Addis Ethiopia Weblog

Ethiopia's World

  • October 2017
    M T W T F S S
    « Sep    
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  
  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

Posts Tagged ‘Cities’

World Cities With The Best Quality Of Life In The World 2017

Posted by addisethiopia on March 20, 2017

Every year Mercer, one of the world’s largest HR consultancy firms, releases its Quality of Living Index, which looks at which cities provide the best quality of life.

The ranking is one of the most comprehensive of its kind and is carried out annually to help multinational companies and other employers to compensate employees fairly when placing them on international assignments, according to Mercer.

London and New York do not make it anywhere near the top of the list.

Looking at 450 cities across the world, Mercer takes into account the following metrics to judge which cities made the list for the best quality of life:

  • Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement)
  • Economic environment (currency-exchange regulations, banking services)
  • Socio-cultural environment (media availability and censorship, limitations on personal freedom)
  • Medical and health considerations (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution)
  • Schools and education (standards and availability of international schools)
  • Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transportation, traffic congestion)
  • Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure)
  • Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars)
  • Housing (rental housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services)
  • Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters)

Mercer made a list of 230 countries

Vienna tops Mercer’s 19th quality of living ranking

Infrastructure is pivotal in determining quality of living for expats and cities

Vienna ranks highest for quality of living for the 8th year in a row

Singapore ranks first for city infrastructure. UK’s highest ranked city, London, ranks 40th for quality of living, 6th for infrastructure

Despite increased political and financial volatility in Europe, many of its cities offer the world’s highest quality of living and remain attractive destinations for expanding business operations and sending expatriates on assignment, according to Mercer’s 19th annual Quality of Living survey. City infrastructure, ranked separately this year, plays an important role when multinationals decide where to establish locations abroad and send expatriate workers. Easy access to transportation, reliable electricity, and drinkable water are all important considerations when determining hardship allowances based on differences between a given assignee’s home and host locations.

Economic instability, social unrest, and growing political upheaval all add to the complex challenge multinational companies face when analysing quality of living for their expatriate workforce,” said Ilya Bonic, senior partner and president of Mercer’s Career business. “For multinationals and governments it is vital to have quality of living information that is accurate, detailed, and reliable. It not only enables these employers to compensate employees appropriately, but it also provides a planning benchmark and insights into the often-sensitive operational environment that surrounds their workforce.

In uncertain times, organisations that plan to establish themselves and send staff to a new location should ensure they get a complete picture of the city, including its viability as a business location and its attractiveness to key talent,” Mr Bonic added.

Vienna occupies first place for overall quality of living for the 8th year running, with the rest of the top-ten list mostly filled by European cities: Zurich is in second place, with Munich (4), Dusseldorf (6), Frankfurt (7), Geneva (8), Copenhagen (9), and Basel, a newcomer to the list, in 10th place. The only non-European cities in the top ten are Auckland (3) and Vancouver (5). The highest ranking cities in Asia and Latin America are Singapore (25) and Montevideo (79), respectively.

Mercer’s survey also includes a city infrastructure ranking that assesses each city’s supply of electricity, drinking water, telephone and mail services, and public transportation as well as traffic congestion and the range of international flights available from local airports. Singapore tops the city infrastructure ranking, followed by Frankfurt and Munich both in 2nd place. Baghdad (230) and Port au Prince (231) rank last for city infrastructure.

Mercer’s authoritative survey is one of the world’s most comprehensive and is conducted annually to enable multinational companies and other organisations to compensate employees fairly when placing them on international assignments. In addition to valuable data, Mercer’s Quality of Living surveys provide hardship premium recommendations for over 450 cities throughout the world; this year’s ranking includes 231 of these cities.

The success of foreign assignments is influenced by issues such as ease of travel and communication, sanitation standards, personal safety, and access to public services,” said Slagin Parakatil, Principal at Mercer and responsible for its quality of living research. “Multinational companies need accurate and timely information to help calculate fair and consistent expatriate compensation – a real challenge in locations with a compromised quality of living.”

