56 Education 44 Airpollution 38 ClujNapoc(RO) Jobscreation 70 Healthservices 67 Education 43 PiatraNeam(RO) Jobscreation 62 Healthservices 51 Education 37 Ankara(TR) Healthservices 45 Education 45 Jobscreation 33 Antalya(TR) Healthservices 30 Education 30 Jobscreation 29 Diyarbakir(TR) Education 44 Jobscreation 27 Healthservices 23 stanbul(TR) Healthservices 66 46 Jobscreation 40 Education 50 46 39 64 59 53 54 46 38 41 40 40 58 57 52 55 49 46 53 51 47 49 44 42 47 46 44 53 52 50 63 51 39 56 51 38 47 31 37 37 67

45 39

65 48 40 52 37 36 51 39 37 50 38 34 51 41 36 51 42 35 47 44 39 63 63 48 42 38 37 39 35 38 36 73

34

66 51 31 60 51

29

59 52 35 69 50 31 50 43 34 72 51 36 55 44 34 52 47 38 45 44 39 54 46 41 59 48 37

62

55

49 39 33 39 37 62

34

52 52 64 59

32

48 42 29 45 44 35 69 59

53 52 44 51 50 35 61 61 52 50 48 47

38

53 46 31 47 44 39

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

page 29

2. Pollution and climate change 2.1 Clean and healthy cities Air quality and air pollution
It was noted in the previous chapter that air pollution appeared among the three most important problems in 21 cities; for example, 56% of respondents in Sofia, 47% in Athens, 39% in Budapest and 37% in Bucharest mentioned it as one of their citys main problems. Respondents in those four cities were also the most likely to somewhat or strongly agree with the statement that air pollution was a major problem in their city (between 92% and 96%). In Athens and Bucharest, more than 8 in 10 respondents strongly agreed with that statement (88% and 83%, respectively). All Italian cities included in this study were found at the bottom of this ranking with a large majority of respondents who somewhat or strongly agreed that air pollution was a major problem in their city: 89% of interviewees in Rome, 86% in Naples, 84% in Bologna, 83% in Turin, and 82% in Palermo and Verona. A large number of cities ranked in the lowest quarter were capitals and/or large cities (with at least 500,000 inhabitants). Several of these cities were listed in the previous paragraphs (Athens, Budapest, Rome, Naples etc.), but the list also included cities such as Warsaw, Paris, Lisbon and London. The most notable exception among these lowest-ranked cities was Burgas, a city with less than 250,000 inhabitants; however, about 9 in 10 respondents there thought that air pollution was a major problem (18% somewhat agreed and 71% strongly agreed). All cities, where residents were the least likely to think that air pollution was a serious problem for their city, had less than 500,000 inhabitants. Respondents in Rostock, followed by those in Groningen and Bialystok, most frequently disagreed that air pollution was a problem (81% in Rostock and 75% in Groningen and Bialystok). In Oviedo, Rennes, Newcastle, Piatra Neamt, Leipzig and Aalborg, about two-thirds of respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed that air pollution was an issue (between 64% and 69%). A comparison with the results of the previous perception survey showed that in the opinion of the inhabitants many cities have improved their air quality in the past three years. For example, in 2006, just 6% of respondents in Valletta disagreed that air pollution was a problem in their city, this proportion increased to 23% in 2009. The opposite trend (i.e. a decrease in positive perceptions about air quality) was observed in a minority of the cities included this study: e.g. in Stockholm (-16 percentage points), Malmo (-16), Ostrava (-11) and Budapest (-10).
Air pollution is a major problem

Air pollution is a major problem


Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree DK/NA

Rostock(DE) 35 46 13 4 2 Groningen(NL) 28 47 18 3 4 Biaystok(PL) 36 39 15 8 3 Oviedo(ES) 19 50 24 6 1 Rennes(FR) 27 41 21 7 4 Newcastle(UK) 28 39 16 11 7 PiatraNeam(RO) 36 31 17 15 2 Leipzig(DE) 11 55 24 6 4 Aalborg(DK) 20 44 21 8 7 Oulu(FI) 18 44 31 7 1 Hamburg(DE) 15 47 25 9 5 Luxembourg(LU) 20 41 26 9 4 Dortmund(DE) 18 42 27 11 2 Cardiff(UK) 21 37 20 14 8 Wien(AT) 15 43 27 14 2 Helsinki(FI) 13 43 32 10 2 Bordeaux(FR) 20 34 30 14 2 Dublin(IE) 27 26 23 21 2 Belfast(UK) 18 33 24 17 7 Essen(DE) 12 40 32 15 2 Antalya(TR) 28 22 22 26 2 Mlaga(ES) 13 36 33 14 4 Mnchen(DE) 10 38 34 14 4 Berlin(DE) 9 38 32 17 4 Kosice(SK) 5 42 34 16 3 Braga(PT) 17 29 34 17 3 Ankara(TR) 21 25 27 27 1 Diyarbakir(TR) 20 23 28 27 2 Manchester(UK) 13 29 27 23 9 Bratislava(SK) 5 36 40 18 1 Glasgow(UK) 13 25 28 29 6 Miskolc(HU) 10 27 31 30 3 Gdansk(PL) 12 23 25 35 5 Lille(FR) 13 22 37 26 3 Malm(SE) 10 24 35 23 7 Tallinn(EE) 10 23 27 33 7 Zagreb(HR) 14 18 28 39 1 Amsterdam(NL) 7 24 42 21 6 Riga(LV) 15 16 27 40 3 Irakleio(EL) 7 23 23 46 1 Ljubljana(SI) 8 21 32 36 3 Kbenhavn(DK) 5 23 34 34 4 stanbul(TR) 7 20 26 46 1 Stockholm(SE) 8 18 45 26 3 Graz(AT) 7 18 32 41 3 Praha(CZ) 3 21 43 31 2 Marseille(FR) 9 15 34 41 2 Rotterdam(NL) 6 18 46 27 4 Lige(BE) 4 19 48 24 5 Barcelona(ES) 5 18 45 31 1 Valletta(MT) 10 13 25 49 2 ClujNapoc(RO) 9 14 25 49 3 Ostrava(CZ) 4 19 34 43 1 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 5 17 46 30 3 Krakw(PL) 7 15 29 49 1 Vilnius(LT) 6 15 27 47 5 Lefkosia(CY) 5 15 29 50 2 Strasbourg(FR) 7 13 40 38 2 Antwerpen(BE) 6 14 44 28 8 Paris(FR) 5 15 36 41 3 Warszawa(PL) 5 14 30 47 4 London(UK) 5 14 35 42 4 Palermo(IT) 3 13 36 46 1 Torino(IT) 3 13 34 49 1 Verona(IT) 5 11 40 42 2 Bologna(IT) 4 12 42 42 1 Madrid(ES) 3 12 46 39 1 Lisboa(PT) 3 11 36 49 1 Napoli(IT) 3 9 35 51 1 Roma(IT) 3 7 31 58 1 Burgas(BG) 4 5 18 71 2 Sofia(BG) 4 3 18 74 1 Bucureti(RO) 4 3 9 83 2 Budapest(HU) 2 4 19 73 2 Athinia(EL) 2 1 8 88 0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Rostock(DE) Groningen(NL) Biaystok(PL) Oviedo(ES) Rennes(FR) Newcastle(UK) PiatraNeam(RO) Leipzig(DE) Aalborg(DK) Oulu(FI) Hamburg(DE) Luxembourg(LU) Dortmund(DE) Cardiff(UK) Wien(AT) Helsinki(FI) Bordeaux(FR) Dublin(IE) Belfast(UK) Essen(DE) Antalya(TR) Mlaga(ES) Mnchen(DE) Berlin(DE) Kosice(SK) Braga(PT) Ankara(TR) Diyarbakir(TR) Manchester(UK) Bratislava(SK) Glasgow(UK) Miskolc(HU) Gdansk(PL) Lille(FR) Malm(SE) Tallinn(EE) Zagreb(HR) Amsterdam(NL) Riga(LV) Irakleio(EL) Ljubljana(SI) Kbenhavn(DK) stanbul(TR) Stockholm(SE) Graz(AT) Praha(CZ) Marseille(FR) Rotterdam(NL) Lige(BE) Barcelona(ES) Valletta(MT) ClujNapoc(RO) Ostrava(CZ) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Krakw(PL) Vilnius(LT) Lefkosia(CY) Strasbourg(FR) Antwerpen(BE) Paris(FR) Warszawa(PL) London(UK) Palermo(IT) Torino(IT) Verona(IT) Bologna(IT) Madrid(ES) Lisboa(PT) Napoli(IT) Roma(IT) Burgas(BG) Sofia(BG) Bucureti(RO) Budapest(HU) Athinia(EL)

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % by city
page 31

Noise is a major problem More than three-quarters of respondents in Groningen and Oulu disagreed that noise was a major problem in their city (78% and 76%, respectively); only about a fifth of respondents in these cities agreed about this issue (19% and 22%, respectively). Nevertheless, in most other cities, more than half of respondents agreed that noise was a major problem in their city this proportion ranged from 51% in Rotterdam and Strasbourg to 95% in Athens. The scatter plot below shows a strong correlation between the proportions of respondents who disagreed that air pollution was a major problem in their city and those who disagreed that noise was an important issue. As such, respondents in Athens, Bucharest, Sofia and Budapest were not only among the most likely to agree that air pollution was a major problem in their city, but also that noise was an issue; in these cities, between 85% and 95% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement about noise being a big problem. Furthermore, in these four cities, at least 6 in 10 respondents strongly agreed (between 61% and 82%) about noise.

Noise is a major problem

Noise is a major problem


Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree 52 53 Strongly agree 14 20 DK/NA

Groningen(NL) Oulu(FI) Rostock(DE) Biaystok(PL) PiatraNeam(RO) Aalborg(DK) Newcastle(UK) Cardiff(UK) Luxembourg(LU) Belfast(UK) Oviedo(ES) Leipzig(DE) Bordeaux(FR) Rennes(FR) Dublin(IE) Manchester(UK) Hamburg(DE) Helsinki(FI) Amsterdam(NL) Dortmund(DE) Mnchen(DE) Braga(PT) Strasbourg(FR) Wien(AT) Kosice(SK) Rotterdam(NL) Glasgow(UK) Essen(DE) Miskolc(HU) Antwerpen(BE) Kbenhavn(DK) Graz(AT) Lille(FR) Riga(LV) Lige(BE) Malm(SE) Tallinn(EE) Verona(IT) Berlin(DE) Vilnius(LT) Antalya(TR) Gdansk(PL) Valletta(MT) Ljubljana(SI) Diyarbakir(TR) Bratislava(SK) Mlaga(ES) Zagreb(HR) Stockholm(SE) Ankara(TR) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Ostrava(CZ) Bologna(IT) Torino(IT) ClujNapoc(RO) Marseille(FR) Paris(FR) London(UK) Burgas(BG) Praha(CZ) Palermo(IT) Lefkosia(CY) Barcelona(ES) Lisboa(PT) stanbul(TR) Krakw(PL) Napoli(IT) Warszawa(PL) Roma(IT) Irakleio(EL) Madrid(ES) Budapest(HU) Sofia(BG) Bucureti(RO) Athinia(EL)

5 2 21 7 2 22 51 12 3 19 40 1 17 18 29 36 7 5 24 45 19 10 4 22 39 24 3 14 20 43 21 12 1 24 38 24 2 16 20 43 18 10 1 30 44 15 9 2 32 47 10 1 16 28 33 22 2 14 28 34 22 3 19 24 30 25 5 19 22 41 13 3 12 33 42 11 1 14 34 38 14 2 15 33 40 10 3 16 31 39 10 3 17 33 39 8 1 18 34 31 17 1 23 28 32 16 2 19 33 35 12 2 15 38 41 4 4 16 35 37 8 2 24 29 31 14 3 16 36 37 8 2 23 32 35 8 5 19 33 30 12 1 22 34 35 8 3 22 33 32 11 2 23 34 28 14 3 33 23 20 22 2 16 41 31 10 3 17 40 29 11 4 32 25 26 13 2 26 33 31 9 2 22 37 32 8 5 33 25 25 13 1 32 30 17 20 2 31 30 25 12 2 35 27 20 16 2 33 30 26 10 2 31 32 20 16 0 26 39 31 4 0 25 39 29 6 0 37 29 16 18 2 23 42 22 11 2 31 35 21 12 2 23 43 23 9 2 34 32 26 6 1 34 35 22 7 2 33 36 24 6 1 44 26 15 13 1 39 31 18 11 1 39 33 21 7 2 40 32 18 8 2 51 23 15 9 1 34 42 19 5 1 45 34 16 5 1 54 24 15 7 1 34 46 15 5 1 44 35 16 4 0 55 27 15 4 1 52 28 14 5 1 49 34 11 6 1 55 28 10 6 1 52 32 11 5 1 60 24 11 4 1 42 42 13 3 3 61 24 4 9 1 65 23 5 6 1 73 16 5 6 1 82 3 2 13 26 23 18 27
0 20 40 60 80 100

Groningen(NL) Oulu(FI) Rostock(DE) Biaystok(PL) PiatraNeam(RO) Aalborg(DK) Newcastle(UK) Cardiff(UK) Luxembourg(LU) Belfast(UK) Oviedo(ES) Leipzig(DE) Bordeaux(FR) Rennes(FR) Dublin(IE) Manchester(UK) Hamburg(DE) Helsinki(FI) Amsterdam(NL) Dortmund(DE) Mnchen(DE) Braga(PT) Strasbourg(FR) Wien(AT) Kosice(SK) Rotterdam(NL) Glasgow(UK) Essen(DE) Miskolc(HU) Antwerpen(BE) Kbenhavn(DK) Graz(AT) Lille(FR) Riga(LV) Lige(BE) Malm(SE) Tallinn(EE) Verona(IT) Berlin(DE) Vilnius(LT) Antalya(TR) Gdansk(PL) Valletta(MT) Ljubljana(SI) Diyarbakir(TR) Bratislava(SK) Mlaga(ES) Zagreb(HR) Stockholm(SE) Ankara(TR) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Ostrava(CZ) Bologna(IT) Torino(IT) ClujNapoc(RO) Marseille(FR) Paris(FR) London(UK) Burgas(BG) Praha(CZ) Palermo(IT) Lefkosia(CY) Barcelona(ES) Lisboa(PT) stanbul(TR) Krakw(PL) Napoli(IT) Warszawa(PL) Roma(IT) Irakleio(EL) Madrid(ES) Budapest(HU) Sofia(BG) Bucureti(RO) Athinia(EL)

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % by city
page 33

Correlation between air pollution and noise


Correlation between air pollution and noise
100 90

Correlationcoefficient: rxy =.867

%disagreeingthatnoiseisabigproblem

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

%disagreeingthatairpollutionisabigproblem

Clean cities There was not only a high correlation between the proportions of respondents who disagreed that air and noise pollution were major problems in their city, but also between those who disagreed that air pollution was a problem and those who agreed that they lived in a clean city (a correlation coefficient of .694). In Oviedo, Piatra Neamt and Luxembourg, almost all respondents agreed that they lived in a clean city (96%-97%). In more than a third of the surveyed cities, however, less than half of respondents agreed that their city was clean. The lowest proportions were seen in Palermo, Budapest, Sofia and Athens; less than a sixth of interviewees in those cities somewhat or strongly agreed that they lived in a clean city (between 13% and 17%). Almost 6 in 10 respondents in Palermo, Sofia and Athens strongly disagreed that their city was clean (58%-59%). In accordance with the results for air and noise pollution, a majority of cities seemed to have made progress in terms of cleanliness in the past few years. For example, while the results of the previous perception survey showed that less than a tenth of respondents living in Marseilles or Naples agreed that their cities were clean, this proportion increased to slightly more than a quarter in 2009 (26%27%). Note that respondents in Malmo and Stockholm were now also more likely to agree that they lived in a clean city (+22 and +23 percentage points compared to 2006) although they had seen a decrease in air quality and an increase in noise pollution during the same period. Athens, Palermo and Brussels were the main exceptions to this positive trend. In these cities, the proportion of respondents who agreed that their city was clean decreased by at least 12 percentage points. For example, in 2006, 3 in 10 interviewees in Athens agreed that they lived in a clean city, while this proportion dropped to 16% in 2009 (-14 percentage points). Interestingly, cities that were described by their inhabitants as being clean were also the ones where a larger proportion always felt safe as illustrated in the scatter plot below. For example, more than 9 in 10 respondents in Piatra Neamt, Luxembourg and Munich agreed that they lived in a clean city and

about three-quarters of them always felt safe there. Similarly, less than a sixth of respondents in Athens and Sofia described their city as clean and only slightly more about a fifth always felt safe in that city.
Correlation between a clean city and feeling safe

Correlation between a clean city and feeling safe


100 90 80

%alwaysfeelingsafeintheircity

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Correlationcoefficient: rxy =.728