Mr Parakatil added, “A city’s infrastructure, or rather the lack thereof, can considerably affect the quality of living that expatriates and their families experience on a daily basis. Access to a variety of transport options, being connected locally and internationally, and access to electricity and drinkable water are among the essential needs of expatriates arriving in a new location on assignment. A well-developed infrastructure can also be a key competitive advantage for cities and municipalities trying to attract multinational companies, talent, and foreign investments.” 

Europe

Even with political and economic turbulence, Western European cities continue to enjoy some of the highest quality of living worldwide. Still in the top spot, Vienna is followed by Zurich (2), Munich (4), Dusseldorf (6), Frankfurt (7), Geneva (8), Copenhagen (9), and a newcomer to the list, Basel (10). In 69th place, Prague is the highest ranking city in Central and Eastern Europe, followed by Ljubljana (76) and Budapest (78). Most European cities remained stable in the ranking, with the exception of Brussels (27), dropping six places because of terrorism-related security issues, and Rome (57), down four places due to its waste-removal issues. Finally, Istanbul fell from 122nd to 133rd place as a result of the severe political turmoil in Turkey during the past year. The lowest ranking cities in Europe are St. Petersburg and Tirana (both ranked 176), along with Minsk (189).

Western European cities also hold most of the top ten places in the city infrastructure ranking with Frankfurt and Munich jointly ranking 2nd worldwide, followed by Copenhagen (4) and Dusseldorf (5). London is in 6th place, and Hamburg and Zurich both rank 9th. Ranking lowest across Europe are Sarajevo (171) and Tirana (188).

Cities that rank high in the city infrastructure list provide a combination of top-notch local and international airport facilities, varied and extended coverage through their local transportation networks, and innovative solutions such as smart technology and alternative energy,” said Mr Parakatil. “Most cities now align variety, reliability, technology, and sustainability when designing infrastructure for the future.”

Americas

In North America, Canadian cities take the top positions in the ranking. Vancouver (5) is again the region’s highest ranking city for quality of living. Toronto and Ottawa follow in 16th and 18th place respectively, whereas San Francisco (29) is the highest ranking US city, followed by Boston (35), Honolulu (36), New York (44), and Seattle (45). High crime rates in Los Angeles (58) and Chicago (47) resulted in these cities dropping nine and four places respectively. Monterrey (110) is the highest ranking city in Mexico, while the country’s capital, Mexico City, stands in 128th position. In South America, Montevideo (79) ranks highest for quality of living, followed by Buenos Aires (93) and Santiago (95). La Paz (157) and Caracas (189) are the lowest ranking cities in the region.

For city infrastructure, Vancouver (in 9th place) also ranks highest in the region. It is followed by Atlanta and Montreal, tied in 14th place. Overall, the infrastructure of cities in Canada and the United States is of a high standard, including the airport and bus connectivity, the availability of clean drinking water, and the reliability of electricity supplies. Traffic congestion is a concern in cities throughout the whole region. Tegucigalpa (208) and Port-au-Prince (231) have the lowest scores for city infrastructure in North America. In 84th place, Santiago is the highest ranking South American city for infrastructure; La Paz (168) is the lowest.

Asia-Pacific

Singapore (25) remains the highest ranking city in the Asia-Pacific region, where there is great disparity in quality of living; Dushanbe (215) in Tajikistan ranks lowest. In Southeast Asia, Kuala Lumpur (86) follows Singapore; other key cities include Bangkok (131), Manila (135), and Jakarta (143). Five Japanese cities top the ranking for East Asia: Tokyo (47), Kobe (50), Yokohama (51), Osaka (60), and Nagoya (63). Other notable cities in Asia include Hong Kong (71), Seoul (76), Taipei (85), Shanghai (102), and Beijing (119). There is also considerable regional variation in the city infrastructure ranking. The highest-ranked city is Singapore (1), whereas Dhaka (214) is near the bottom of the list.

New Zealand and Australia continue to rank highly in quality of living: Auckland (3), Sydney (10), Wellington (15), and Melbourne (16) all remain in the top 20. However, when ranked for infrastructure, only Sydney (8) makes the top ten, with Perth (32), Melbourne (34), and Brisbane (37) also ranking well for infrastructure in Oceania. By and large, cities in Oceania enjoy good quality of living, though criteria such as airport connectivity and traffic congestion are among the factors that see them ranked lower in terms of city infrastructure.

Middle East and Africa

Dubai (74) continues to rank highest for quality of living across Africa and the Middle East, rising one position in this year’s ranking, followed closely by Abu Dhabi (79), which climbed three spots. Sana’a (229) in Yemen, Bangui (230) in the Central African Republic, and Baghdad (231) in Iraq are the region’s three lowest-ranked cities for quality of living.

Dubai also ranks highest for infrastructure in 51st place. Only five other cities in this region make the top 100, including Tel Aviv (56), Abu Dhabi (67), Port Louis (94), Muscat (97), and upcoming host of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, Doha in Qatar, which ranks 96th for infrastructure. Cities in African and Middle Eastern countries dominate the bottom half of the table for infrastructure, with Brazzaville (228) in the Republic of the Congo, Sana’a (229), and Baghdad (230) ranking the lowest.

Notes to Editors

Mercer produces worldwide quality-of-living rankings annually from its Worldwide Quality of Living Surveys. Individual reports are produced for each city surveyed. Moreover, comparative quality-of-living indexes between a base city and host city are available, as are multiple-city comparisons. Details are available from Mercer Client Services in Warsaw, at +48 22 434 5383 or at http://www.mercer.com/qualityofliving.

The data was largely analysed between September and November 2016, and it will be updated regularly to account for changing circumstances. In particular, the assessments will be revised to reflect significant political, economic, and environmental developments.The list of rankings is provided to media for reference, and should not be published in full. The top 10 and bottom 10 cities in either list may be reproduced in a table.

The information and data obtained through the Quality of Living reports are for information purposes only and are intended for use by multinational organisations, government agencies, and municipalities. They are not designed or intended for use as the basis for foreign investment or tourism. In no event will Mercer be liable for any decision made or action taken in reliance of the results obtained through the use of, or the information or data contained in, the reports. While the reports have been prepared based upon sources, information, and systems believed to be reliable and accurate, they are provided on an “as-is” basis, and Mercer accepts no responsibility/liability for the validity/accuracy (or otherwise) of the resources/data used to compile the reports. Mercer and its affiliates make no representations or warranties with respect to the reports, and disclaim all express, implied and statutory warranties of any kind, including, representations and implied warranties of quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose.

Expatriates in Difficult Locations: Determining Appropriate Allowances and Incentives

Companies need to determine expatriate compensation packages rationally, consistently, and systematically using reliable data. Providing incentives to reward and recognise the effort that employees and their families make when taking on international assignments remains a typical practice, particularly for difficult locations.

Two common incentives include a quality-of-living allowance and a mobility premium:

§ A quality-of-living or “hardship” allowance compensates for a decrease in the quality of living between home and host locations.

§ A mobility premium simply compensates for the inconvenience of being uprooted and having to work in another country.

A quality-of-living allowance is typically location-related, while a mobility premium is usually independent of the host location. Some multinational companies combine these premiums, but the vast majority provides them separately.

Quality of Living: City Benchmarking

Mercer also helps municipalities to assess factors that can improve their quality of living rankings. In a global environment, employers have many choices about where to deploy their mobile employees and set up new business. A city’s quality of living can be an important variable for employers to consider.

Leaders in many cities want to understand the specific factors that affect their residents’ quality of living and address those issues that lower a city’s overall quality-of-living ranking. Mercer advises municipalities by using a holistic approach that addresses the goals of progressing towards excellence and attracting both multinational companies and globally mobile talent by improving the elements that are measured in its Quality of Living survey.

Mercer Hardship Allowance Recommendations

Mercer evaluates local living conditions in more than 450 cities surveyed worldwide. Living conditions are analysed according to 39 factors, grouped in 10 categories:

1. Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc.).

2. Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services).

3. Socio-cultural environment (media availability and censorship, limitations on personal freedom).

4. Medical and health considerations (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc.).

5. Schools and education (standards and availability of international schools).

6. Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transportation, traffic congestion, etc.).

7. Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc.).

8. Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc.).

9. Housing (rental housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services).

10. Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters).