%agreeingthatthecityisclean

The city is clean

page 35

The city is clean


Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA

0 21 Oviedo(ES) 30 67 0 31 PiatraNeam(RO) 21 75 0 31 Luxembourg(LU) 46 50 1 6 1 Mnchen(DE) 55 38 8 41 Biaystok(PL) 51 37 41 11 Wien(AT) 49 35 21 13 Groningen(NL) 58 26 51 11 ClujNapoc(RO) 50 34 51 11 Newcastle(UK) 50 34 40 13 Braga(PT) 47 36 31 13 63 Hamburg(DE) 20 50 14 Verona(IT) 59 21 7 1 15 Antalya(TR) 36 43 21 19 53 Rostock(DE) 25 7 1 16 Ljubljana(SI) 55 22 6 1 17 53 Graz(AT) 23 7 1 16 55 Stockholm(SE) 21 7 1 16 Rennes(FR) 56 20 50 19 60 Oulu(FI) 16 7 1 19 Aalborg(DK) 57 16 11 1 15 Cardiff(UK) 48 24 7 1 20 54 Strasbourg(FR) 18 41 23 Helsinki(FI) 55 17 9 1 18 51 Lille(FR) 21 12 26 58 Leipzig(DE) 14 10 1 18 50 Bordeaux(FR) 21 10 1 20 44 Ankara(TR) 25 8 2 21 53 Malm(SE) 16 12 2 19 37 Diyarbakir(TR) 32 41 27 53 Dortmund(DE) 14 12 0 21 44 Riga(LV) 23 3 13 19 44 Tallinn(EE) 21 9 1 26 52 Gdansk(PL) 12 11 1 26 49 Torino(IT) 13 0 16 21 40 Zagreb(HR) 23 5 2 31 53 Kosice(SK) 9 1 15 24 43 Belfast(UK) 18 2 18 22 41 Manchester(UK) 17 1 14 29 47 Krakw(PL) 10 10 3 31 39 Vilnius(LT) 17 5 1 38 46 Essen(DE) 10 10 1 35 45 Madrid(ES) 10 1 15 30 41 Bologna(IT) 14 1 21 24 41 Glasgow(UK) 14 1 26 24 41 Lefkosia(CY) 9 12 1 37 41 Amsterdam(NL) 8 1 15 35 40 Ostrava(CZ) 9 11 1 40 40 Rotterdam(NL) 8 1 24 28 33 Dublin(IE) 15 2 23 29 34 Valletta(MT) 12 2 22 29 40 Antwerpen(BE) 6 1 21 34 38 Miskolc(HU) 6 0 21 35 38 Paris(FR) 6 1 18 38 37 Kbenhavn(DK) 6 2 26 30 34 London(UK) 9 1 29 27 29 Burgas(BG) 13 2 16 40 35 Praha(CZ) 7 1 24 33 35 Warszawa(PL) 6 1 17 42 34 Barcelona(ES) 6 1 15 44 37 Bratislava(SK) 3 1 31 30 29 stanbul(TR) 10 1 37 27 27 Irakleio(EL) 8 1 23 42 26 Mlaga(ES) 9 1 29 37 27 6 Lisboa(PT) 1 17 50 27 Berlin(DE) 5 2 36 34 27 Lige(BE) 2 0 38 35 24 Napoli(IT) 3 1 33 39 24 Roma(IT) 3 1 44 30 20 Marseille(FR) 6 2 38 34 23 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 3 1 50 25 20 Bucureti(RO) 3 1 59 24 14 Athinia(EL) 3 1 59 25 Sofia(BG) 5 10 1 50 34 Budapest(HU) 2 13 1 58 29 Palermo(IT) 2 11
0 20 40 60 80 100

Oviedo(ES) PiatraNeam(RO) Luxembourg(LU) Mnchen(DE) Biaystok(PL) Wien(AT) Groningen(NL) ClujNapoc(RO) Newcastle(UK) Braga(PT) Hamburg(DE) Verona(IT) Antalya(TR) Rostock(DE) Ljubljana(SI) Graz(AT) Stockholm(SE) Rennes(FR) Oulu(FI) Aalborg(DK) Cardiff(UK) Strasbourg(FR) Helsinki(FI) Lille(FR) Leipzig(DE) Bordeaux(FR) Ankara(TR) Malm(SE) Diyarbakir(TR) Dortmund(DE) Riga(LV) Tallinn(EE) Gdansk(PL) Torino(IT) Zagreb(HR) Kosice(SK) Belfast(UK) Manchester(UK) Krakw(PL) Vilnius(LT) Essen(DE) Madrid(ES) Bologna(IT) Glasgow(UK) Lefkosia(CY) Amsterdam(NL) Ostrava(CZ) Rotterdam(NL) Dublin(IE) Valletta(MT) Antwerpen(BE) Miskolc(HU) Paris(FR) Kbenhavn(DK) London(UK) Burgas(BG) Praha(CZ) Warszawa(PL) Barcelona(ES) Bratislava(SK) stanbul(TR) Irakleio(EL) Mlaga(ES) Lisboa(PT) Berlin(DE) Lige(BE) Napoli(IT) Roma(IT) Marseille(FR) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Bucureti(RO) Athinia(EL) Sofia(BG) Budapest(HU) Palermo(IT)

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % by city

Healthy places to live Looking at both the perceived levels of air pollution and perceptions about whether a city was healthy to live in or not, similarities again existed: each time, the same cities appeared at the higher and lower ends of the rankings. The correlation coefficient for the relationship between these two variables at city level was .765 a strong correlation. Rostock, Groningen, Bialystok, Oviedo, Rennes and Leipzig were cities with some of the highest proportions of interviewees who disagreed that air pollution was a problem. In those cities, respondents were also among the most likely to somewhat or strongly agree that their city was a healthy place to live: 97% in Rostock and Groningen, 96% in Oviedo, 94% in Bialystok, 93% in Rennes and 92% in Leipzig. Respondents in Piatra Neamt, Braga, Bordeaux, Luxembourg, Malaga and Hamburg were, however, just as likely to agree with this statement (between 92% and 97%). Respondents in Sofia and Athens were not only among the most likely to agree that air pollution was a major problem in their city, they were also the least likely to somewhat or strongly agree that it was a healthy place to live (13% and 17%, respectively) more than half of those respondents strongly disagreed with this statement (56% and 58%, respectively). Although Sofia and Athens were the only cities where a majority strongly disagreed, in eight other cities more than half of respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed that they lived in a healthy place: Bucharest (71%), Istanbul (68%), Burgas (67%), Budapest (61%), Ostrava (58%), Naples and Warsaw (both 56%), and Prague (52%).
Correlation between "air pollution" and "a healthy city"

Correlation between air pollution and a healthy city


100 90

%agreeingthatthecityisahealthyplacetolive

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Correlationcoefficient: rxy =.765

%disagreeingthatairpollutionisabigproblem

The city is a healthy place to live in

page 37

The city is a healthy place to live


Strongly agree Somewhat agree 43 53 Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree 54 44 DK/NA

Rostock(DE) Groningen(NL) PiatraNeam(RO) Oviedo(ES) Braga(PT) Bordeaux(FR) Biaystok(PL) Luxembourg(LU) Rennes(FR) Leipzig(DE) Mlaga(ES) Hamburg(DE) Wien(AT) Mnchen(DE) Cardiff(UK) Oulu(FI) Lille(FR) Aalborg(DK) Verona(IT) Antalya(TR) Strasbourg(FR) Newcastle(UK) Helsinki(FI) Belfast(UK) Dublin(IE) Bologna(IT) Diyarbakir(TR) Marseille(FR) Dortmund(DE) Lige(BE) Graz(AT) ClujNapoc(RO) Ljubljana(SI) Essen(DE) Ankara(TR) Lisboa(PT) Irakleio(EL) Gdansk(PL) Torino(IT) Barcelona(ES) Stockholm(SE) Amsterdam(NL) Berlin(DE) Kosice(SK) Malm(SE) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Madrid(ES) Zagreb(HR) Manchester(UK) Paris(FR) Lefkosia(CY) Miskolc(HU) Tallinn(EE) Kbenhavn(DK) Krakw(PL) Palermo(IT) Vilnius(LT) Riga(LV) Rotterdam(NL) Roma(IT) London(UK) Glasgow(UK) Bratislava(SK) Valletta(MT) Antwerpen(BE) Praha(CZ) Napoli(IT) Warszawa(PL) Ostrava(CZ) Budapest(HU) Burgas(BG) stanbul(TR) Bucureti(RO) Athinia(EL) Sofia(BG)

20 1 20 1 20 23 74 1 30 40 56 40 34 62 1 31 58 38 2 22 42 52 1 51 57 37 4 11 58 35 5 12 62 30 6 11 60 32 7 11 54 38 5 22 46 45 8 12 52 38 6 32 56 33 9 11 64 25 9 22 50 36 9 23 63 23 10 3 2 58 27 10 4 1 36 49 31 12 55 29 9 4 3 47 38 32 14 58 24 6 2 11 50 32 7 1 12 45 36 5 2 14 56 24 7 1 13 36 44 8 1 12 45 35 23 18 57 20 5 6 13 52 24 4 3 19 49 26 8 3 15 39 36 7 3 15 58 17 32 21 56 19 9 1 16 45 29 9 1 20 53 18 12 0 18 42 28 9 2 19 43 27 7 4 20 51 19 7 1 24 53 17 3 6 22 48 20 6 3 23 51 17 4 2 26 49 19 4 5 25 56 11 9 5 19 49 18 6 11 17 50 16 8 1 25 47 19 2 17 16 34 30 3 12 21 46 19 11 2 23 47 17 1 17 19 44 18 4 11 23 49 13 5 14 20 41 20 5 9 28 48 9 3 14 27 39 17 3 18 23 43 12 7 12 27 37 19 5 21 20 37 17 4 9 33 38 15 3 21 25 42 10 2 13 33 37 14 4 20 25 36 16 5 9 37 42 7 8 17 27 37 11 10 14 28 40 8 3 13 39 37 8 1 24 32 35 8 3 22 34 32 9 3 21 37 30 9 4 33 28 28 6 3 36 31 18 12 1 38 30 21 10 2 47 24 21 6 1 58 25 12 5 2 56 30 2 11
0 20 40 60 80 100

Rostock(DE) Groningen(NL) PiatraNeam(RO) Oviedo(ES) Braga(PT) Bordeaux(FR) Biaystok(PL) Luxembourg(LU) Rennes(FR) Leipzig(DE) Mlaga(ES) Hamburg(DE) Wien(AT) Mnchen(DE) Cardiff(UK) Oulu(FI) Lille(FR) Aalborg(DK) Verona(IT) Antalya(TR) Strasbourg(FR) Newcastle(UK) Helsinki(FI) Belfast(UK) Dublin(IE) Bologna(IT) Diyarbakir(TR) Marseille(FR) Dortmund(DE) Lige(BE) Graz(AT) ClujNapoc(RO) Ljubljana(SI) Essen(DE) Ankara(TR) Lisboa(PT) Irakleio(EL) Gdansk(PL) Torino(IT) Barcelona(ES) Stockholm(SE) Amsterdam(NL) Berlin(DE) Kosice(SK) Malm(SE) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Madrid(ES) Zagreb(HR) Manchester(UK) Paris(FR) Lefkosia(CY) Miskolc(HU) Tallinn(EE) Kbenhavn(DK) Krakw(PL) Palermo(IT) Vilnius(LT) Riga(LV) Rotterdam(NL) Roma(IT) London(UK) Glasgow(UK) Bratislava(SK) Valletta(MT) Antwerpen(BE) Praha(CZ) Napoli(IT) Warszawa(PL) Ostrava(CZ) Budapest(HU) Burgas(BG) stanbul(TR) Bucureti(RO) Athinia(EL) Sofia(BG)

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % by city

2.2 Cities committed to fight climate change

The proportion of respondents who somewhat or strongly agreed that their city was committed to fight climate change (e.g. by promoting eco-friendly means of transport) ranged from 14% in Sofia to 76% in Luxembourg. Munich, Newcastle and Bordeaux joined Luxembourg at the higher end of the ranking (between 68% and 70% agreed), with Burgas and Palermo joining Sofia at the lower end (20% and 26%, respectively, agreed). Considerably less variation was observed in the proportion of respondents who strongly agreed that their city was committed to fight climate change in a majority of cities in this study between one-tenth and one-fifth of respondents expressed strong agreement. Many respondents found it difficult to answer this question about their citys commitment to fight climate change. In Piatra Neamt, Tallinn, Vilnius, Antwerp, Kosice and Burgas, more than 3 in 10 respondents gave a dont know response (between 32% and 36%). In Dublin, Luxembourg, London, Barcelona and Belfast, however, less than a tenth of respondents did not answer this question. A comparison with the results discussed in the previous sections about healthy and clean cities once more showed similarities in the city rankings cities where respondents were more likely to agree that there was a commitment to fight climate change were also the ones where respondents were, for example, somewhat more likely to agree that their city was a healthy place to live. The four scatter plots below show, nevertheless, that the correlation coefficients were somewhat smaller than most coefficients discussed earlier in the report.
Correlation coefficients : air pollution, noise, a clean city, a healthy city

air pollution
100

%disagreeingthatairpollutionisabigproblem

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10

Correlationcoefficient: rxy =.537

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%agreeingthatthecityiscommittedtofightclimatechange

page 39

noise
100 90

%disagreeingthatnoiseisabigproblem

Correlationcoefficient: rxy =.599

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

%agreeingthatthecityiscommittedtofightclimatechange

a clean city
100 90 80

%agreeingthatthecityisclean

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Correlationcoefficient: rxy =.516

%agreeingthatthecityiscommittedtofightclimatechange

a healthy city
100

%agreeingthatthecityisahealthyplacetolive

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Correlationcoefficient: rxy =.639

%agreeingthatthecityiscommittedtofightclimatechange

page 41

3. Administrative services and city spending Resources spent in a responsible way


In a third of the cities in this study (24 out of 75), at least a slim majority of respondents thought that their city spent its resources in a responsible way. Interviewees in Luxembourg, Bordeaux and Piatra Neamt most frequently agreed that this was the case (69%, 67% and 65%, respectively). In the lastnamed city, respondents were also the most likely to strongly agree that resources were spent in a responsible way (35% vs. 15%-17% in Bordeaux and Luxembourg). While more than two-thirds of respondents in Luxembourg somewhat or strongly agreed that their city spent its resources in a responsible way, less than a tenth in Budapest held this view. In Budapest, more than two-thirds disagreed that resources were spent responsibly (52% strongly disagreed and 19% somewhat disagreed). Other cities with a similarly high level of disagreement were Dortmund (73%), Palermo (73%) and Athens (70%). All German cities included in this study (except Munich) were found at the bottom of this distribution the proportion of respondents who somewhat or strongly disagreed that resources were spent responsibly in their city ranged from 52% in Leipzig to 73% in Dortmund. In Munich, on the other hand, only about a fifth (21%) of respondents disagreed that resources were spent responsibly, while 57% agreed with this view (13% strongly agreed and 44% somewhat agreed). As with the statement about cities commitment to fight climate change, city dwellers found it difficult to formulate an opinion about the management of the citys resources this may be due to a relatively low level of responsibilities at city level and/or a lack of transparency in management and expenditures. The proportion of dont know responses ranged from less than a tenth in Dublin and Zagreb (6%-8%) to more than three times this proportion in Sofia, Bratislava, Brussels, Miskolc, Burgas and Kosice (between 30% and 35%).
The city spends its resources in a responsible way

The city spends its resources in a responsible way


Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA

12 3 16 Luxembourg(LU) 52 17 20 6 8 Bordeaux(FR) 52 15 20 5 10 PiatraNeam(RO) 30 35 16 7 14 Groningen(NL) 51 12 15 9 14 Newcastle(UK) 45 18 20 3 15 Stockholm(SE) 48 13 13 9 17 Braga(PT) 43 18 22 6 14 Biaystok(PL) 35 23 10 12 20 Oviedo(ES) 44 15 22 6 14 Malm(SE) 45 13 22 7 14 35 ClujNapoc(RO) 22 25 6 13 46 Lille(FR) 11 23 4 17 Mnchen(DE) 44 13 23 6 14 48 Rennes(FR) 8 11 13 20 43 Cardiff(UK) 13 11 9 25 Aalborg(DK) 45 11 20 8 17 42 Verona(IT) 13 10 7 29 47 Helsinki(FI) 7 15 11 20 Antalya(TR) 32 22 18 12 17 36 Irakleio(EL) 18 10 16 22 39 Belfast(UK) 13 21 4 24 Rotterdam(NL) 41 11 23 5 20 44 Strasbourg(FR) 8 16 16 18 37 Manchester(UK) 14 12 21 17 39 Glasgow(UK) 11 26 7 17 45 Antwerpen(BE) 5 21 9 21 38 Wien(AT) 11 23 9 20 37 Valletta(MT) 12 18 11 22 36 Bologna(IT) 13 20 11 22 38 Torino(IT) 10 23 10 22 35 Krakw(PL) 11 17 17 21 29 Diyarbakir(TR) 16 12 10 34 38 Oulu(FI) 6 25 6 25 Ostrava(CZ) 37 7 21 14 21 Gdansk(PL) 34 11 15 13 28 38 Mlaga(ES) 6 16 11 30 40 Kbenhavn(DK) 4 11 19 28 30 Ankara(TR) 14 13 20 24 34 London(UK) 9 17 18 23 34 Lisboa(PT) 8 22 12 25 37 Paris(FR) 4 21 19 20 33 Ljubljana(SI) 8 22 13 25 34 Praha(CZ) 6 22 19 20 32 Marseille(FR) 7 10 26 26 31 stanbul(TR) 8 35 16 12 23 Burgas(BG) 14 14 17 33 28 Graz(AT) 8 16 15 34 28 Amsterdam(NL) 7 11 17 37 28 Madrid(ES) 7 6 33 26 24 Dublin(IE) 11 10 19 37 30 Barcelona(ES) 4 14 12 41 30 Hamburg(DE) 4 34 17 16 24 Miskolc(HU) 9 19 21 27 28 Warszawa(PL) 5 22 15 32 28 Lige(BE) 4 35 6 28 27 Kosice(SK) 4 21 21 29 22 Lefkosia(CY) 7 18 13 40 26 Rostock(DE) 3 19 12 40 26 Leipzig(DE) 2 8 49 16 19 Zagreb(HR) 9 32 15 26 24 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 3 24 25 25 18 Tallinn(EE) 8 32 13 29 23 Bratislava(SK) 3 22 24 28 18 Roma(IT) 8 15 15 45 23 Essen(DE) 2 30 30 19 17 Sofia(BG) 5 16 47 18 15 Bucureti(RO) 5 20 36 25 14 Napoli(IT) 5 14 19 48 16 Berlin(DE) 2 10 31 42 14 Dortmund(DE) 3 12 54 19 Palermo(IT) 4 11 15 45 25 Athinia(EL) 4 11 21 48 18 Riga(LV) 2 12 23 36 28 Vilnius(LT) 3 10 20 52 19 Budapest(HU) 2 7
0 20 40 60 80 100

Luxembourg(LU) Bordeaux(FR) PiatraNeam(RO) Groningen(NL) Newcastle(UK) Stockholm(SE) Braga(PT) Biaystok(PL) Oviedo(ES) Malm(SE) ClujNapoc(RO) Lille(FR) Mnchen(DE) Rennes(FR) Cardiff(UK) Aalborg(DK) Verona(IT) Helsinki(FI) Antalya(TR) Irakleio(EL) Belfast(UK) Rotterdam(NL) Strasbourg(FR) Manchester(UK) Glasgow(UK) Antwerpen(BE) Wien(AT) Valletta(MT) Bologna(IT) Torino(IT) Krakw(PL) Diyarbakir(TR) Oulu(FI) Ostrava(CZ) Gdansk(PL) Mlaga(ES) Kbenhavn(DK) Ankara(TR) London(UK) Lisboa(PT) Paris(FR) Ljubljana(SI) Praha(CZ) Marseille(FR) stanbul(TR) Burgas(BG) Graz(AT) Amsterdam(NL) Madrid(ES) Dublin(IE) Barcelona(ES) Hamburg(DE) Miskolc(HU) Warszawa(PL) Lige(BE) Kosice(SK) Lefkosia(CY) Rostock(DE) Leipzig(DE) Zagreb(HR) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Tallinn(EE) Bratislava(SK) Roma(IT) Essen(DE) Sofia(BG) Bucureti(RO) Napoli(IT) Berlin(DE) Dortmund(DE) Palermo(IT) Athinia(EL) Riga(LV) Vilnius(LT) Budapest(HU)

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % by city
page 43

4. Satisfaction with cities infrastructure Satisfaction with cultural facilities


In a majority of cities (54 of 75), at least three-quarters of respondents were satisfied with their own citys cultural facilities, such as concert halls, museums and libraries. In about half of the 54 cities, more than 50% of respondents were very satisfied with these facilities; this proportion was highest in Vienna (74%), Cardiff (71%), Newcastle (68%), Munich (71%), Berlin (68%) and Amsterdam (66%). In the above-mentioned cities, less than 1 in 20 respondents were dissatisfied with their citys cultural facilities (e.g. 2% in Cardiff and 3% in Berlin). More than a quarter of respondents said they were rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with cultural facilities in Braga (26%), Malaga (27%), Palermo (30%), Nicosia (39%), Valletta (42%), Iraklion (45%) and Naples (46%). Nevertheless, only in Valletta and Naples did these unsatisfied respondents outnumber satisfied ones (Valletta: 42% unsatisfied vs. 35% satisfied; Naples: 46% unsatisfied vs. 41% satisfied). In many cities at the bottom of the ranking, a considerable number of respondents did not answer the question about cultural facilities. The largest proportions of dont know responses were recorded in Turkish cities included in this study: 35% in Diyarbakir, 31% in Antalya and 30% in Ankara.
Satisfaction with cultural facilities (e.g. concert halls and museums)

Satisfaction with cultural facilities (e.g. concert halls and museums)


Very satisfied Rather satisfied 61 Rather unsatisfied 71 Not at all satisfied 35 25 DK/NA

Cardiff(UK) Helsinki(FI) Wien(AT) Glasgow(UK) Kbenhavn(DK) Berlin(DE) Amsterdam(NL) Mnchen(DE) Newcastle(UK) Paris(FR) Dublin(IE) Leipzig(DE) Stockholm(SE) Groningen(NL) Aalborg(DK) Luxembourg(LU) Belfast(UK) Manchester(UK) Hamburg(DE) London(UK) Essen(DE) Strasbourg(FR) Graz(AT) Oulu(FI) Malm(SE) Ljubljana(SI) Rotterdam(NL) Dortmund(DE) Budapest(HU) Tallinn(EE) Warszawa(PL) Praha(CZ) Rennes(FR) Krakw(PL) Miskolc(HU) Antwerpen(BE) Barcelona(ES) Gdansk(PL) Lille(FR) Kosice(SK) Madrid(ES) Bratislava(SK) Bordeaux(FR) Torino(IT) Oviedo(ES) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Ostrava(CZ) Rostock(DE) ClujNapoc(RO) Lige(BE) Bologna(IT) Vilnius(LT) Biaystok(PL) Zagreb(HR) PiatraNeam(RO) Verona(IT) Marseille(FR) Lisboa(PT) Riga(LV) Roma(IT) Bucureti(RO) Braga(PT) Athinia(EL) Mlaga(ES) Palermo(IT) Sofia(BG) stanbul(TR) Lefkosia(CY) Ankara(TR) Antalya(TR) Burgas(BG) Irakleio(EL) Napoli(IT) Diyarbakir(TR) Valletta(MT)
0

112 202 74 21 14 0 64 31 21 3 60 35 3 12 68 26 21 3 66 28 1 4 0 71 23 0 6 68 25 12 4 55 38 313 60 33 3 22 64 29 20 5 60 33 21 4 62 30 20 5 50 42 40 4 53 38 5 13 53 39 4 32 61 30 11 7 63 28 41 5 63 28 31 5 53 37 5 04 42 48 514 53 38 5 14 35 55 6 14 46 44 31 7 28 59 6 2 5 47 40 42 7 46 42 6 1 6 39 48 41 9 41 45 6 1 7 33 53 5 1 8 40 46 5 2 8 37 49 8 2 5 43 42 6 2 7 34 51 6 0 8 47 37 21 12 20 62 11 1 5 32 50 10 1 6 30 52 7 2 8 30 52 8 1 10 26 56 9 3 6 27 55 8 1 9 26 54 11 3 5 24 57 6 0 14 27 53 13 3 4 31 49 5 2 13 29 51 9 2 10 26 53 16 23 29 49 7 4 10 26 52 7 2 14 26 52 9 2 12 33 45 9 3 11 24 53 12 3 8 34 42 13 4 7 33 41 10 5 12 19 54 12 4 11 19 53 15 7 6 17 55 10 3 16 30 41 5 3 21 21 47 15 7 11 18 50 10 9 14 19 48 19 7 8 24 43 14 11 9 14 52 19 8 7 8 51 20 10 11 21 38 15 7 19 25 32 9 8 26 17 38 22 17 7 22 30 8 10 30 26 26 9 8 31 19 33 18 7 23 18 31 23 22 7 7 34 26 20 13 18 23 10 15 35 13 22 20 22 24


20 40 60 80 100

Cardiff(UK) Helsinki(FI) Wien(AT) Glasgow(UK) Kbenhavn(DK) Berlin(DE) Amsterdam(NL) Mnchen(DE) Newcastle(UK) Paris(FR) Dublin(IE) Leipzig(DE) Stockholm(SE) Groningen(NL) Aalborg(DK) Luxembourg(LU) Belfast(UK) Manchester(UK) Hamburg(DE) London(UK) Essen(DE) Strasbourg(FR) Graz(AT) Oulu(FI) Malm(SE) Ljubljana(SI) Rotterdam(NL) Dortmund(DE) Budapest(HU) Tallinn(EE) Warszawa(PL) Praha(CZ) Rennes(FR) Krakw(PL) Miskolc(HU) Antwerpen(BE) Barcelona(ES) Gdansk(PL) Lille(FR) Kosice(SK) Madrid(ES) Bratislava(SK) Bordeaux(FR) Torino(IT) Oviedo(ES) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Ostrava(CZ) Rostock(DE) ClujNapoc(RO) Lige(BE) Bologna(IT) Vilnius(LT) Biaystok(PL) Zagreb(HR) PiatraNeam(RO) Verona(IT) Marseille(FR) Lisboa(PT) Riga(LV) Roma(IT) Bucureti(RO) Braga(PT) Athinia(EL) Mlaga(ES) Palermo(IT) Sofia(BG) stanbul(TR) Lefkosia(CY) Ankara(TR) Antalya(TR) Burgas(BG) Irakleio(EL) Napoli(IT) Diyarbakir(TR) Valletta(MT)

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues: Base: all respondents, % by city
page 45

Satisfaction with public spaces markets and pedestrian areas Satisfaction with public spaces was generally high: in 69 cities, a majority of respondents said they were very or rather satisfied with public spaces, such as markets and pedestrian areas in their city. Citizens of Oviedo, Munich, Groningen, Malmo, Cardiff, Luxembourg, Rennes, Newcastle and Piatra Neamt expressed the highest levels of satisfaction (between 90% and 96%). Furthermore, in most of these cities, more than 4 in 10 respondents were very satisfied, and less than 1 in 10 citizens were dissatisfied with their citys public spaces. Many cities at the higher end of this ranking (where most respondents were satisfied with their citys markets and pedestrian areas) were situated in northern and western European countries such as Groningen and Malmo (see above), Aalborg, Stockholm and Strasbourg. One of the most notable exceptions at the higher end of the ranking, however, was Piatra Neamt where 46% of respondents were very satisfied and 44% rather satisfied with the public spaces of their city. A very different picture emerged at the lower end of the ranking: all of those cities were located in southern and eastern European countries. In Sofia, Bucharest, Athens, Naples, Palermo and Nicosia, less than half of respondents were very or rather satisfied with their citys public spaces (between 35% and 49%) the corresponding proportions of unsatisfied respondents were between 51% in Palermo and 65% in Athens. It is of interest to note that while Piatra Neamt scored among the highest cities in terms of satisfaction with public spaces, Bucharest was among the lowest. Focusing on respondents who selected the more extreme responses of being very satisfied, while almost half of interviewees living in Munich, Newcastle and Piatra Neamt selected this response, this proportion dropped to less than 10% in the lowest ranked cities (e.g. 6% in Naples and 9% in Nicosia). Furthermore, the proportion of not at all satisfied respondents was at least twice as high in the following cities: 19% in Palermo, 20% in Naples, 21% in Bucharest, 25% in Sofia, 30% in Nicosia and 37% in Athens.
Satisfaction with public spaces (e.g. markets or pedestrian areas)

Satisfaction with public spaces (e.g. markets or pedestrian areas)


Very satisfied Rather satisfied 43 47 44 Rather unsatisfied Not at all satisfied 53 47 50 DK/NA

Oviedo(ES) Mnchen(DE) Groningen(NL) Malm(SE) Cardiff(UK) Luxembourg(LU) Rennes(FR) Newcastle(UK) PiatraNeam(RO) Kosice(SK) Bordeaux(FR) Aalborg(DK) Leipzig(DE) Stockholm(SE) Lille(FR) Krakw(PL) Hamburg(DE) Strasbourg(FR) Rostock(DE) Glasgow(UK) Torino(IT) Paris(FR) Helsinki(FI) Amsterdam(NL) London(UK) Biaystok(PL) Rotterdam(NL) Dortmund(DE) Manchester(UK) Kobenhavn(DK) Oulu(FI) Wien(AT) Ostrava(CZ) Antalya(TR) Belfast(UK) Graz(AT) Antwerpen(BE) Madrid(ES) Zagreb(HR) Berlin(DE) Dublin(IE) Praha(CZ) ClujNapoc(RO) Ljubljana(SI) Braga(PT) Gdansk(PL) Barcelona(ES) Bologna(IT) Ankara(TR) Essen(DE) Verona(IT) Bratislava(SK) Miskolc(HU) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Burgas(BG) Marseille(FR) Lige(BE) Tallinn(EE) Budapest(HU) Lisboa(PT) Mlaga(ES) Warszawa(PL) Vilnius(LT) stanbul(TR) Diyarbakir(TR) Roma(IT) Riga(LV) Irakleio(EL) Valletta(MT) Palermo(IT) Bucureti(RO) Napoli(IT) Lefkosia(CY) Sofia(BG) Athinia(EL)
0

31 50 51 35 58 6 1 41 50 6 2 36 54 8 1 33 58 8 1 48 42 7 2 46 44 5 4 35 54 8 2 34 54 7 3 34 54 10 2 31 57 9 1 28 60 10 1 25 62 7 4 37 49 10 2 36 50 11 2 25 60 12 2 30 55 13 2 34 51 9 5 24 61 14 2 20 63 13 3 18 65 15 1 28 54 14 2 33 50 12 4 29 52 13 4 24 57 14 2 24 57 15 2 32 49 10 6 29 52 16 2 20 62 17 2 28 54 13 2 22 58 13 2 40 40 8 9 28 52 12 6 27 53 16 2 22 57 13 4 17 62 16 5 35 43 15 7 19 59 18 3 26 51 15 6 21 56 18 3 20 57 17 5 20 56 17 6 20 55 18 6 21 54 18 4 13 62 19 6 17 57 22 2 33 41 11 14 18 56 22 3 16 57 21 5 16 57 21 4 22 51 21 4 15 56 20 6 27 43 15 13 18 51 18 12 11 58 25 3 15 53 19 9 12 55 21 10 10 56 22 9 14 52 27 7 13 53 24 8 21 45 23 7 24 41 15 20 26 37 13 20 12 50 27 10 15 44 26 12 16 42 24 18 15 37 25 16 8 41 32 19 8 38 31 21 6 36 36 20 9 32 27 30 9 30 35 25 6 29 28 37
20 40 60 80 100

Oviedo(ES) Mnchen(DE) Groningen(NL) Malm(SE) Cardiff(UK) Luxembourg(LU) Rennes(FR) Newcastle(UK) PiatraNeam(RO) Kosice(SK) Bordeaux(FR) Aalborg(DK) Leipzig(DE) Stockholm(SE) Lille(FR) Krakw(PL) Hamburg(DE) Strasbourg(FR) Rostock(DE) Glasgow(UK) Torino(IT) Paris(FR) Helsinki(FI) Amsterdam(NL) London(UK) Biaystok(PL) Rotterdam(NL) Dortmund(DE) Manchester(UK) Kobenhavn(DK) Oulu(FI) Wien(AT) Ostrava(CZ) Antalya(TR) Belfast(UK) Graz(AT) Antwerpen(BE) Madrid(ES) Zagreb(HR) Berlin(DE) Dublin(IE) Praha(CZ) ClujNapoc(RO) Ljubljana(SI) Braga(PT) Gdansk(PL) Barcelona(ES) Bologna(IT) Ankara(TR) Essen(DE) Verona(IT) Bratislava(SK) Miskolc(HU) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Burgas(BG) Marseille(FR) Lige(BE) Tallinn(EE) Budapest(HU) Lisboa(PT) Mlaga(ES) Warszawa(PL) Vilnius(LT) stanbul(TR) Diyarbakir(TR) Roma(IT) Riga(LV) Irakleio(EL) Valletta(MT) Palermo(IT) Bucureti(RO) Napoli(IT) Lefkosia(CY) Sofia(BG) Athinia(EL)

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues: Base: all respondents, % by city
page 47

Satisfaction with the beauty of streets and buildings in ones neighbourhood Citizens of Oviedo were not only the most likely to be satisfied with public spaces in their city, they were also among the most likely to be happy with the beauty of the streets and buildings in their neighbourhood: 49% of respondents were very satisfied and 47% were rather satisfied. Generally speaking, satisfaction with the beauty of streets and buildings in respondents neighbourhoods was high. In 25 cities, at least three-quarters of interviewees were content (ranging from 75% in Leipzig to 96% in Oviedo see above) and in another 40 cities, between half and threequarters of respondents expressed satisfaction (ranging from 52% in Burgas to 74% in Ljubljana). In the last 10 cities, however, respondents were more likely to be dissatisfied with the outlook of the streets and buildings in their neighbourhood than they were to be satisfied. Respondents living in Sofia were the least likely say they were happy with the beauty of their streets and buildings: 36% were satisfied vs. 73% who were dissatisfied (33% rather unsatisfied and 40% not at all satisfied). In Athens, Iraklion, Naples and Palermo, between 6 and 7 in 10 interviewees were not happy with the beauty of their neighbourhoods streets and buildings. Finally, in Bucharest, Nicosia, Rome, Valetta and Lisbon, a slim majority of respondents expressed their dissatisfaction with this aspect of their neighbourhood (between 51% and 54%).
Satisfaction with the beauty of streets in my neighbourhood

Respondents satisfaction with the beauty of streets and building in their neighbourhood
Very satisfied Rather satisfied 49 46 Rather unsatisfied Not at all satisfied 45 47 DK/NA

Oviedo (ES) Stockholm (SE) Groningen (NL) Rostock (DE) Bordeaux (FR) Malm (SE) Newcastle (UK) Mnchen (DE) Luxembourg (LU) Amsterdam (NL) Cardiff (UK) Wien (AT) Rennes (FR) Graz (AT) Aalborg (DK) Hamburg (DE) Biaystok (PL) Rotterdam (NL) Helsinki (FI) Lille (FR) Strasbourg (FR) Piatra Neam (RO) Kbenhavn (DK) Oulu (FI) Leipzig (DE) Berlin (DE) Ljubljana (SI) Belfast (UK) Ostrava (CZ) Dublin (IE) Paris (FR) Glasgow (UK) Krakw (PL) Kosice (SK) Braga (PT) Antalya (TR) Praha (CZ) London (UK) Cluj-Napoc (RO) Gdansk (PL) Barcelona (ES) Manchester (UK) Torino (IT) Tallinn (EE) Madrid (ES) Verona (IT) Lige (BE) Antwerpen (BE) Essen (DE) Miskolc (HU) Warszawa (PL) Zagreb (HR) Budapest (HU) Bologna (IT) Dortmund (DE) Ankara (TR) Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) Marseille (FR) Bratislava (SK) Diyarbakir (TR) Riga (LV) Vilnius (LT) Burgas (BG) Mlaga (ES) stanbul (TR) Lisboa (PT) Valletta (MT) Roma (IT) Lefkosia (CY) Bucureti (RO) Palermo (IT) Napoli (IT) Irakleio (EL) Athinia (EL) Sofia (BG)
0

3 1 Oviedo (ES) Stockholm (SE) 7 1 37 50 11 1 Groningen (NL) 37 50 11 2 Rostock (DE) Bordeaux (FR) 39 46 9 6 Malm (SE) 27 58 11 3 Newcastle (UK) 33 51 9 6 39 44 14 2 Mnchen (DE) 32 50 14 2 Luxembourg (LU) 35 46 15 4 Amsterdam (NL) Cardiff (UK) 29 51 13 6 37 44 17 3 Wien (AT) 21 59 16 4 Rennes (FR) Graz (AT) 35 45 16 3 Aalborg (DK) 29 51 16 4 39 40 17 3 Hamburg (DE) 31 48 18 4 Biaystok (PL) 27 51 18 3 Rotterdam (NL) 26 52 19 2 Helsinki (FI) Lille (FR) 24 54 16 6 Strasbourg (FR) 27 50 17 5 Piatra Neam (RO) 39 38 15 8 Kbenhavn (DK) 27 50 17 5 22 55 22 2 Oulu (FI) 29 46 23 2 Leipzig (DE) 27 46 22 4 Berlin (DE) Ljubljana (SI) 19 55 19 7 Belfast (UK) 23 50 18 9 Ostrava (CZ) 25 47 20 7 Dublin (IE) 25 48 17 10 Paris (FR) 24 48 20 7 Glasgow (UK) 29 43 16 10 Krakw (PL) 22 50 22 5 Kosice (SK) 21 50 24 5 Braga (PT) 22 47 21 9 Antalya (TR) 31 38 13 16 Praha (CZ) 22 46 24 6 London (UK) 24 44 19 11 Cluj-Napoc (RO) 23 45 20 12 Gdansk (PL) 21 46 24 8 Barcelona (ES) 14 53 22 11 Manchester (UK) 21 45 20 13 Torino (IT) 17 49 27 8 Tallinn (EE) 17 47 24 10 Madrid (ES) 16 48 26 10 Verona (IT) 13 52 27 8 Lige (BE) 16 49 27 8 Antwerpen (BE) 21 43 24 10 Essen (DE) 23 41 29 6 Miskolc (HU) 19 45 25 11 Warszawa (PL) 17 47 28 8 Zagreb (HR) 28 36 21 15 Budapest (HU) 17 46 24 13 Bologna (IT) 16 47 28 9 Dortmund (DE) 21 40 30 9 Ankara (TR) 25 37 18 20 Bruxelles/Brussel (BE) 17 44 27 11 Marseille (FR) 20 39 20 20 Bratislava (SK) 11 45 35 7 Diyarbakir (TR) 26 30 14 30 Riga (LV) 18 36 28 16 Vilnius (LT) 17 36 26 18 Burgas (BG) 17 35 23 23 Mlaga (ES) 11 42 35 12 stanbul (TR) 23 30 14 33 Lisboa (PT) 10 37 33 18 Valletta (MT) 16 31 26 26 Roma (IT) 11 36 34 19 Lefkosia (CY) 15 31 22 32 Bucureti (RO) 11 34 23 31 Palermo (IT) 9 31 36 24 Napoli (IT) 5 33 34 27 Irakleio (EL) 14 21 23 41 Athinia (EL) 10 21 21 48 Sofia (BG) 8 18 33 40
20 40 60 80 100