The scores attributed to each factor, which are weighted to reflect their importance to expatriates, permit objective city-to-city comparisons. The result is a quality of living index that compares relative differences between any two locations evaluated. For the indices to be used effectively, Mercer has created a grid that enables users to link the resulting index to a quality of living allowance amount by recommending a percentage value in relation to the index.

My Note: I’m certain Addis Abeba would land in the top 10, if they took into account the metrics of Spiritual Life, Air Quality (Altitude + Sun, Light), Food Quality (Organic vs. Chemicals). Two days ago, I learned that a remote tribe living deep in the Amazon (Bolivia) is found to have the healthiest arteries ever studied. Does this tell us about quality of life? Do “rich” Northern Nations have enough money to paint their skies this BLUE?

__

Posted in Curiosity, Ethiopia, Life | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Which City Across The Globe is The Best to Live In?

Posted by addisethiopia on February 24, 2016

Worldwide Quality of Living Survey

— Personal safety key factor in determining expat quality of living

— Vienna ranks highest in overall quality of living

— Luxembourg ranks highest for personal safety; Baghdad lowest

— London ranks 39th in overall quality of living in UK; 72nd in personal safety

For its 2016 Quality of Living Survey, global consulting firm Mercer analyzed local living conditions in 460 cities based on 40 factors including political stability, Personal safety, crime, access to medical supplies and services, air pollution, schools and recreation.

The annual list is used to help multinational companies decide fair compensation for employees assigned abroad.

Vienna is the world’s best city to live in; Baghdad is the worst, and London, Paris and New York do not even make it into the top 35, according to international research into quality of life.

German-speaking cities dominate the rankings in the 18th Mercer Quality of Life study, with Vienna joined by Zurich, Munich, Düsseldorf and Frankfurt in the top seven.

The European migrant crisis, which has seen large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers pass through Vienna en route to Germany, has had little impact on the city of nearly 1.8 million people. (we shall see that in the coming few years)

Auckland in New Zealand was the highest ranking English-speaking city in the survey, in third place, followed by Vancouver in fifth. Australian cities also perform very highly in the survey, with Sydney 10th and Melbourne 15th. The Economist has consistently ranked Melbourne as the world’s most liveable city, although its survey has been criticised as too Anglocentric.

War and political unrest are behind all the worst-ranked cities in the world. Surprisingly, Damascus is named as only the seventh worst, ranked better than not just Baghdad but also Bangui in Central African Republic, Sana’a in Yemen, Port-au-Prince in Haiti, Khartoum in Sudan, and N’Djamena in Chad.