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues: Base: all respondents, % by city
page 49

Satisfaction with public parks and gardens (green spaces) Citizens of Malmo, Munich, Groningen, Cardiff and Luxembourg were not only among the most likely to be satisfied with public spaces in their city, they were also among the most satisfied with what their city had to offer in terms of green spaces, such as public parks and gardens. In these cities, between 92% and 94% of interviewees were happy with this aspect of their city. There were six more cities were at least 90% of satisfied citizens: Leipzig and Hamburg (both 93%), Bordeaux, Stockholm, Bialystok (all 91%) and Glasgow (90%). Respondents in Malmo, Munich, Hamburg, Cardiff and Bialystok were also the most likely to be very satisfied with their citys parks and gardens (between 55% and 63%). The proportion of very satisfied respondents, however, dropped to about 1 in 20 in Athens and Palermo (4%-6%). A closer look at the lower end of the ranking showed that respondents in Athens or Palermo were not the only ones with a low level of satisfaction about available green spaces in their city, as the same was true for respondents in Iraklion, Naples and Nicosia. In each of these cities, less than 4 in 10 respondents were satisfied with gardens, parks and other green areas in their city; the proportions of dissatisfied respondents, however, were considerably higher: 76% in Athens, 67% in Iraklion, 63% in Naples, 61% in Nicosia and 60% in Palermo. A comparison, between the results of the 2006 and 2009 perception surveys showed that in a majority of cities in this study, satisfaction levels with cities parks, gardens and other green areas have increased. The highest rises were measured in Burgas (from 56% in 2006 to 82% in 2009; +24 percentage points), Bratislava (from 36% in 2006 to 60% in 2009; +24 percentage points), Antwerp (from 56% in 2006 to 78% in 2009; +22 percentage points) and Sofia (from 26% in 2006 to 48% in 2009; +22 percentage points). In about one-third of cities, satisfaction levels with green spaces and facilities have remained the same in the past few years, while in a few cities respondents were now less satisfied than they were three years ago: Nicosia (-14 percentage points), Iraklion (-12), Athens (-9), Brussels (-9), Palermo, Valetta and Roma (all -6).
Satisfaction with green spaces (e.g. parks and gardens)

Satisfaction with green spaces (e.g. parks and gardens)


Very satisfied Rather satisfied 62 63 Rather unsatisfied Not at all satisfied 32 31 DK/NA

Malm(SE) Mnchen(DE) Leipzig(DE) Groningen(NL) Hamburg(DE) Cardiff(UK) Luxembourg(LU) Bordeaux(FR) Stockholm(SE) Biaystok(PL) Glasgow(UK) Newcastle(UK) Oviedo(ES) Helsinki(FI) PiatraNeam(RO) Oulu(FI) Rennes(FR) Kbenhavn(DK) Riga(LV) London(UK) Dublin(IE) Belfast(UK) Dortmund(DE) Warszawa(PL) Torino(IT) Strasbourg(FR) Krakw(PL) Rotterdam(NL) Wien(AT) Rostock(DE) Amsterdam(NL) Berlin(DE) Paris(FR) Burgas(BG) Aalborg(DK) Tallinn(EE) Antalya(TR) Lille(FR) Essen(DE) Gdansk(PL) Madrid(ES) Antwerpen(BE) Graz(AT) Bologna(IT) Ankara(TR) Ljubljana(SI) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Praha(CZ) Ostrava(CZ) Manchester(UK) Marseille(FR) Zagreb(HR) Kosice(SK) Verona(IT) Diyarbakir(TR) ClujNapoc(RO) Roma(IT) Bucureti(RO) Lige(BE) Vilnius(LT) stanbul(TR) Bratislava(SK) Miskolc(HU) Barcelona(ES) Braga(PT) Budapest(HU) Lisboa(PT) Mlaga(ES) Sofia(BG) Valletta(MT) Palermo(IT) Lefkosia(CY) Napoli(IT) Irakleio(EL) Athinia(EL)
0

41 50 51 42 5 1 46 47 6 1 58 35 6 1 58 34 4 3 50 42 7 1 37 54 7 2 49 42 8 1 55 36 7 2 50 40 6 4 47 42 7 2 38 52 9 1 33 56 10 1 50 38 6 5 32 56 11 0 39 49 10 1 42 46 10 2 42 45 8 3 52 35 8 5 46 40 10 4 40 46 7 5 45 41 12 1 32 54 11 3 34 51 12 2 31 52 13 3 34 49 12 3 37 46 12 3 44 40 11 4 31 52 14 2 35 48 13 3 36 47 12 4 27 56 13 4 41 41 11 6 37 45 14 3 28 53 12 3 47 33 8 7 27 54 12 6 32 49 17 2 36 43 15 5 22 57 18 3 28 50 16 4 29 49 17 3 26 52 17 3 44 33 10 12 25 52 17 4 25 52 16 7 24 51 20 3 24 50 18 4 35 40 16 7 23 51 16 9 37 37 16 10 22 48 23 5 20 48 24 7 39 30 10 15 22 45 22 9 17 50 21 10 17 49 16 15 14 50 27 6 23 39 26 9 29 33 16 18 12 48 31 8 18 41 32 6 10 48 32 10 16 39 32 13 11 43 31 12 9 45 32 13 13 40 35 12 15 33 28 24 15 28 24 25 6 34 37 23 8 30 29 32 7 28 38 25 9 23 29 38 4 19 26 50
20 40 60 80 100

Malm(SE) Mnchen(DE) Leipzig(DE) Groningen(NL) Hamburg(DE) Cardiff(UK) Luxembourg(LU) Bordeaux(FR) Stockholm(SE) Biaystok(PL) Glasgow(UK) Newcastle(UK) Oviedo(ES) Helsinki(FI) PiatraNeam(RO) Oulu(FI) Rennes(FR) Kbenhavn(DK) Riga(LV) London(UK) Dublin(IE) Belfast(UK) Dortmund(DE) Warszawa(PL) Torino(IT) Strasbourg(FR) Krakw(PL) Rotterdam(NL) Wien(AT) Rostock(DE) Amsterdam(NL) Berlin(DE) Paris(FR) Burgas(BG) Aalborg(DK) Tallinn(EE) Antalya(TR) Lille(FR) Essen(DE) Gdansk(PL) Madrid(ES) Antwerpen(BE) Graz(AT) Bologna(IT) Ankara(TR) Ljubljana(SI) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Praha(CZ) Ostrava(CZ) Manchester(UK) Marseille(FR) Zagreb(HR) Kosice(SK) Verona(IT) Diyarbakir(TR) ClujNapoc(RO) Roma(IT) Bucureti(RO) Lige(BE) Vilnius(LT) stanbul(TR) Bratislava(SK) Miskolc(HU) Barcelona(ES) Braga(PT) Budapest(HU) Lisboa(PT) Mlaga(ES) Sofia(BG) Valletta(MT) Palermo(IT) Lefkosia(CY) Napoli(IT) Irakleio(EL) Athinia(EL)

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues: Base: all respondents, % by city
page 51

Satisfaction with opportunities for outdoor recreation Not surprisingly, results for satisfaction with outdoor recreational opportunities (such as walking or cycling) showed many similarities with those for satisfaction with green spaces (public parks, gardens etc.) in the surveyed European cities. For both questions, a high level of satisfaction was measured in a majority of surveyed cities. Furthermore, similarities were seen in the ranking of cities for both questions with the same ones appearing at the higher and lower ends. Respondents in Oulu and Helsinki were the most likely to be satisfied with the possibilities for outdoor recreation that their city had to offer (95% and 93%, respectively). Additionally, a majority of respondents in these cities reported being very satisfied with this aspect of city life (68% and 56%, respectively). Groningen, Cardiff, Munich, Rotterdam, Stockholm, Newcastle and Bordeaux joined the Finnish cities at the higher end of the ranking with between 85% and 90% of satisfied citizens. None of the highest ranked, in terms of satisfaction with outdoor recreational opportunities, were located in southern or eastern Europe; the highest ranked eastern European city was Prague (with 82% of satisfied citizens 16th position), while the highest ranked southern European city was Turin (with 79% of satisfied citizens 24th position). Respondents in Athens were not only the least satisfied with public parks and gardens in their city, they were also the least likely to be satisfied with the opportunities for cycling, walking and other outdoor recreation: just 23% of interviewees in Athens were satisfied, while 48% were not at all satisfied. Naples, Palermo, Valletta, Nicosia and Iraklion once again joined Athens at the lower end of the ranking with between 48% and 68% of dissatisfied respondents. In some cities, a considerable number of respondents found it difficult to answer the question about outdoor recreation. The largest proportions of dont know responses were recorded in Riga and Bucharest (22%-23%).
Satisfaction with outdoor recreation (e.g. walking or cycling)

Satisfaction with outdoor recreation (e.g. walking or cycling)


Very satisfied Rather satisfied 56 Rather unsatisfied 68 Not at all satisfied 37 27 DK/NA

Oulu(FI) Helsinki(FI) Groningen(NL) Cardiff(UK) Mnchen(DE) Rotterdam(NL) Stockholm(SE) Newcastle(UK) Bordeaux(FR) Leipzig(DE) Kbenhavn(DK) Malm(SE) Aalborg(DK) Luxembourg(LU) Strasbourg(FR) Praha(CZ) Hamburg(DE) Amsterdam(NL) Rennes(FR) Belfast(UK) Wien(AT) Glasgow(UK) Graz(AT) Torino(IT) Lille(FR) Gdansk(PL) Ostrava(CZ) Ljubljana(SI) Essen(DE) Antwerpen(BE) Dortmund(DE) Berlin(DE) Dublin(IE) London(UK) Manchester(UK) Rostock(DE) Antalya(TR) Kosice(SK) Biaystok(PL) Bologna(IT) Bratislava(SK) PiatraNeam(RO) Marseille(FR) Krakw(PL) Verona(IT) Oviedo(ES) Zagreb(HR) Tallinn(EE) Ankara(TR) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Sofia(BG) Braga(PT) Warszawa(PL) Madrid(ES) Lige(BE) Paris(FR) Miskolc(HU) Lisboa(PT) Barcelona(ES) Burgas(BG) Roma(IT) Mlaga(ES) Diyarbakir(TR) Budapest(HU) ClujNapoc(RO) Istanbul(TR) Vilnius(LT) Irakleio(EL) Riga(LV) Lefkosia(CY) Valletta(MT) Palermo(IT) Napoli(IT) Bucureti(RO) Athinia(EL)
0

3 11 5 11 46 44 7 14 46 42 5 3 4 56 32 6 0 6 37 49 9 24 51 34 4 1 10 49 36 6 2 6 32 53 6 2 7 41 43 8 1 7 36 47 9 1 7 39 44 6 1 10 39 44 9 1 7 35 47 10 2 6 29 53 8 2 8 29 53 10 2 7 40 41 11 1 8 36 45 13 2 4 28 52 7 1 11 37 43 11 5 5 40 40 9 2 10 40 40 10 4 6 32 48 11 4 6 27 52 14 2 4 21 58 9 5 7 37 42 14 3 4 26 52 13 3 5 32 46 13 3 5 34 43 15 3 5 20 58 11 5 6 33 43 14 3 7 34 43 12 2 10 36 40 15 6 3 36 40 12 5 8 34 40 13 6 7 32 42 18 2 6 44 30 8 7 11 23 50 17 3 8 30 43 16 4 8 22 50 20 5 4 23 49 15 4 9 36 36 12 6 10 25 46 12 9 8 26 44 19 3 7 20 51 21 6 3 21 48 21 6 4 33 35 15 9 7 26 42 16 4 12 33 32 9 13 13 18 47 12 6 18 28 36 16 8 12 18 45 25 9 3 17 45 21 5 12 14 48 23 8 8 16 45 15 5 18 12 49 20 3 15 20 40 27 5 9 11 48 24 10 7 8 51 26 10 6 28 30 18 11 13 13 44 25 14 4 14 43 27 13 3 30 25 12 20 13 13 39 27 10 11 15 36 22 15 12 25 25 17 17 16 14 31 28 12 16 17 27 18 34 5 16 26 23 12 23 12 31 23 29 6 15 26 24 25 10 4 30 32 31 3 5 24 31 37 3 7 21 24 26 22 6 17 21 48 8
20 40 60 80 100

Oulu(FI) Helsinki(FI) Groningen(NL) Cardiff(UK) Mnchen(DE) Rotterdam(NL) Stockholm(SE) Newcastle(UK) Bordeaux(FR) Leipzig(DE) Kbenhavn(DK) Malm(SE) Aalborg(DK) Luxembourg(LU) Strasbourg(FR) Praha(CZ) Hamburg(DE) Amsterdam(NL) Rennes(FR) Belfast(UK) Wien(AT) Glasgow(UK) Graz(AT) Torino(IT) Lille(FR) Gdansk(PL) Ostrava(CZ) Ljubljana(SI) Essen(DE) Antwerpen(BE) Dortmund(DE) Berlin(DE) Dublin(IE) London(UK) Manchester(UK) Rostock(DE) Antalya(TR) Kosice(SK) Biaystok(PL) Bologna(IT) Bratislava(SK) PiatraNeam(RO) Marseille(FR) Krakw(PL) Verona(IT) Oviedo(ES) Zagreb(HR) Tallinn(EE) Ankara(TR) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Sofia(BG) Braga(PT) Warszawa(PL) Madrid(ES) Lige(BE) Paris(FR) Miskolc(HU) Lisboa(PT) Barcelona(ES) Burgas(BG) Roma(IT) Mlaga(ES) Diyarbakir(TR) Budapest(HU) ClujNapoc(RO) Istanbul(TR) Vilnius(LT) Irakleio(EL) Riga(LV) Lefkosia(CY) Valletta(MT) Palermo(IT) Napoli(IT) Bucureti(RO) Athinia(EL)

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues: Base: all respondents, % by city
page 53

Sports facilities Most city dwellers had no difficulties in answering the satisfaction questions discussed in the previous section (e.g. about public places or green spaces and facilities). A different picture, however, emerged when they were asked to estimate their satisfaction with their citys sports facilities (such as sports fields and indoor sports halls). The proportion of dont know responses ranged from 3%-4% in the Finnish cities Helsinki and Oulu to 44% in Liege and Riga. Other cities with a very high proportion of respondents who did not answer this question were Antalya (40%), Diyarbakir (37%) and Ankara (36%) in Turkey. Respondents in Helsinki, Oulu and Groningen were not only among the most likely to be satisfied with their citys outdoor recreational opportunities, they were also (by far) the most likely to be satisfied with the sports facilities on offer: 92% in Helsinki, 89% in Oulu and 88% in Groningen. In each of these cities, at least 4 in 10 respondents were very satisfied with these types of facilities (45%, 40% and 52%, respectively). In the cities at the lower end of the ranking, however, a large proportion of respondents did not answer the question; of those who did, however, dissatisfied respondents outnumbered the satisfied. In Naples, 28% of respondents said they were happy with their citys sports facilities, while almost twice as many said they were not satisfied (29% rather unsatisfied and 24% not at all satisfied). The corresponding proportions were 30% satisfied vs. 44% unsatisfied in Bucharest, 31% satisfied vs. 38% unsatisfied in Sofia and 32% satisfied vs. 51% unsatisfied in Palermo. A comparison with the results of the previous perception survey showed the proportion of respondents who were satisfied with their citys sports facilities has increased in about one-third of the surveyed cities.
Satisfaction with sports facilities (e.g. sports fields and indoor sport halls)

Satisfaction with sports facilities (e.g. sports fields and indoor sport halls)
Very satisfied Rather satisfied 45 40 Rather unsatisfied Not at all satisfied 49 47 DK/NA

Helsinki(FI) Oulu(FI) Groningen(NL) Luxembourg(LU) Cardiff(UK) Amsterdam(NL) Aalborg(DK) Rotterdam(NL) Mnchen(DE) Lille(FR) Newcastle(UK) Rennes(FR) Dublin(IE) Bordeaux(FR) Glasgow(UK) Oviedo(ES) Malm(SE) Manchester(UK) Dortmund(DE) Ostrava(CZ) Braga(PT) Leipzig(DE) Hamburg(DE) PiatraNeam(RO) Verona(IT) Tallinn(EE) Belfast(UK) Praha(CZ) Bologna(IT) Rostock(DE) Strasbourg(FR) Berlin(DE) Madrid(ES) Barcelona(ES) Wien(AT) Antwerpen(BE) Mlaga(ES) Zagreb(HR) Ljubljana(SI) Graz(AT) Stockholm(SE) Torino(IT) London(UK) Irakleio(EL) Marseille(FR) Lefkosia(CY) Kbenhavn(DK) ClujNapoc(RO) Kosice(SK) Warszawa(PL) Paris(FR) Essen(DE) Roma(IT) Valletta(MT) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Bratislava(SK) Lisboa(PT) Krakw(PL) Biaystok(PL) Gdansk(PL) Athinia(EL) Burgas(BG) stanbul(TR) Ankara(TR) Antalya(TR) Lige(BE) Miskolc(HU) Budapest(HU) Vilnius(LT) Diyarbakir(TR) Palermo(IT) Sofia(BG) Bucureti(RO) Riga(LV) Napoli(IT)
0

5 03 6 14 31 7 36 52 8 1 12 43 36 16 5 2 43 35 15 8 1 44 32 15 8 2 39 37 16 6 3 42 34 16 7 1 37 38 17 8 1 51 23 19 5 3 36 38 19 8 1 52 21 9 7 13 42 30 21 7 2 46 25 15 6 10 38 31 15 3 13 57 12 24 6 1 40 29 19 7 5 36 33 14 4 14 44 24 18 11 2 41 27 15 3 14 50 18 17 2 15 45 22 18 2 13 38 29 16 9 9 38 28 21 10 3 51 15 25 7 3 41 25 17 6 13 34 30 19 3 13 43 22 25 10 1 48 16 14 3 20 46 17 22 2 13 46 17 19 2 17 41 22 15 5 17 48 14 15 5 17 50 13 26 10 2 41 21 32 5 2 36 25 10 7 23 47 13 12 9 20 35 25 15 7 19 47 13 21 1 18 41 18 28 10 3 39 20 32 8 3 45 13 22 6 14 40 17 14 13 17 34 22 20 10 15 40 14 16 13 16 36 19 25 6 17 34 19 23 6 18 37 16 20 5 22 39 14 25 7 17 39 13 25 4 20 38 13 18 7 26 35 15 21 9 21 39 10 24 12 15 33 16 38 11 3 34 14 24 6 23 37 11 30 6 17 38 10 20 12 22 36 11 23 7 24 37 9 21 9 25 37 9 19 18 21 30 12 23 12 23 27 15 33 15 11 25 16 36 12 11 26 15 40 10 9 23 18 44 6 10 32 9 23 10 27 29 11 35 10 16 31 8 33 10 19 27 11 37 21 10 20 12 18 22 29 29 3 31 17 21 20 11 26 25 19 23 7 44 10 16 20 10 20 24 29 25 3
20 40 60 80 100

Helsinki(FI) Oulu(FI) Groningen(NL) Luxembourg(LU) Cardiff(UK) Amsterdam(NL) Aalborg(DK) Rotterdam(NL) Mnchen(DE) Lille(FR) Newcastle(UK) Rennes(FR) Dublin(IE) Bordeaux(FR) Glasgow(UK) Oviedo(ES) Malm(SE) Manchester(UK) Dortmund(DE) Ostrava(CZ) Braga(PT) Leipzig(DE) Hamburg(DE) PiatraNeam(RO) Verona(IT) Tallinn(EE) Belfast(UK) Praha(CZ) Bologna(IT) Rostock(DE) Strasbourg(FR) Berlin(DE) Madrid(ES) Barcelona(ES) Wien(AT) Antwerpen(BE) Mlaga(ES) Zagreb(HR) Ljubljana(SI) Graz(AT) Stockholm(SE) Torino(IT) London(UK) Irakleio(EL) Marseille(FR) Lefkosia(CY) Kbenhavn(DK) ClujNapoc(RO) Kosice(SK) Warszawa(PL) Paris(FR) Essen(DE) Roma(IT) Valletta(MT) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Bratislava(SK) Lisboa(PT) Krakw(PL) Biaystok(PL) Gdansk(PL) Athinia(EL) Burgas(BG) stanbul(TR) Ankara(TR) Antalya(TR) Lige(BE) Miskolc(HU) Budapest(HU) Vilnius(LT) Diyarbakir(TR) Palermo(IT) Sofia(BG) Bucureti(RO) Riga(LV) Napoli(IT)

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues: Base: all respondents, % by city
page 55

General satisfaction with a citys facilities Overall, however, a positive picture emerged in terms of city dwellers satisfaction with the various types of facilities that cities provide. In a majority of the surveyed cities (e.g. Newcastle, Oviedo and Ostrava), at least three-quarters of respondents reported being satisfied with at least four of the six items listed in the survey, while this proportion dropped below 50% in just 11 cities (e.g. Valetta and Iraklion). Finally, the proportion of respondents who were satisfied with just one, or even none, of the types of facilities listed in the survey remained below 10% in more than two-thirds of surveyed cities. Interestingly, cities where many respondents expressed their satisfaction with each one of the facilities listed in the survey were also the ones where respondents were more likely to agree that their city spent its resources in a responsible way as illustrated in the scatter plot below. For example, a large majority (64%) of respondents in Groningen expressed their satisfaction with each one of the facilities listed in the survey and a similar proportion (63%) thought that their city spent its resources in a responsible way.
Correlation between satisfaction with a citys facilities and amenities and responsible management
Correlation between satisfaction with a citys facilities and amenities and responsible management
100

%agreeingthatthecityspendsresourcesinaresponsibleway

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Correlationcoefficient: rxy =.609

%satisfiedwithallsixfacilitiesandamenities

page 57

5. Satisfaction with public transport


5.1 Frequency of using public transport
When city dwellers were asked how frequently they used their citys public transport, Nicosia stood out from the pack with 84% of respondents saying they never used public transport. In the remaining cities, however, this proportion ranged from less than 5% in Paris, Helsinki and Prague to about 50% in Braga and Palermo (47% and 53%, respectively). The largest proportions of frequent public transport users, on the other hand, were found in Paris, London, Prague, Stockholm and Budapest there, at least three-quarters of respondents took a bus, metro or another means of public transport in their city at least once a week (between 75% and 86%). Furthermore, between 44% and 59% of respondents in these capital cities used public transport every single day of the week. A majority of Europes capitals were ranked in the highest third of this ranking (i.e. cities with the most frequent public transport users). Several capitals were listed in the previous paragraphs (Stockholm, London etc.), but the top third also included cities such as Riga (73% of frequent public transport users), Warsaw (70%), Madrid (73%) and Lisbon (64%). Strikingly, two of Europes capitals, Rome and Amsterdam were ranked among cities where less than half of respondents took a bus, metro or another means of public transport in their city at least once a week (41% and 44%, respectively). In Rome, 45% of respondents said they used public transport less than once a month or never. The corresponding proportion for Amsterdam was lower at 32%. In Nicosia, Oulu, Palermo and Braga, on the other hand, two-thirds or more respondents used public transport in their city less than once a month (or never). It was noted above that 84% of respondents in Nicosia never used public transport however, this proportion was five times smaller in Oulu (17% the corresponding proportions for Palermo and Braga were, respectively, 43% and 47%). In Oulu, about half of respondents (48%) said that although they used public transport, this was less than once a month.
Frequency of using public transport

Frequency of using public transport


Every day At least once a week At least once a month Less than once a month Never DK/NA

Paris(FR) London(UK) Praha(CZ) Stockholm(SE) Budapest(HU) Helsinki(FI) Riga(LV) Barcelona(ES) Madrid(ES) Krakw(PL) Bucureti(RO) Warszawa(PL) Wien(AT) Miskolc(HU) Sofia(BG) ClujNapoca(RO) Tallinn(EE) Kosice(SK) Bratislava(SK) Lisboa(PT) Zagreb(HR) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Mnchen(DE) Berlin(DE) Gdask(PL) Biaystok(PL) Ostrava(CZ) Newcastle(UK) stanbul(TR) Rennes(FR) Athinia(EL) Glasgow(UK) Ankara(TR) Antwerpen(BE) Vilnius(LT) Hamburg(DE) Graz(AT) Strasbourg(FR) Luxembourg(LU) Belfast(UK) Dublin(IE) Rostock(DE) Bordeaux(FR) Kbenhavn(DK) Diyarbakir(TR) Torino(IT) Cardiff(UK) Leipzig(DE) Bologna(IT) Burgas(BG) Ljubljana(SI) Manchester(UK) Amsterdam(NL) Mlaga(ES) Lige(BE) Rotterdam(NL) Roma(IT) Marseille(FR) Antalya(TR) Dortmund(DE) Malm(SE) PiatraNeam(RO) Oviedo(ES) Essen(DE) Napoli(IT) Lille(FR) Irakleio(EL) Valletta(MT) Aalborg(DK) Verona(IT) Groningen(NL) Braga(PT) Palermo(IT) Oulu(FI) Lefkosia(CY)
0

6 6 2 27 59 6 5 11 34 44 8 4 12 28 49 5 5 14 37 39 8 8 9 26 49 3 12 11 30 43 6 8 13 38 35 7 7 13 31 42 6 9 12 32 41 5 12 13 29 41 10 10 8 23 48 6 9 14 24 46 5 10 16 28 42 13 11 7 22 47 11 13 6 24 45 9 13 9 29 40 10 11 9 24 45 10 11 11 27 41 9 14 11 23 43 14 9 12 27 37 11 15 10 24 40 16 8 12 30 33 5 12 20 34 29 7 16 15 32 30 11 15 12 29 34 10 15 13 26 37 14 13 11 26 36 12 16 13 34 26 11 11 19 33 27 13 14 16 28 30 13 14 17 32 25 11 14 18 32 24 11 12 20 29 27 16 12 16 36 20 18 18 10 24 29 7 19 22 24 29 11 13 23 30 23 10 17 21 31 21 11 14 23 30 21 15 20 14 33 18 9 19 22 30 20 11 19 20 27 23 17 22 13 27 22 6 15 31 31 17 14 15 22 30 18 24 14 16 23 23 15 20 19 33 13 12 23 19 21 24 28 11 16 24 21 19 21 15 17 28 15 20 21 24 20 17 25 15 25 19 12 20 25 29 15 15 21 21 30 13 31 18 9 24 18 18 21 19 22 20 32 13 14 21 20 23 20 15 22 18 25 16 18 26 14 22 22 17 17 22 13 24 24 23 16 24 24 13 20 19 20 21 21 27 12 20 25 17 16 21 38 13 13 20 17 29 21 13 18 19 40 16 12 18 13 39 21 13 15 12 27 27 19 17 9 42 20 12 15 11 24 29 22 19 5 47 20 9 10 14 53 14 13 13 8 17 48 20 11 4 84 4 4 2 6
20 40 60 80 100

Paris(FR) London(UK) Praha(CZ) Stockholm(SE) Budapest(HU) Helsinki(FI) Riga(LV) Barcelona(ES) Madrid(ES) Krakw(PL) Bucureti(RO) Warszawa(PL) Wien(AT) Miskolc(HU) Sofia(BG) ClujNapoca(RO) Tallinn(EE) Kosice(SK) Bratislava(SK) Lisboa(PT) Zagreb(HR) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Mnchen(DE) Berlin(DE) Gdask(PL) Biaystok(PL) Ostrava(CZ) Newcastle(UK) stanbul(TR) Rennes(FR) Athinia(EL) Glasgow(UK) Ankara(TR) Antwerpen(BE) Vilnius(LT) Hamburg(DE) Graz(AT) Strasbourg(FR) Luxembourg(LU) Belfast(UK) Dublin(IE) Rostock(DE) Bordeaux(FR) Kbenhavn(DK) Diyarbakir(TR) Torino(IT) Cardiff(UK) Leipzig(DE) Bologna(IT) Burgas(BG) Ljubljana(SI) Manchester(UK) Amsterdam(NL) Mlaga(ES) Lige(BE) Rotterdam(NL) Roma(IT) Marseille(FR) Antalya(TR) Dortmund(DE) Malm(SE) PiatraNeam(RO) Oviedo(ES) Essen(DE) Napoli(IT) Lille(FR) Irakleio(EL) Valletta(MT) Aalborg(DK) Verona(IT) Groningen(NL) Braga(PT) Palermo(IT) Oulu(FI) Lefkosia(CY)

Q4C. How often do you use public transport in [CITY NAME]? Base: all respondents, % by city
page 59

5.2 Means of commuting and commuting time


Means of transport for commuting [Note: all proportions in this section refer to respondents who travel to work or to an educational establishment (sample sizes ranged from 200 in Antwerp to 419 in Copenhagen).] In line with the results in the previous section, the proportion of respondents who used public transport to go to work or college ranged from less than one-tenth in Nicosia and Oulu (4% and 7%, respectively) to two-thirds in Paris and Prague (66%-67%). Once again Europes capitals were found among cities with the highest proportions of respondents who used public transport to commute for example, 60% in London, 56% in Bratislava and 52% in Sofia. Nicosia and Oulu, on the other hand, were cities where only a minority of respondents used public transport to commute (4% and 7%, respectively). However, while 91% of respondents in Nicosia travelled by car (or motorbike) and just 5% walked or cycled to work, almost equal proportions of respondents in Oulu drove a car or walked/cycled to work (45% and 48%, respectively). For a more detailed analysis of the results for the latter means of transport, see page 62.
Means of transport mostly used to go to work or training place

Means of transport mostly used to go to work or training place


Public transport Biking/Walking Car/Motorbike Other DK/NA 3 2 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 5 0 2 6 3

Paris(FR) Praha(CZ) Warszawa(PL) Riga(LV) London(UK) Budapest(HU) Bucureti(RO) Bratislava(SK) Miskolc(HU) Kosice(SK) Barcelona(ES) Madrid(ES) Ostrava(CZ) Ankara(TR) Wien(AT) Tallinn(EE) Krakw(PL) Sofia(BG) stanbul(TR) Helsinki(FI) ClujNapoca(RO) Zagreb(HR) Stockholm(SE) Lisboa(PT) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Biaystok(PL) Gdask(PL) Berlin(DE) Hamburg(DE) Mnchen(DE) Diyarbakir(TR) Rennes(FR) Vilnius(LT) Newcastle(UK) Torino(IT) Burgas(BG) Rostock(DE) Leipzig(DE) Roma(IT) Athinia(EL) Bordeaux(FR) Glasgow(UK) Ljubljana(SI) Dublin(IE) Lille(FR) Dortmund(DE) Bologna(IT) Marseille(FR) Manchester(UK) Graz(AT) Strasbourg(FR) Essen(DE) Rotterdam(NL) Antalya(TR) Lige(BE) Belfast(UK) PiatraNeam(RO) Napoli(IT) Luxembourg(LU) Oviedo(ES) Malm(SE) Amsterdam(NL) Cardiff(UK) Mlaga(ES) Valletta(MT) Antwerpen(BE) Verona(IT) Kbenhavn(DK) Palermo(IT) Irakleio(EL) Braga(PT) Aalborg(DK) Groningen(NL) Oulu(FI) Lefkosia(CY)
0

13 17 67 27 6 66 34 6 60 24 15 60 19 19 60 27 12 59 30 9 59 31 13 56 31 14 55 29 16 54 28 16 54 33 10 54 38 8 54 20 22 53 34 13 53 39 6 52 38 10 52 33 12 52 24 19 50 26 22 50 29 19 49 34 16 49 15 35 48 41 11 48 39 13 46 40 16 44 43 12 44 33 23 43 38 20 42 34 24 40 20 36 40 41 21 36 51 12 36 51 13 34 50 16 34 34 26 33 46 22 32 44 22 32 58 8 32 53 14 31 50 17 31 51 15 30 44 26 29 52 18 29 59 12 29 62 8 29 52 19 29 56 14 28 59 14 27 34 38 27 37 34 27 58 12 27 43 27 26 37 32 25 60 14 25 57 16 24 41 31 24 62 12 24 60 16 23 29 48 23 30 45 22 26 48 22 59 19 18 57 24 18 63 13 18 48 32 18 65 17 17 18 65 15 71 14 15 68 16 14 63 25 11 46 41 11 27 63 9 45 48 7 91 4 5
20 40 60 80

2 2 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 4 2 0 2 1 7 0 2 2 2 2 5 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 5 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 3 4 1 6 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
100

Paris(FR) Praha(CZ) Warszawa(PL) Riga(LV) London(UK) Budapest(HU) Bucureti(RO) Bratislava(SK) Miskolc(HU) Kosice(SK) Barcelona(ES) Madrid(ES) Ostrava(CZ) Ankara(TR) Wien(AT) Tallinn(EE) Krakw(PL) Sofia(BG) stanbul(TR) Helsinki(FI) ClujNapoca(RO) Zagreb(HR) Stockholm(SE) Lisboa(PT) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Biaystok(PL) Gdask(PL) Berlin(DE) Hamburg(DE) Mnchen(DE) Diyarbakir(TR) Rennes(FR) Vilnius(LT) Newcastle(UK) Torino(IT) Burgas(BG) Rostock(DE) Leipzig(DE) Roma(IT) Athinia(EL) Bordeaux(FR) Glasgow(UK) Ljubljana(SI) Dublin(IE) Lille(FR) Dortmund(DE) Bologna(IT) Marseille(FR) Manchester(UK) Graz(AT) Strasbourg(FR) Essen(DE) Rotterdam(NL) Antalya(TR) Lige(BE) Belfast(UK) PiatraNeam(RO) Napoli(IT) Luxembourg(LU) Oviedo(ES) Malm(SE) Amsterdam(NL) Cardiff(UK) Mlaga(ES) Valletta(MT) Antwerpen(BE) Verona(IT) Kbenhavn(DK) Palermo(IT) Irakleio(EL) Braga(PT) Aalborg(DK) Groningen(NL) Oulu(FI) Lefkosia(CY)

Q4B. Which means of transport do you mostly/primarily use to go to your working/training place? Base: those who travel to work or educational establishment, % by city
page 61

Although the proportion of respondents who used a car or motorbike to travel to work or college was nowhere close to the figure for Nicosia (91%), in about half of the surveyed cities, a car or motorbike was the dominant mode of transport. Respondents in Nicosia (see above), Palermo (71%), Iraklion (68%) and Verona (65%) were the most likely to select car or motorbike as a response. A more detailed look at commuting methods showed that a motorbike was predominantly used in Italian, Spanish and Greek cities. For example, 19% of respondents in Palermo, 14% in Iraklion and 13% in Barcelona said they usually used their motorbike to get to work. In eight cities, a relative majority of respondents at least said they usually walked or cycled to work or college. Respondents in Copenhagen and Groningen were the most likely to select this response (65% and 63%, respectively). In Graz, Malmo, Oulu, Amsterdam and Oviedo, between 38% and 48% of respondents walked or cycled to work. Additionally, Groningen, Copenhagen and Amsterdam could be defined as cycling cities. In Groningen and Copenhagen, 60% respondents cycled to work or college. The corresponding proportion for Amsterdam was 46%. In Nicosia and the Turkish cities Ankara, Istanbul and Diyarbakir no respondents selected this response. On the other hand, respondents who walked to their work or place of education were most frequently found in Oviedo (48%), Diyarbakir (36%) and Antalya (31%).
Means of transport mostly used to go to work or training placecar/motorbike and biking/walking

Means of transport mostly used to go to work or training place car/motorbike and biking/walking
Car Motorbike 2 91 Biking Walking 60 60