Best Places to Live in The World

Rank

City

Country

1

Vienna

Austria

2

Zurich

Switzerland

3

Auckland

New Zealand

4

Munich

Germany

5

Vancouver

Canada

6

Dusseldorf

Germany

7

Frankfurt

Germany

8

Geneva

Switzerland

9

Copenhagen

Denmark

10

Sydney

Australia

11

Amsterdam

Netherlands

12

Wellington

New Zealand

13

Berlin

Germany

14

Bern

Switzerland

15

Toronto

Canada

15

Melbourne

Australia

17

Ottawa

Canada

18

Hamburg

Germany

19

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

19

Stockholm

Sweden

21

Brussels

Belgium

21

Perth

Australia

23

Montreal

Canada

24

Stuttgart

Germany

24

Nurnberg

Germany

26

Singapore

Singapore

27

Adelaide

Australia

28

San Francisco

US

28

Canberra

Australia

30

Helsinki

Finland

30

Oslo

Norway

32

Calgary

Canada

33

Dublin

Ireland

34

Boston

US

35

Honolulu

US

36

Brisbane

Australia

37

Paris

France

38

Lyon

France

39

Barcelona

Spain

39

London

UK

41

Milan

Italy

42

Lisbon

Portugal

43

Chicago

US

44

New York

US

44

Tokyo

Japan

46

Seattle

US

46

Kobe

Japan

46

Edinburgh

UK

49

Los Angeles

US

49

Yokohama

Japan

51

Washington DC

US

52

Madrid

Spain

53

Birmingham

UK

53

Rome

Italy

55

Glasgow

UK

56

Pittsburgh

US

57

Philadelphia

US

58

Osaka

Japan

59

Aberdeen

UK

60

Leipzig

Germany

61

Minneapolis

US

62

Nagoya

Japan

63

Dallas

US

64

Belfast

UK

65

Houston

US

66

Miami

US

67

Atlanta

US

68

St. Louis

US

69

Prague

Czech Republic

70

Detroit

US

70

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

72

Pointe-a-Pitre

Guadeloupe

73

Seoul

South Korea

74

San Juan

Puerto Rico

75

Dubai

United A. Emirates

76

Ljubljana

Slovenia

77

Budapest

Hungary

78

Montevideo

Uruguay

79

Vilnius

Lithuania

79

Warsaw

Poland

81

Abu Dhabi

United A. Emirates

82

Bratislava

Slovakia

83

Port Louis

Mauritius

84

Taipei

Taiwan

85

Durban

South Africa

86

Kuala Lumpur

Malaysia

87

Athens

Greece

88

Limassol

Cyprus

89

Tallinn

Estonia

90

Riga

Latvia

91

Busan

South Korea

92

Cape Town

South Africa

93

Buenos Aires

Argentina

94

Santiago

Chile

95

Johannesburg

South Africa

96

Panama City

Panama

97

Victoria

Seychelles

98

Zagreb

Croatia

99

Wroclaw

Poland

100

Taichung

Taiwan

101

Shanghai

China

102

Bandar Seri Beg,

Brunei

103

Johor Bahru

Malaysia

104

Tel Aviv

Israel

105

San Jose

Costa Rica

106

Brasilia

Brazil

107

Muscat

Oman

108

Monterrey

Mexico

109

Bucharest

Romania

110

Doha

Qatar

111

Noumea

New Caledonia

112

Nassau

Bahamas

113

Tunis

Tunisia

114

Asuncion

Paraguay

115

Sofia

Bulgaria

116

Rabat

Morocco

117

Rio De Janeiro

Brazil

118

Beijing

China

119

Guangzhou

China

120

Amman

Jordan

121

Sao Paulo

Brazil

122

Istanbul

Turkey

123

Lima

Peru

124

Kuwait City

Kuwait

125

Manaus

Brazil

126

Casablanca

Morocco

127

Mexico City

Mexico

128

Quito

Ecuador

129

Bangkok

Thailand

130

Bogota

Colombia

131

Windhoek

Namibia

132

Colombo

Sri Lanka

133

Manama

Bahrain

134

Chengdu

China

135

Santo Domingo

Dominican Rep

136

Manila

Philippines

137

Nanjing

China

137

Shenzhen

China

139

Hyderabad

India

139

Xian

China

141

Belgrade

Serbia

142

Jakarta

Indonesia

142

Gaborone

Botswana

144

Pune

India

145

Bengaluru

India

146

Chongqing

China

147

Port of Spain

Trinidad & Tobago

147

Qingdao

China

149

Lusaka

Zambia

150

Chennai

India

151

Kingston

Jamaica

152

Guatemala City

Guatemala

152

Mumbai

India

152

Ho Chi Minh C.