Lefkosia(CY) Palermo(IT) Irakleio(EL) Verona(IT) Valletta(MT) Braga(PT) Dortmund(DE) Napoli(IT) Lige(BE) Luxembourg(LU) Cardiff(UK) Manchester(UK) Lille(FR) Roma(IT) Strasbourg(FR) Mlaga(ES) Belfast(UK) Marseille(FR) Athinia(EL) Dublin(IE) Bologna(IT) Vilnius(LT) Glasgow(UK) Newcastle(UK) Bordeaux(FR) Torino(IT) Antwerpen(BE) Aalborg(DK) Rostock(DE) Oulu(FI) Leipzig(DE) Ljubljana(SI) Gdask(PL) Rotterdam(NL) PiatraNeam(RO) Stockholm(SE) Rennes(FR) Biaystok(PL) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Tallinn(EE) Krakw(PL) Ostrava(CZ) Hamburg(DE) Antalya(TR) Essen(DE) Zagreb(HR) Mnchen(DE) Warszawa(PL) Burgas(BG) Wien(AT) Graz(AT) Sofia(BG) Madrid(ES) Berlin(DE) Bratislava(SK) Miskolc(HU) Malm(SE) Bucureti(RO) ClujNapoca(RO) Kosice(SK) Oviedo(ES) Barcelona(ES) Budapest(HU) Groningen(NL) Praha(CZ) Amsterdam(NL) Helsinki(FI) Riga(LV) stanbul(TR) Ankara(TR) Diyarbakir(TR) London(UK) Kbenhavn(DK) Lisboa(PT) Paris(FR)

89 52 19 71 54 14 68 55 11 65 62 1 63 63 0 63 61 1 62 52 10 62 60 0 60 59 0 60 59 0 59 58 1 59 57 1 59 50 8 58 58 0 58 49 9 57 57 1 57 53 4 56 46 7 53 51 1 52 43 9 52 51 0 51 49 1 51 50 1 51 46 4 50 48 2 50 46 2 48 46 1 46 45 1 46 44 1 45 44 0 44 43 1 44 42 2 43 41 2 43 41 0 41 41 0 41 40 1 41 39 0 40 39 1 39 39 0 39 38 1 38 38 0 38 37 1 38 33 4 37 35 1 37 34 0 34 33 2 34 34 1 34 34 0 34 33 1 34 32 2 34 33 0 33 29 4 33 32 1 33 31 0 31 31 0 31 30 0 30 30 0 30 29 0 29 29 0 29 28 1 29 15 13 28 27 1 27 25 2 27 26 0 27 24 3 26 26 0 26 24 0 24 21 3 24 20 0 20 20 0 20 17 2 19 18 0 18 14 0 15 11 3 13

Kbenhavn(DK) Groningen(NL) Oviedo(ES) Amsterdam(NL) Oulu(FI) Malm(SE) Aalborg(DK) Graz(AT) Diyarbakir(TR) Lisboa(PT) Essen(DE) Antalya(TR) Antwerpen(BE) PiatraNeam(RO) Rotterdam(NL) Ljubljana(SI) Burgas(BG) Braga(PT) Mlaga(ES) Mnchen(DE) Berlin(DE) Leipzig(DE) Helsinki(FI) Rostock(DE) Ankara(TR) Rennes(FR) Hamburg(DE) stanbul(TR) ClujNapoca(RO) London(UK) Cardiff(UK) Bologna(IT) Dublin(IE) Paris(FR) Bordeaux(FR) Verona(IT) Kosice(SK) Belfast(UK) Irakleio(EL) Barcelona(ES) Biaystok(PL) Luxembourg(LU) Torino(IT) Zagreb(HR) Riga(LV) Glasgow(UK) Miskolc(HU) Athinia(EL) Palermo(IT) Marseille(FR) Lige(BE) Manchester(UK) Valletta(MT) Newcastle(UK) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Wien(AT) Bratislava(SK) Vilnius(LT) Sofia(BG) Strasbourg(FR) Budapest(HU) Lille(FR) Gdask(PL) Napoli(IT) Stockholm(SE) Madrid(ES) Krakw(PL) Bucureti(RO) Roma(IT) Ostrava(CZ) Dortmund(DE) Tallinn(EE) Praha(CZ) Warszawa(PL) Lefkosia(CY)

48 48 46 3 48 38 10 48 37 8 45 37 4 41 28 10 38 36 0 36 35 19 16 34 21 14 32 1 31 29 3 32 31 1 30 25 2 27 15 11 26 26 0 26 25 0 25 24 1 23 17 7 24 17 6 23 18 4 22 10 12 22 13 9 22 22 0 22 21 8 13 14 6 20 19 0 19 19 1 18 9 10 19 19 4 15 7 12 19 18 5 14 5 12 17 8 9 17 9 8 17 16 1 16 16 2 15 16 0 16 16 0 16 16 1 15 6 11 16 5 11 16 3 12 16 15 1 15 15 2 13 3 11 14 2 12 14 14 1 13 2 12 14 6 8 14 2 11 14 13 0 13 3 10 13 4 9 13 4 9 13 1 11 13 1 12 12 0 12 12 4 9 12 6 6 12 5 7 12 3 9 12 1 11 12 1 10 11 1 10 10 1 9 10 1 8 9 17 8 26 8 35 8 16 6 15 6 15 6 05 5 0

5 6 3 63

Q4B. Which means of transport do you mostly/primarily use to go to your working/training place? Base: those who travel to work or educational establishment, % by city
page 63

Length of time to commute [Note: all proportions in this section refer to respondents who travel to work or to an educational establishment]
6

City dwellers were also asked how long it usually took them to travel to their work or educational establishment. Not surprisingly, commuting times were the longest in Europes capitals and large cities (i.e. those with more than 500,000 inhabitants). In Paris, Stockholm, Rotterdam, Prague, Warsaw, Bucharest, Budapest and London, at least half of respondents answered that they spent over 30 minutes per day to go to their workplace or educational establishment (between 50% and 65%). Additionally, respondents in London and Budapest were most likely to report a commuting time of more than one hour (23% and 32%, respectively). Some of Europes smaller cities were found at the top of this ranking (e.g. Iraklion, Oviedo, Oulu, Braga, Luxemburg, Verona and Burgas) in these cities, less than a sixth of respondents needed more than 30 minutes to commute to their workplace or educational institution (between 12% and 16%) and at least a quarter of them needed not more than 10 minutes (between 25% and 36%). Not surprisingly, in smaller cities where many respondents walked to work, a significant number did not need much time to commute (e.g. in Oviedo or Diyarbakir). Nonetheless, the time to commute does not appear to be directly related to the mode of transport. Although commuting times were the longest in Europes capitals which were also the cities where a majority of respondents commuted by public transport, there were some examples of cities with a more dominant use of car/motorbike or bicycle where commuting times were equally long: for example, 52% of respondents in Dublin said they drove their car to work and a similar proportion (48%) said they needed at least 30 minutes to reach their workplace. Similarly, 48% of interviewees in Amsterdam walked or cycled to their workplace and a similar proportion said that they usually spent 30 minutes or more to go to work.
Minutes per day spent to go to work or training place

Minutes per day spent to go to work or training place


Less than 10 minutes Between 30-45 minutes Between 10-20 minutes Between 20-30 minutes Between 45-60 minutes More than 60 minutes 6 3 3 18 36 35 9 31 22 39 27 7 2 3 19 41 26 8 5 2 13 37 36 9 4 2 20 40 26 7 6 3 19 39 26 12 2 1 21 39 25 5 2 10 25 40 18 8 5 5 18 38 25 6 3 9 25 35 22 6 5 6 18 40 24 5 1 13 24 37 19 5 4 11 18 46 16 3 9 7 22 38 20 4 4 13 20 32 27 6 4 11 27 35 17 4 6 11 20 36 23 5 2 16 24 31 23 7 5 10 13 33 32 4 7 13 26 31 19 5 6 14 20 40 16 5 8 13 31 29 14 8 4 15 31 28 14 6 4 17 20 36 16 8 6 14 27 27 19 7 6 15 25 34 14 10 4 15 29 33 10 8 7 13 30 27 15 7 10 12 14 38 19 7 7 15 22 35 14 10 7 12 23 30 18 7 11 12 26 34 10 7 7 17 26 32 12 12 5 14 22 33 14 8 6 17 23 31 15 10 9 13 22 30 17 5 10 17 22 31 15 10 4 19 24 27 17 8 10 15 29 26 12 8 6 19 21 30 16 8 10 15 27 29 11 9 10 15 26 26 14 10 4 20 32 23 11 5 9 20 21 31 14 5 8 21 27 24 14 8 10 18 24 29 12 9 11 17 21 29 13 6 11 21 27 24 11 8 13 18 28 22 11 11 15 13 25 20 16 12 12 15 20 29 12 13 12 15 22 24 15 10 13 15 15 26 19 9 15 15 22 26 13 9 11 20 27 23 10 11 11 19 27 22 10 12 11 18 23 23 13 15 13 13 18 26 15 14 12 16 23 23 11 13 14 17 19 24 13 8 12 25 25 18 12 9 13 23 19 21 15 14 17 15 19 25 10 12 17 18 21 19 13 15 15 18 23 17 12 18 15 15 21 21 10 8 16 24 21 22 9 12 13 25 25 18 6 12 19 20 18 19 12 17 17 17 22 18 8 17 18 21 18 20 7 15 19 22 21 16 7 19 20 23 17 13 7 32 19 15 16 9 10 23 25 17 15 13 7
20 40 60 80 100

Irakleio(EL) Oviedo(ES) Oulu(FI) Braga(PT) Luxembourg(LU) Verona(IT) Burgas(BG) Biaystok(PL) PiatraNeam(RO) Palermo(IT) Diyarbakir(TR) Graz(AT) Bologna(IT) Valletta(MT) Lefkosia(CY) Kosice(SK) Aalborg(DK) Mlaga(ES) Antalya(TR) Bordeaux(FR) Rennes(FR) Lisboa(PT) Ljubljana(SI) Lille(FR) Marseille(FR) Strasbourg(FR) Tallinn(EE) Vilnius(LT) Napoli(IT) Rostock(DE) Antwerpen(BE) Bratislava(SK) ClujNapoca(RO) Lige(BE) Kbenhavn(DK) Dortmund(DE) Essen(DE) Mnchen(DE) Barcelona(ES) Leipzig(DE) Newcastle(UK) Belfast(UK) Wien(AT) Torino(IT) Helsinki(FI) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Roma(IT) Hamburg(DE) Riga(LV) Athinia(EL) Ostrava(CZ) Malm(SE) Ankara(TR) Gdask(PL) Cardiff(UK) Zagreb(HR) Groningen(NL) stanbul(TR) Manchester(UK) Glasgow(UK) Madrid(ES) Berlin(DE) Miskolc(HU) Sofia(BG) Dublin(IE) Amsterdam(NL) Krakw(PL) Paris(FR) Stockholm(SE) Rotterdam(NL) Praha(CZ) Warszawa(PL) Bucureti(RO) Budapest(HU) London(UK)
0

Irakleio(EL) Oviedo(ES) Oulu(FI) Braga(PT) Luxembourg(LU) Verona(IT) Burgas(BG) Biaystok(PL) PiatraNeam(RO) Palermo(IT) Diyarbakir(TR) Graz(AT) Bologna(IT) Valletta(MT) Lefkosia(CY) Kosice(SK) Aalborg(DK) Mlaga(ES) Antalya(TR) Bordeaux(FR) Rennes(FR) Lisboa(PT) Ljubljana(SI) Lille(FR) Marseille(FR) Strasbourg(FR) Tallinn(EE) Vilnius(LT) Napoli(IT) Rostock(DE) Antwerpen(BE) Bratislava(SK) ClujNapoca(RO) Lige(BE) Kbenhavn(DK) Dortmund(DE) Essen(DE) Mnchen(DE) Barcelona(ES) Leipzig(DE) Newcastle(UK) Belfast(UK) Wien(AT) Torino(IT) Helsinki(FI) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Roma(IT) Hamburg(DE) Riga(LV) Athinia(EL) Ostrava(CZ) Malm(SE) Ankara(TR) Gdask(PL) Cardiff(UK) Zagreb(HR) Groningen(NL) stanbul(TR) Manchester(UK) Glasgow(UK) Madrid(ES) Berlin(DE) Miskolc(HU) Sofia(BG) Dublin(IE) Amsterdam(NL) Krakw(PL) Paris(FR) Stockholm(SE) Rotterdam(NL) Praha(CZ) Warszawa(PL) Bucureti(RO) Budapest(HU) London(UK)

Q4A. How many minutes per day do you usually spend to go to your working/training place? Base: those who travel to work or educational establishment, % by city
page 65

5.3 Satisfaction with public transport


Satisfaction with public transport The total level of satisfaction with public transport (i.e. the sum of very and fairly satisfied citizens) ranged from 12% in Palermo to 93% in Helsinki, while the proportion of respondents who said they were very satisfied ranged from virtually no-one in Palermo and Naples (1%-2%) to 53% in Vienna. In about half of the surveyed cities roughly two-thirds of respondents answered that they were very or rather satisfied with their citys public transport. Cities such as Strasbourg, Stockholm, Hamburg, Newcastle and Groningen joined Helsinki and Vienna at the higher end of the ranking with satisfaction levels above 80%. In most of those cities, a majority of respondents also used public transport at least once a week (see section 5.1). In Groningen, however, just 24% were frequent public transport users and 9% used it to go their work or educational institution nonetheless, 83% of respondents were very or fairly satisfied with public transport in Groningen. In Roma, Naples, Nicosia and Palermo, on the other hand, at least half of respondents were dissatisfied with their citys public transport (between 50% and 74%). A slim majority (55%) of respondents in Nicosia were not at all satisfied with their citys public transport. This is in accordance with the finding that in the views of its inhabitants public transport was Nicosias major problem (see section 1.5). In some cities, a considerable proportion of respondents found it difficult to answer this question about their citys public transport (e.g. 39% in Braga and 28% in Vilnius) more than half of respondents who gave a dont know response never used their citys public transport. When comparing the results of the 2006 and 2009 perception surveys, the largest increase in satisfaction with public transport was seen in Bratislava: in 2009, 58% of its respondents said they were rather or very satisfied with the citys public transport, vs. 30% in 2006 (+28 percentage points). The largest decrease in satisfaction was observed in Miskolc (55% in 2009 from 73% in 2006; -18 percentage points).
Satisfaction with public transport

Satisfaction with public transport


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

Helsinki(FI) 4 11 51 42 5 22 Wien(AT) 37 53 51 5 Strasbourg(FR) 53 36 Rennes(FR) 42 6 45 43 7 2 4 Stockholm(SE) 50 37 7 2 4 Hamburg(DE) 47 39 Rostock(DE) 6 1 7 40 47 9 23 Mnchen(DE) 44 42 Bordeaux(FR) 5 3 8 52 33 6 4 7 Newcastle(UK) 41 43 5 2 11 Groningen(NL) 49 34 4 2 Paris(FR) 11 61 22 11 3 4 Kbenhavn(DK) 55 27 5 3 10 Rotterdam(NL) 52 30 10 3 5 Luxembourg(LU) 47 35 7 2 8 Leipzig(DE) 44 38 9 3 7 Amsterdam(NL) 55 27 5 4 9 Praha(CZ) 53 29 6 2 10 Oviedo(ES) 64 18 8 3 8 Antwerpen(BE) 43 38 8 2 9 Malm(SE) 63 18 13 6 2 Dortmund(DE) 45 34 4 4 14 Madrid(ES) 56 22 4 8 10 Belfast(UK) 44 34 14 7 3 Biaystok(PL) 61 16 10 6 8 Glasgow(UK) 46 31 9 6 9 Cardiff(UK) 49 28 14 6 4 48 Lille(FR) 29 11 9 3 59 Krakw(PL) 17 6 7 11 Zagreb(HR) 37 39 7 6 12 48 London(UK) 28 10 4 10 ClujNapoca(RO) 55 21 5 5 15 47 Graz(AT) 28 14 8 3 Aalborg(DK) 48 27 6 4 16 Barcelona(ES) 60 14 14 10 4 Ostrava(CZ) 48 24 13 4 12 Tallinn(EE) 49 23 8 6 15 Mlaga(ES) 56 14 10 4 16 Dublin(IE) 46 24 6 8 18 Berlin(DE) 43 25 11 9 11 Ljubljana(SI) 55 13 11 13 9 Diyarbakir(TR) 44 24 10 6 16 Warszawa(PL) 54 14 15 6 11 51 Gdask(PL) 17 6 11 15 Marseille(FR) 47 20 13 6 14 51 Bologna(IT) 16 13 6 15 54 Lisboa(PT) 12 18 4 13 Lige(BE) 49 17 12 5 17 45 Essen(DE) 20 9 10 16 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 47 18 6 7 22 51 Oulu(FI) 14 12 6 17 44 Riga(LV) 21 13 9 14 Manchester(UK) 44 20 8 17 13 42 Ankara(TR) 20 10 16 13 stanbul(TR) 46 14 12 10 17 Athinia(EL) 42 19 26 5 10 45 PiatraNeam(RO) 15 26 5 11 Burgas(BG) 39 19 15 7 20 45 Bratislava(SK) 12 17 6 21 44 Kosice(SK) 12 12 11 22 43 Miskolc(HU) 12 18 7 21 45 Torino(IT) 9 24 14 10 34 Antalya(TR) 19 28 6 17 36 Vilnius(LT) 14 24 14 12 29 Valletta(MT) 21 24 15 13 Irakleio(EL) 34 14 39 7 5 37 Braga(PT) 12 8 14 30 Budapest(HU) 42 6 10 17 26 39 Bucureti(RO) 7 25 8 21 37 Verona(IT) 9 14 15 28 Sofia(BG) 34 9 15 20 30 32 Roma(IT) 3 14 25 33 Napoli(IT) 2 26 16 55 12 Lefkosia(CY) 4 13 14 38 36 Palermo(IT) 1 11
0 20 40 60 80 100