Vietnam

155

Hanoi

Vietnam

156

La Paz

Bolivia

157

Shenyang

China

158

Sarajevo

Bosnia-Herzegovina

159

Skopje

Macedonia

160

Kolkata

India

161

New Delhi

India

162

Dakar

Senegal

163

Libreville

Gabon

164

Riyadh

Saudi Arabia

165

Jeddah

Saudi Arabia

166

Accra

Ghana

167

Moscow

Russia

168

Jilin

China

169

Kampala

Uganda

170

Vientiane

Laos

171

Cairo

Egypt

172

Managua

Nicaragua

173

San Salvador

El Salvador

174

St. Petersburg

Russia

175

Blantyre

Malawi

176

Almaty

Kazakhstan

176

Kiev

Ukraine

178

Maputo

Mozambique

179

Tirana

Albania

180

Beirut

Lebanon

181

Cotonou

Benin

182

Yerevan

Armenia

183

Banjul

Gambia

184

Nairobi

Kenya

185

Caracas

Venezuela

186

Tegucigalpa

Honduras

187

Algiers

Algeria

188

Tbilisi

Georgia

189

Djibouti

Djibouti

190

Minsk

Belarus

191

Kigali

Rwanda

191

Havana

Cuba

193

Islamabad

Pakistan

194

Yaounde

Cameroon

195

Phnom Penh

Cambodia

196

Douala

Cameroon

197

Baku

Azerbaijan

198

Dar Es Salaam

Tanzania

199

Lahore

Pakistan

199

Luanda

Angola

201

Yangon

Myanmar

202

Karachi

Pakistan

203

Tehran

Iran

204

Lome

Togo

205

Tashkent

Uzbekistan

206

Abidjan

Ivory Coast

207

Addis Ababa

Ethiopia

208

Ashgabat

Turkmenistan

209

Harare

Zimbabwe

210

Bishkek

Kyrgyzstan

211

Lagos

Nigeria

212

Abuja

Nigeria

212

Dushanbe

Tajikistan

214

Dhaka

Bangladesh

215

Ouagadougou

Burkina Faso

216

Tripoli

Libya

217

Niamey

Niger

218

Antananarivo

Madagascar

219

Bamako

Mali

220

Nouakchott

Mauritania

221

Conakry

Guinea Republic

222

Kinshasa

DR Congo

223

Brazzaville

Congo

224

Damascus

Syria

225

N’Djamena

Chad

226

Khartoum

Sudan

227

Port-au-Prince

Haiti

228

Sana’a

Yemen

229

Bangui

Central A. Republic

230

Baghdad

Iraq

 

Source

Interactive Maps

__

Posted in Curiosity, Infos | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Addis Ababa: Shanghai of Africa?

Posted by addisethiopia on March 31, 2013

Addis Ababa, at 8,000 plus feet above sea level, is the third highest capital in the world, but because it sits in a bowl, at times of thermal inversion it will be a city increasingly hard to see from the hills, just as Mexico City and Los Angeles are on some days now. The pollution of progress will wash over the city, and what one will see will be the peaks of buildings that have yet to be built. Addis Ababa will be a very different city than even the hub of activity and perceived chaos it is today, a mix of old and new, just as Shanghai was thirty years ago.

There are several similarities to China of 1987 in the Ethiopia of 2013, though it seems difficult for Americans to comprehend. The standard of living for the people is rising and there is slowly, cautiously, a creeping openness in public discussions. By American standards, political control is too heavy-handed, but one must realize what the country’s recent past has meant. China had the Cultural Revolution and its aftermath into the early 80s, and Ethiopia had its own horrific oppression in the 70s and 80s. Both countries took a giant leap backwards before beginning to come out of the abyss.

It is difficult to have perspective if you haven’t ever been through these type of experiences. We can look at how our own Civil War affected our nation and see some of those wounds still affecting us more than 150 years later.

In ten years, Ethiopia may be the most changed nation on the continent. Its investment in building a national power grid is greater than any other nation in Africa. This alone presents major opportunities for American power companies large and small. China, and to a lesser extent Japan, are building its road and rail infrastructure. The Ethiopian Government is investing $5 billion in the light railroad project between Djibouti and Addis Ababa, as Djibouti serves as the major port for landlocked Ethiopia. Of its total annual budget, Ethiopia is allotting ten percent to infrastructure development, the highest such percentage in Africa. A $1.2 billion dollar power line to Kenya is also in planning.

Ethiopia is challenged by a population of 90 million people, and as a country with one of the highest population growth rates in the world, there will be a younger and growing population, a potential reservoir of discontent without jobs. This was not so different from Shanghai and the surrounding area in the 1980s.

Telecom and IT investors such as Samsung are also entering Ethiopia, and as noted in a previous blog, dialogue and debate will slowly open up in the country, just as it did in Shanghai and throughout China in the 1990s. Ethiopia, just as China, will see that they have no choice but to ease communication restrictions if they want even more investors and a supportive nation.

Not all changes will be improvements, of course. Pollution will likely increase significantly, and global warming may be accelerated because of all that we call progress. We can only hope that greater investment in clean energy and a careful examination of our transportation schemes worldwide will also be considered carefully. The great cities of the future, of which Addis Ababa could easily become one, depend on forward thinking. These are also great opportunities for investors and entrepreneurs.