Helsinki(FI) Wien(AT) Strasbourg(FR) Rennes(FR) Stockholm(SE) Hamburg(DE) Rostock(DE) Mnchen(DE) Bordeaux(FR) Newcastle(UK) Groningen(NL) Paris(FR) Kbenhavn(DK) Rotterdam(NL) Luxembourg(LU) Leipzig(DE) Amsterdam(NL) Praha(CZ) Oviedo(ES) Antwerpen(BE) Malm(SE) Dortmund(DE) Madrid(ES) Belfast(UK) Biaystok(PL) Glasgow(UK) Cardiff(UK) Lille(FR) Krakw(PL) Zagreb(HR) London(UK) ClujNapoca(RO) Graz(AT) Aalborg(DK) Barcelona(ES) Ostrava(CZ) Tallinn(EE) Mlaga(ES) Dublin(IE) Berlin(DE) Ljubljana(SI) Diyarbakir(TR) Warszawa(PL) Gdask(PL) Marseille(FR) Bologna(IT) Lisboa(PT) Lige(BE) Essen(DE) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Oulu(FI) Riga(LV) Manchester(UK) Ankara(TR) stanbul(TR) Athinia(EL) PiatraNeam(RO) Burgas(BG) Bratislava(SK) Kosice(SK) Miskolc(HU) Torino(IT) Antalya(TR) Vilnius(LT) Valletta(MT) Irakleio(EL) Braga(PT) Budapest(HU) Bucureti(RO) Verona(IT) Sofia(BG) Roma(IT) Napoli(IT) Lefkosia(CY) Palermo(IT)

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues: Base: all respondents, % by city
page 67

Reasons for not using public transport In order to understand better why certain city dwellers were dissatisfied with public transport and/or were not using it, relevant respondents were asked to explain why they never used their citys public transport. Some caution should, nevertheless, be exercised when interpreting the results as in some cities very few respondents did not use public transport; as such, not many respondents answered this question. Respondents who never used public transport were presented with a list of 10 possible reasons for not using public transport (e.g. not frequent enough, not adapted to the required itinerary, too expensive or not safe). Nevertheless, many respondents named another reason for not using public transport in their city this proportion ranged from 31% in Palermo and Marseilles to 86% in Paris. Other reasons for not using public transport, for example, could have been limited mobility: respondents simply might have been unable to use public transport in their city because they could not move around easily (e.g. many of the older respondents gave other reasons for not using public transport). Other respondents might not have experienced a need to use public transport, as other methods (e.g. car or bicycle) were sufficient and convenient to move around in their city. Of the reasons listed in the survey, those linked to insufficient infrastructure i.e. public transport not being frequent enough, not adapted to itineraries and not easy to access were mentioned most frequently. Respondents in Rennes and Bologna were the most likely to complain that public transport was not adapted to their itinerary (31% and 28%, respectively). In Ljubljana, Iraklion, Helsinki, Nicosia and Graz, at least of quarter of respondents gave this reason for not using public transport (25%-27%). Respondents living in Nicosia were also most likely to mention an insufficient frequency of public transport as a reason for not using such facilities (37%). In Palermo and Manchester, about a fifth of respondents complained about this issue (22% and 19%, respectively). The proportions of respondents who said they never used public transport because it was not easy to access from where they lived or to where they needed to go were the highest in Helsinki (20%), Aalborg (19%), Dublin, Berlin, Stockholm and Ljubljana (all 17%). Furthermore, complaints about variations in time schedules and unreliable schedules were most frequently mentioned by respondents in Nicosia (23%), Manchester (19%), Palermo (18%) and Roma (16%). In Manchester (again), Munich, Miskolc, Budapest and Berlin, respondents were the most likely to say that public transport was too expensive (between 16% and 21%). Prague stood out with one-third (32%) of respondents who felt that public transport was too congested and 20% who said it was unsafe. Finally, respondents who simply did not like using public transport were most frequently found in some French cities included in this study: Marseilles (33%), Bordeaux (28%) and Lille (26%).

6. A comparison with the results of the 2006 perception survey


In the annex, 15 charts are shown that summarize the results of the current survey in comparison with those of the previous perception survey (conducted in 2006). The greatest increases in the proportion of respondents who agreed that good jobs were easy to find were seen in Stockholm and Malmo (respectively, +18 and +17 percentage points). These same cities were identified as the ones that had seen the largest increases in the proportion of interviewees who agreed that there was a responsible management of resources in their city and agreed that administrative services had helped them efficiently (between +17 and +26 percentage points). Iraklion, on the other hand, was regularly found among the cities that had seen the largest decrease in such positive perceptions when comparing the results of the current survey with those of 2006.

page 69

Annex 1 (in English only) Comparison 2009/2006

It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price (% agree) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Diff: Riga(LV) 42 32 Vilnius(LT) 44 28 ClujNapoca(RO) 33 25 Valletta(MT) 40 25 PiatraNeam(RO) 45 25 Tallinn(EE) 40 23 Dublin(IE) 28 23 Mlaga(ES) 53 18 Cardiff(UK) 46 17 Antalya(TR) 46 17 Belfast(UK) 47 16 Burgas(BG) 35 15 Bordeaux(FR) 27 15 Ankara(TR) 41 14 Malm(SE) 34 14 stanbul(TR) 25 13 Sofia(BG) 32 13 Oulu(FI) 63 13 Rotterdam(NL) 33 12 Praha(CZ) 27 12 Bucureti(RO) 18 11 Rennes(FR) 22 11 Miskolc(HU) 47 11 Lille(FR) 25 11 Bratislava(SK) 16 9 Marseille(FR) 17 8 Madrid(ES) 33 8 Diyarbakir(TR) 52 8 Krakw(PL) 23 7 Zagreb(HR) 16 7 Oviedo(ES) 55 7 Groningen(NL) 49 7 Gdask(PL) 30 7 Stockholm(SE) 15 6 Lefkosia(CY) 20 6 Kosice(SK) 22 5 Kbenhavn(DK) 17 5 Strasbourg(FR) 5 19 Napoli(IT) 21 5 Lisboa(PT) 5 10 Warszawa(PL) 4 17 Irakleio(EL) 4 38 Barcelona(ES) 4 25 Newcastle(UK) 4 54 Budapest(HU) 4 26 Athinia(EL) 4 29 Dortmund(DE) 4 59 Antwerpen(BE) 4 22 Helsinki(FI) 3 12 Manchester(UK) 3 45 London(UK) 3 14 Essen(DE) 3 50 Braga(PT) 2 66 Glasgow(UK) 1 39 Torino(IT) 1 20 Palermo(IT) 1 37 Graz(AT) 1 23 Bologna(IT) 0 10 Paris(FR) 0 3 Aalborg(DK) 0 68 Leipzig(DE) 1 72 Biaystok(PL) 1 46 Berlin(DE) 2 51 Luxembourg(LU) 2 10 Mnchen(DE) 2 6 Verona(IT) 3 19 Roma(IT) 3 6 Wien(AT) 3 20 Amsterdam(NL) 4 8 Ljubljana(SI) 5 10 5 Hamburg(DE) 16 Ostrava(CZ) 5 38 6 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 17 8 Lige(BE) 32
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % of Strongly and somewhat agree by city
page 71

Difficulties in paying bills at the end of the month (% never) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Diff: Helsinki(FI) 67 18 Gdask(PL) 61 18 Oulu(FI) 63 17 Bratislava(SK) 68 15 Krakw(PL) 59 14 Warszawa(PL) 61 12 Palermo(IT) 40 12 Verona(IT) 53 12 Lisboa(PT) 51 12 Oviedo(ES) 67 11 Rennes(FR) 60 10 Kosice(SK) 66 10 Braga(PT) 53 9 Torino(IT) 47 9 Madrid(ES) 57 8 Mlaga(ES) 55 8 Vilnius(LT) 60 8 Antwerpen(BE) 70 8 Paris(FR) 56 7 Graz(AT) 78 6 Newcastle(UK) 65 6 Biaystok(PL) 56 6 Barcelona(ES) 60 6 Lige(BE) 58 6 Cardiff(UK) 56 5 Bologna(IT) 54 5 Roma(IT) 41 5 Napoli(IT) 28 4 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 52 4 Strasbourg(FR) 57 4 Aalborg(DK) 83 4 Berlin(DE) 63 3 Stockholm(SE) 79 3 Kbenhavn(DK) 76 3 Dortmund(DE) 70 3 Luxembourg(LU) 76 3 Essen(DE) 68 3 London(UK) 48 2 Lefkosia(CY) 2 45 Malm(SE) 77 2 Manchester(UK) 2 50 Burgas(BG) 1 43 Glasgow(UK) 1 56 Hamburg(DE) 1 67 Ostrava(CZ) 1 68 Belfast(UK) 1 50 Amsterdam(NL) 1 56 PiatraNeam(RO) 1 60 Budapest(HU) 1 44 Zagreb(HR) 1 53 Marseille(FR) 2 49 ClujNapoca(RO) 2 61 Sofia(BG) 2 40 2 Wien(AT) 72 Rotterdam(NL) 2 62 2 Lille(FR) 52 3 Dublin(IE) 54 3 Miskolc(HU) 40 3 Valletta(MT) 26 4 Mnchen(DE) 66 4 Tallinn(EE) 56 5 Groningen(NL) 62 5 Leipzig(DE) 61 5 Praha(CZ) 65 7 Bordeaux(FR) 50 9 Ljubljana(SI) 53 9 Athinia(EL) 32 9 Antalya(TR) 34 10 Ankara(TR) 33 10 Bucureti(RO) 58 10 Irakleio(EL) 29 10 Diyarbakir(TR) 25 15 Riga(LV) 33 16 stanbul(TR) 23
0 20 40 60 80 100 Q3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? Base: all respondents, % of Never by city

Foreigners are well integrated (% agree) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Stockholm(SE) 38 Malm(SE) 35 Verona(IT) 56 Bratislava(SK) 64 Lille(FR) 63 Kosice(SK) 65 Groningen(NL) 66 Rotterdam(NL) 43 Bordeaux(FR) 63 Warszawa(PL) 45 London(UK) 58 Braga(PT) 65 Strasbourg(FR) 60 Torino(IT) 43 Paris(FR) 50 Ostrava(CZ) 46 Lisboa(PT) 60 Hamburg(DE) 40 Aalborg(DK) 51 Gdask(PL) 44 Praha(CZ) 52 Kbenhavn(DK) 48 Ljubljana(SI) 63 Amsterdam(NL) 51 Bucureti(RO) 56 Diyarbakir(TR) 55 Mnchen(DE) 50 Berlin(DE) 29 Dublin(IE) 59 Luxembourg(LU) 65 Biaystok(PL) 40 Miskolc(HU) 49 Marseille(FR) 57 Leipzig(DE) 39 ClujNapoca(RO) 66 Krakw(PL) 52 Palermo(IT) 59 Dortmund(DE) 32 Budapest(HU) 61 Essen(DE) 34 Bologna(IT) 49 PiatraNeam(RO) 59 Rennes(FR) 62 Helsinki(FI) 36 Wien(AT) 26 stanbul(TR) 56 Antwerpen(BE) 36 Tallinn(EE) 38 Roma(IT) 47 Vilnius(LT) 43 Graz(AT) 29 Burgas(BG) 48 Belfast(UK) 47 Mlaga(ES) 61 Napoli(IT) 43 Oviedo(ES) 52 Newcastle(UK) 58 Cardiff(UK) 65 Zagreb(HR) 55 Glasgow(UK) 58 Ankara(TR) 50 Manchester(UK) 58 Riga(LV) 39 Lefkosia(CY) 30 Valletta(MT) 49 Madrid(ES) 37 Antalya(TR) 66 Barcelona(ES) 36 Lige(BE) 41 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 39 Sofia(BG) 45 Oulu(FI) 47 Athinia(EL) 20 Irakleio(EL) 48
0 20 40 60 80

Diff:
26 23 15 13 12 12 11 8 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 9 11 11 11 12 12 12 15 15 16 17

100

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % of Strongly and somewhat agree by city
page 73

Respondents feel safe in the city (% always) 2009 2006 2006-2009 Napoli(IT) 36 Bordeaux(FR) 69 Gdask(PL) 49 Verona(IT) 61 Malm(SE) 49 Stockholm(SE) 64 Bologna(IT) 45 Lille(FR) 51 Warszawa(PL) 42 Marseille(FR) 44 Krakw(PL) 47 Tallinn(EE) 42 Berlin(DE) 51 Zagreb(HR) 61 Palermo(IT) 53 London(UK) 32 Biaystok(PL) 58 Cardiff(UK) 51 Bratislava(SK) 39 Dortmund(DE) 59 Belfast(UK) 52 Antalya(TR) 50 Rennes(FR) 56 Torino(IT) 41 Helsinki(FI) 67 Strasbourg(FR) 53 Newcastle(UK) 56 Hamburg(DE) 60 Groningen(NL) 79 Oulu(FI) 77 Madrid(ES) 47 Ljubljana(SI) 63 Rotterdam(NL) 54 Manchester(UK) 35 Vilnius(LT) 34 Antwerpen(BE) 48 Dublin(IE) 41 Kosice(SK) 44 Luxembourg(LU) 73 Leipzig(DE) 59 Essen(DE) 60 Lisboa(PT) 34 Diyarbakir(TR) 48 PiatraNeam(RO) 73 Glasgow(UK) 41 Praha(CZ) 30 Roma(IT) 41 Mnchen(DE) 76 Amsterdam(NL) 65 Wien(AT) 63 Kbenhavn(DK) 67 Ostrava(CZ) 31 stanbul(TR) 20 Lefkosia(CY) 47 Sofia(BG) 20 Oviedo(ES) 84 Graz(AT) 61 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 33 Paris(FR) 52 Riga(LV) 33 Lige(BE) 30 Valletta(MT) 55 Mlaga(ES) 59 Aalborg(DK) 78 Burgas(BG) 32 ClujNapoca(RO) 60 Barcelona(ES) 47 Bucureti(RO) 25 Braga(PT) 57 Athinia(EL) 14 Ankara(TR) 45 Budapest(HU) 32 Irakleio(EL) 36 Miskolc(HU) 34
0 20 40 60 80

Diff:
21 19 18 15 15 14 13 13 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 8 9 9 10 11 19 20

100

Q3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? Base: all respondents, % of Always by city

Respondents feel safe in their neighbourhood (% always) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Napoli(IT) 52 Berlin(DE) 87 Hamburg(DE) 88 Leipzig(DE) 90 Gdask(PL) 68 Essen(DE) 89 Dublin(IE) 76 Manchester(UK) 55 Dortmund(DE) 88 Biaystok(PL) 76 Krakw(PL) 63 Warszawa(PL) 67 Cardiff(UK) 66 London(UK) 53 Verona(IT) 71 Stockholm(SE) 82 Glasgow(UK) 70 Ljubljana(SI) 79 Belfast(UK) 74 Mnchen(DE) 91 Luxembourg(LU) 87 Bordeaux(FR) 84 Lige(BE) 64 Rotterdam(NL) 77 Tallinn(EE) 60 PiatraNeam(RO) 83 Bologna(IT) 59 Palermo(IT) 67 Wien(AT) 82 Lille(FR) 75 Newcastle(UK) 70 Kbenhavn(DK) 83 Madrid(ES) 61 Malm(SE) 72 Marseille(FR) 66 Oviedo(ES) 89 Roma(IT) 56 Antwerpen(BE) 71 Oulu(FI) 87 Mlaga(ES) 74 Helsinki(FI) 80 Torino(IT) 54 Zagreb(HR) 79 Groningen(NL) 88 ClujNapoca(RO) 76 Aalborg(DK) 91 Rennes(FR) 74 Sofia(BG) 33 Strasbourg(FR) 73 Graz(AT) 84 Antalya(TR) 74 Lefkosia(CY) 67 Barcelona(ES) 62 Braga(PT) 75 Paris(FR) 69 Amsterdam(NL) 78 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 58 Riga(LV) 46 Lisboa(PT) 53 Bratislava(SK) 63 Diyarbakir(TR) 70 Budapest(HU) 60 Valletta(MT) 60 Kosice(SK) 65 Ankara(TR) 67 Burgas(BG) 38 Miskolc(HU) 59 Athinia(EL) 38 Ostrava(CZ) 49 Bucureti(RO) 44 Praha(CZ) 46 Irakleio(EL) 50 stanbul(TR) 48 Vilnius(LT) 46
0 20 40 60 80

Diff:
21 21 18 17 17 16 15 15 14 13 13 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 7 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 7 8 8 8 10 10 11 11 13 17 19 20 25

100

Q3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or never happens to you? Base: all respondents, % of Always by city
page 75

Air pollution is a major problem (% disagree) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Helsinki(FI) 56 Valletta(MT) 23 Bratislava(SK) 41 Berlin(DE) 47 Dublin(IE) 54 Dortmund(DE) 60 Newcastle(UK) 67 Kosice(SK) 47 Manchester(UK) 41 Bordeaux(FR) 55 Mlaga(ES) 50 Luxembourg(LU) 61 Rennes(FR) 68 Leipzig(DE) 66 Zagreb(HR) 32 Cardiff(UK) 58 Belfast(UK) 52 Antalya(TR) 50 Mnchen(DE) 48 Amsterdam(NL) 32 Wien(AT) 57 Lille(FR) 35 Praha(CZ) 25 Essen(DE) 52 Gdask(PL) 35 Verona(IT) 16 Oulu(FI) 62 Paris(FR) 20 Oviedo(ES) 69 Vilnius(LT) 20 Torino(IT) 17 Glasgow(UK) 38 Riga(LV) 31 Bologna(IT) 16 Hamburg(DE) 61 Graz(AT) 25 Braga(PT) 46 Ljubljana(SI) 29 Rotterdam(NL) 23 London(UK) 19 Barcelona(ES) 23 Lefkosia(CY) 20 Diyarbakir(TR) 44 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 21 Tallinn(EE) 33 Kbenhavn(DK) 28 Marseille(FR) 24 Strasbourg(FR) 20 Madrid(ES) 15 Miskolc(HU) 36 Roma(IT) 10 Groningen(NL) 75 Burgas(BG) 9 Biaystok(PL) 75 Lisboa(PT) 14 Lige(BE) 23 Warszawa(PL) 19 Krakw(PL) 21 ClujNapoc(RO) 23 Napoli(IT) 12 Aalborg(DK) 65 stanbul(TR) 27 Ankara(TR) 46 PiatraNeam(RO) 66 Antwerpen(BE) 20 Sofia(BG) 7 Athinia(EL) 4 Palermo(IT) 17 Bucureti(RO) 6 Irakleio(EL) 30 Budapest(HU) 6 Ostrava(CZ) 23 Malm(SE) 34 Stockholm(SE) 27
0 20 40 60 80

Diff:
19 17 16 15 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 9 10 11 16 16

100

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % of Strongly and somewhat disagree by city

Noise is a major problem (% disagree) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Valletta(MT) 36 Dublin(IE) 55 Manchester(UK) 54 Bordeaux(FR) 56 Belfast(UK) 62 Lille(FR) 42 stanbul(TR) 19 Zagreb(HR) 34 Vilnius(LT) 37 Amsterdam(NL) 50 Kbenhavn(DK) 42 Biaystok(PL) 67 Helsinki(FI) 51 Praha(CZ) 24 Tallinn(EE) 40 Mlaga(ES) 35 Strasbourg(FR) 47 Wien(AT) 47 London(UK) 26 Glasgow(UK) 45 Cardiff(UK) 63 Paris(FR) 28 Newcastle(UK) 64 Ljubljana(SI) 36 Oulu(FI) 76 Bratislava(SK) 35 Hamburg(DE) 53 Riga(LV) 42 Rotterdam(NL) 45 Barcelona(ES) 20 Oviedo(ES) 59 Marseille(FR) 29 Lige(BE) 41 Lefkosia(CY) 21 Madrid(ES) 15 Miskolc(HU) 43 Luxembourg(LU) 62 Berlin(DE) 39 Lisboa(PT) 19 Antalya(TR) 37 Braga(PT) 47 Gdask(PL) 37 Napoli(IT) 17 Leipzig(DE) 57 Rennes(FR) 56 Groningen(NL) 79 Graz(AT) 42 Verona(IT) 40 Palermo(IT) 21 Aalborg(DK) 64 Roma(IT) 16 ClujNapoc(RO) 29 PiatraNeam(RO) 65 Mnchen(DE) 48 Dortmund(DE) 50 Bologna(IT) 29 Kosice(SK) 46 Athinia(EL) 4 Torino(IT) 29 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 33 Budapest(HU) 12 Essen(DE) 45 Diyarbakir(TR) 35 Warszawa(PL) 16 Burgas(BG) 24 Irakleio(EL) 15 Krakw(PL) 18 Antwerpen(BE) 43 Ankara(TR) 33 Bucureti(RO) 11 Sofia(BG) 11 Stockholm(SE) 33 Ostrava(CZ) 32 Malm(SE) 40
0 20 40 60 80

Diff:
20 17 15 12 12 11 9 9 8 8 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 9 19 20 23

100

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % of Strongly and somewhat disagree by city
page 77

The city is clean (% agree) 2006-2009 2009 Stockholm(SE) 76 Malm(SE) 69 Napoli(IT) 27 Valletta(MT) 46 Marseille(FR) 26 Dublin(IE) 48 Bordeaux(FR) 71 Bratislava(SK) 40 Biaystok(PL) 88 Diyarbakir(TR) 69 Lille(FR) 72 Warszawa(PL) 42 Belfast(UK) 61 Krakw(PL) 56 Cardiff(UK) 73 Newcastle(UK) 83 Ljubljana(SI) 77 Hamburg(DE) 83 Rotterdam(NL) 48 Antalya(TR) 78 Glasgow(UK) 54 Manchester(UK) 58 Wien(AT) 84 Burgas(BG) 42 Gdask(PL) 64 Mnchen(DE) 93 Verona(IT) 81 Praha(CZ) 42 Torino(IT) 63 Madrid(ES) 55 Tallinn(EE) 65 Kosice(SK) 62 Oulu(FI) 76 Sofia(BG) 15 Helsinki(FI) 72 Graz(AT) 76 Amsterdam(NL) 50 Bucureti(RO) 24 Luxembourg(LU) 96 London(UK) 43 Paris(FR) 44 PiatraNeam(RO) 96 Kbenhavn(DK) 43 Oviedo(ES) 97 Berlin(DE) 32 stanbul(TR) 38 Miskolc(HU) 44 Groningen(NL) 84 Ankara(TR) 69 Aalborg(DK) 73 Antwerpen(BE) 46 Ostrava(CZ) 49 Strasbourg(FR) 72 Leipzig(DE) 71 Roma(IT) 27 Rennes(FR) 76 Braga(PT) 83 Essen(DE) 56 Lige(BE) 29 Zagreb(HR) 63 Budapest(HU) 15 ClujNapoca(RO) 84 Mlaga(ES) 34 Dortmund(DE) 68 Barcelona(ES) 40 Lisboa(PT) 33 Riga(LV) 67 Bologna(IT) 54 Irakleio(EL) 35 Vilnius(LT) 56 Lefkosia(CY) 50 Palermo(IT) 13 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 26 Athinia(EL) 16
0 20 40

2006

Diff:
23 22 19 19 18 17 17 15 15 14 13 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 11 12 13 14

60

80

100

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % of Strongly and somewhat agree by city

The city spends its resources in a responsible way (% agree) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Diff: Biaystok(PL) 58 31 Stockholm(SE) 61 26 Malm(SE) 58 21 Luxembourg(LU) 69 20 Ljubljana(SI) 41 16 Burgas(BG) 36 14 Warszawa(PL) 33 13 Kosice(SK) 31 13 Bordeaux(FR) 66 13 Antalya(TR) 54 11 Lille(FR) 57 10 Marseille(FR) 39 10 Lisboa(PT) 42 9 PiatraNeam(RO) 65 9 Groningen(NL) 63 8 Praha(CZ) 40 8 Ostrava(CZ) 44 8 Valletta(MT) 49 8 Verona(IT) 55 7 Oviedo(ES) 58 7 Bratislava(SK) 26 7 stanbul(TR) 39 6 Belfast(UK) 52 6 London(UK) 43 5 Sofia(BG) 21 5 Mnchen(DE) 57 5 Bologna(IT) 49 4 Newcastle(UK) 63 4 Graz(AT) 36 4 Helsinki(FI) 54 3 Leipzig(DE) 29 3 Rennes(FR) 56 3 Diyarbakir(TR) 45 3 Bucureti(RO) 20 3 Ankara(TR) 43 2 Rotterdam(NL) 52 1 Napoli(IT) 19 1 Aalborg(DK) 0 56 Mlaga(ES) 44 0 Braga(PT) 0 61 Cardiff(UK) 0 56 Strasbourg(FR) 0 52 Torino(IT) 1 47 Tallinn(EE) 1 26 Paris(FR) 1 41 ClujNapoca(RO) 1 57 Antwerpen(BE) 1 50 Dublin(IE) 2 35 Berlin(DE) 2 18 Krakw(PL) 3 46 Glasgow(UK) 3 50 Hamburg(DE) 4 34 4 Gdask(PL) 44 Riga(LV) 6 14 6 Lefkosia(CY) 29 6 Essen(DE) 25 6 Manchester(UK) 50 7 Vilnius(LT) 13 7 Barcelona(ES) 34 8 Palermo(IT) 15 8 Athinia(EL) 15 8 Irakleio(EL) 54 9 Lige(BE) 31 10 Wien(AT) 49 11 Kbenhavn(DK) 44 12 Madrid(ES) 35 14 Amsterdam(NL) 35 14 Roma(IT) 26 17 Miskolc(HU) 33 17 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 27 17 Budapest(HU) 9 19 Zagreb(HR) 27 19 Oulu(FI) 44 22 Dortmund(DE) 16
0 20 40 60 80 100 Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % of Strongly and somewhat agree by city
page 79

Administrative services help efficiently (% agree) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Stockholm(SE) 51 Malm(SE) 53 Bratislava(SK) 43 Praha(CZ) 56 Lille(FR) 68 Bordeaux(FR) 68 Ljubljana(SI) 60 Krakw(PL) 55 Marseille(FR) 55 Warszawa(PL) 50 Biaystok(PL) 58 Gdask(PL) 55 Lisboa(PT) 57 Bucureti(RO) 35 Antwerpen(BE) 78 Ostrava(CZ) 60 Antalya(TR) 57 Groningen(NL) 72 Helsinki(FI) 50 Diyarbakir(TR) 48 Luxembourg(LU) 68 Mlaga(ES) 53 PiatraNeam(RO) 53 Rotterdam(NL) 67 Zagreb(HR) 39 Kosice(SK) 42 Valletta(MT) 57 London(UK) 55 Belfast(UK) 67 Rennes(FR) 62 Hamburg(DE) 46 Budapest(HU) 51 Mnchen(DE) 40 Sofia(BG) 37 Aalborg(DK) 69 Oulu(FI) 55 Madrid(ES) 56 Vilnius(LT) 40 Dublin(IE) 61 Burgas(BG) 44 Amsterdam(NL) 57 Essen(DE) 46 stanbul(TR) 41 Napoli(IT) 33 Braga(PT) 65 Kbenhavn(DK) 59 Newcastle(UK) 70 Verona(IT) 60 Oviedo(ES) 65 ClujNapoca(RO) 52 Paris(FR) 49 Ankara(TR) 47 Strasbourg(FR) 64 Glasgow(UK) 61 Berlin(DE) 27 Bologna(IT) 66 Cardiff(UK) 68 Torino(IT) 53 Lefkosia(CY) 48 Barcelona(ES) 50 Palermo(IT) 25 Leipzig(DE) 34 Wien(AT) 35 Manchester(UK) 60 Lige(BE) 61 Tallinn(EE) 32 Graz(AT) 36 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 56 Roma(IT) 44 Athinia(EL) 31 Irakleio(EL) 46 Dortmund(DE) 47 Riga(LV) 26 Miskolc(HU) 31
0 20 40 60 80

Diff:
20 17 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 12 11 10 10 10 9 8 8 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 10 14 15

100

Q2. I will read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements? Base: all respondents, % of Strongly and somewhat agree by city

Satisfaction with cultural facilities (% satisfied) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Biaystok(PL) Luxembourg(LU) Strasbourg(FR) Sofia(BG) Bratislava(SK) Madrid(ES) Barcelona(ES) Warszawa(PL) Kosice(SK) Bordeaux(FR) London(UK) Belfast(UK) Krakw(PL) Budapest(HU) ClujNapoca(RO) Burgas(BG) Essen(DE) Ljubljana(SI) Mlaga(ES) Dublin(IE) stanbul(TR) Braga(PT) Ankara(TR) Berlin(DE) Miskolc(HU) Cardiff(UK) Manchester(UK) Bucureti(RO) Gdask(PL) Malm(SE) Oviedo(ES) PiatraNeam(RO) Aalborg(DK) Torino(IT) Paris(FR) Marseille(FR) Rennes(FR) Athinia(EL) Stockholm(SE) Antalya(TR) Ostrava(CZ) Praha(CZ) Glasgow(UK) Amsterdam(NL) Wien(AT) Newcastle(UK) Antwerpen(BE) Lisboa(PT) Groningen(NL) Tallinn(EE) Helsinki(FI) Lige(BE) Kbenhavn(DK) Hamburg(DE) Graz(AT) Vilnius(LT) Mnchen(DE) Diyarbakir(TR) Dortmund(DE) Verona(IT) Leipzig(DE) Rotterdam(NL) Lille(FR) Bologna(IT) Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) Irakleio(EL) Oulu(FI) Zagreb(HR) Riga(LV) Roma(IT) Palermo(IT) Lefkosia(CY) Napoli(IT) Valletta(MT)
0

77 92 90 59 82 82 83 86 82 80 91 91 85 87 78 52 91 88 67 93 57 67 52 94 85 96 91 67 82 89 80 73 92 80 93 72 86 67 92 52 79 86 95 94 95 94 84 72 92 86 96 78 94 91 90 77 94 41 87 73 93 87 82 77 80 49 90 76 71 68 59 54 41 35
20 40 60 80

Diff:
20 13 13 13 12 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 7 9 22 27

100

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues: Base: all respondents, % of Very and rather satisfied by city
page 81

Satisfaction with green spaces (% satisfied) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Burgas(BG) 82 Bratislava(SK) 60 Sofia(BG) 48 Antwerpen(BE) 78 Tallinn(EE) 81 Bucureti(RO) 66 Kosice(SK) 71 Belfast(UK) 86 Madrid(ES) 79 Verona(IT) 69 Rotterdam(NL) 83 Riga(LV) 87 Marseille(FR) 74 Newcastle(UK) 89 Praha(CZ) 75 Ljubljana(SI) 77 Bordeaux(FR) 91 Lille(FR) 81 Braga(PT) 55 Dublin(IE) 86 Napoli(IT) 36 Luxembourg(LU) 91 Groningen(NL) 93 Ostrava(CZ) 75 PiatraNeam(RO) 88 Krakw(PL) 83 Warszawa(PL) 85 Glasgow(UK) 90 Torino(IT) 85 Budapest(HU) 54 Paris(FR) 82 Strasbourg(FR) 84 Gdask(PL) 79 Oviedo(ES) 89 Diyarbakir(TR) 69 Leipzig(DE) 93 Hamburg(DE) 92 Cardiff(UK) 92 Zagreb(HR) 74 Amsterdam(NL) 83 Lisboa(PT) 54 Bologna(IT) 78 Mlaga(ES) 53 Rennes(FR) 88 Essen(DE) 80 stanbul(TR) 61 Biaystok(PL) 91 ClujNapoca(RO) 68 Berlin(DE) 83 London(UK) 86 Helsinki(FI) 89 Ankara(TR) 77 Lige(BE) 64 Graz(AT) 78 Antalya(TR) 81 Wien(AT) 83 Kbenhavn(DK) 88 Mnchen(DE) 94 Barcelona(ES) 58 Miskolc(HU) 59 Stockholm(SE) 91 Malm(SE) 94 Vilnius(LT) 62 Dortmund(DE) 85 Manchester(UK) 75 Oulu(FI) 88 Aalborg(DK) 82 Palermo(IT) 39 Roma(IT) 67 Valletta(MT) 43 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 76 Athinia(EL) 23 Irakleio(EL) 32 Lefkosia(CY) 38
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0

Diff:
26 24 22 22 16 15 14 14 14 14 13 13 11 11 11 10 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 6 6 9 9 12 14

100.0

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues: Base: all respondents, % of Very and rather satisfied by city

Satisfaction with sport facilities (% satisfied) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Warszawa(PL) 51 Biaystok(PL) 46 Bratislava(SK) 47 Dublin(IE) 71 Gdask(PL) 46 Ljubljana(SI) 59 Krakw(PL) 47 Luxembourg(LU) 79 Kosice(SK) 53 Madrid(ES) 63 PiatraNeam(RO) 66 Lille(FR) 74 Marseille(FR) 55 Mnchen(DE) 76 Burgas(BG) 42 Barcelona(ES) 63 Antwerpen(BE) 61 Groningen(NL) 89 Mlaga(ES) 60 Tallinn(EE) 65 Zagreb(HR) 60 Dortmund(DE) 68 ClujNapoca(RO) 53 Sofia(BG) 31 Leipzig(DE) 67 Braga(PT) 68 Manchester(UK) 69 Budapest(HU) 39 Helsinki(FI) 92 Bordeaux(FR) 71 Praha(CZ) 65 Ostrava(CZ) 68 Graz(AT) 59 Lisboa(PT) 47 Rennes(FR) 73 Cardiff(UK) 78 Paris(FR) 51 Hamburg(DE) 67 Vilnius(LT) 38 Amsterdam(NL) 76 Berlin(DE) 63 London(UK) 57 Malm(SE) 69 Rotterdam(NL) 76 Verona(IT) 66 Newcastle(UK) 73 Wien(AT) 62 Oulu(FI) 89 Lefkosia(CY) 55 Strasbourg(FR) 63 stanbul(TR) 42 Essen(DE) 50 Torino(IT) 58 Oviedo(ES) 69 Belfast(UK) 65 Valletta(MT) 49 Stockholm(SE) 58 Bologna(IT) 64 Ankara(TR) 41 Glasgow(UK) 70 Miskolc(HU) 40 Diyarbakir(TR) 32 Bucureti(RO) 30 Roma(IT) 49 Antalya(TR) 41 Kbenhavn(DK) 53 Aalborg(DK) 76 Napoli(IT) 28 Irakleio(EL) 56 Palermo(IT) 32 Athinia(EL) 42 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 48 Riga(LV) 30 Lige(BE) 40
0 20 40 60 80

Diff:
21 20 16 16 15 15 15 15 12 11 10 10 9 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 9 11 11 13 13 16

100

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues: Base: all respondents, % of Very and rather satisfied by city
page 83

Satisfaction with public transport (% satisfied) 2006-2009 2009 2006 Bratislava(SK) 58 Sofia(BG) 43 Tallinn(EE) 72 Kbenhavn(DK) 82 Marseille(FR) 68 Graz(AT) 75 Krakw(PL) 76 stanbul(TR) 60 Madrid(ES) 79 Diyarbakir(TR) 68 Stockholm(SE) 87 Zagreb(HR) 76 Biaystok(PL) 77 Belfast(UK) 78 Groningen(NL) 83 Lisboa(PT) 66 Strasbourg(FR) 90 Praha(CZ) 82 Barcelona(ES) 74 Burgas(BG) 58 Oviedo(ES) 82 Luxembourg(LU) 82 Bordeaux(FR) 84 Valletta(MT) 50 Aalborg(DK) 75 Paris(FR) 83 ClujNapoca(RO) 76 London(UK) 76 Bucureti(RO) 47 Malm(SE) 80 Ljubljana(SI) 68 Mlaga(ES) 70 Newcastle(UK) 84 Gdask(PL) 68 Cardiff(UK) 76 Dublin(IE) 70 Rotterdam(NL) 82 Glasgow(UK) 77 Antwerpen(BE) 81 Ostrava(CZ) 72 Bruxelles/Brussel(BE) 65 Kosice(SK) 56 Rennes(FR) 89 Riga(LV) 65 Budapest(HU) 48 Warszawa(PL) 68 Lefkosia(CY) 17 Torino(IT) 54 Amsterdam(NL) 82 Helsinki(FI) 93 Lille(FR) 76 Leipzig(DE) 82 Wien(AT) 91 Hamburg(DE) 87 Verona(IT) 46 Bologna(IT) 67 Lige(BE) 66 Mnchen(DE) 86 Oulu(FI) 65 Roma(IT) 35 Ankara(TR) 62 PiatraNeam(RO) 60 Braga(PT) 49 Dortmund(DE) 79 Irakleio(EL) 49 Essen(DE) 66 Antalya(TR) 53 Manchester(UK) 65 Napoli(IT) 28 Vilnius(LT) 50 Athinia(EL) 60 Palermo(IT) 12 Berlin(DE) 68 Miskolc(HU) 55
0 20 40 60 80

Diff:
28 19 19 17 17 16 15 14 14 13 12 12 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 5 5 7 8 9 9 10 12 13 18

100

Q1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied or not at all satisfied with each of the following issues: Base: all respondents, % of Very and rather satisfied by city

page 85

For further information, please refer to: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.htm http://www.urbanaudit.org http://www.urbact.eu/en/home/index

The texts of this publication do not bind the Commission.

You might also like