Source

__

Posted in Curiosity, Ethiopia | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Quality of Living worldwide city rankings 2010

Posted by addisethiopia on May 27, 2010

Above: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Mercer survey

Vienna retains the top spot as the city with the world’s best quality of living, according to the Mercer 2010 Quality of Living Survey. Zurich and Geneva follow in second and third position, respectively, while Vancouver and Auckland remain joint fourth in the rankings.

Mercer conducts the ranking to help governments and multi-national companies compensate employees fairly when placing them on international assignments. The rankings are based on a point-scoring index, which sees Vienna score 108.6 and Baghdad 14.7. Cities are ranked against New York as the base city, with an index score of 100.

Mercer’s Quality of Living index list was revised and now covers 221 cities compared to 215 last year, which means direct trend comparison will not be possible until 2011. The new selection includes prominent capital and other major cities from across the world currently available in Mercer’s database and better reflects where companies are sending their expatriate employees in the current business environment.

European cities continue to dominate amongst the top 25 cities in the index. In the UK, London ranks at 39, while Birmingham is at 55 and Glasgow at 57. In the US, the highest ranking entry is Honolulu at position 31, followed by San Francisco at position 32. Singapore (28) is the top-scoring Asian city followed by Tokyo at 40. Baghdad, ranking 221, remains at the bottom of the list.

This year’s ranking also identifies the cities with the best eco-ranking based on water availability and drinkability, waste removal, quality of sewage systems, air pollution and traffic congestion. Calgary is at the top of this index (score 145.7), followed by Honolulu in second place (score 145.1) and Ottawa and Helsinki in joint third (score 139.9). Wellington in New Zealand (5), Minneapolis (6), Adelaide (7) and Copenhagen fill the next four slots, while Kobe, Oslo and Stockholm share ninth place. Port-au-Prince in Haiti ranks at the bottom of this table with a score of only 27.8

Canadian cities still dominate the top of the index for the Americas region with Vancouver (4) retaining the top spot, followed by Ottawa (14), Toronto (16) and Montreal (21). Calgary ranks 28 on the overall quality of living ranking.

Honolulu (31) is the city in the US with the highest quality of living, followed by San Francisco (32) and Boston (37). Chicago and Washington share position 45 and New York – the base city – is in position 49. Newly added cities Philadelphia and Dallas are ranked 55 and 61, respectively.

In Central and South America, Point-à-Pitre, the largest city and economic area of Guadeloupe and new to the index this year, ranks the highest for quality of living at 62. San Juan in Puerto Rico follows at 72 and Buenos Aires at 78. Havana (192) and Port-au-Prince (213) are the lowest-ranking cities in the region.

Europe has 16 cities amongst the world’s top 25 cities for quality of living. Vienna retains the highest ranking both for the region and globally and is again followed by Zurich (2), Geneva (3) and Düsseldorf (6). The lowest-ranking Western European cities are Leipzig (64) and Athens (75). In the UK, London is the highest-ranking city at 39, followed by newcomer to the list Aberdeen (53), Birmingham (55), Glasgow (57) and Belfast (63).

Dubai (75) in the United Arab Emirates and Port Louis in Mauritius (82) are the Middle East and Africa region’s cities with the best quality of living. Abu Dhabi (83), Cape Town (86) and Tunis (94) follow and are, along with Victoria in the Seychelles (95), Johannesburg (96) and Muscat in Oman (100), the region’s only other cities in the top 100. Following the revision of the index a selection of cities from this region has been added, including Doha in Qatar (110), Rabat in Morocco (112), Banjul in Gambia (164) and Abuja in Nigeria (205).

Baghdad (221) remains at the bottom of the table, though its index score has increased slightly (from 14.4 to 14.7 in 2010). A lack of security and stability continue to have a negative impact on Baghdad’s quality of living and its score remains far behind that of Bangui (27.4) in the Central African Republic which is second to last.

Auckland (4) retains its position as the highest-ranking city for quality of living in the Asia Pacific region. Sydney follows at 10, Wellington at 12, Melbourne at 18 and Perth at 21. At 26, Canberra is new to the index. Singapore remains the highest-ranking Asian city at 28, followed by Japanese cities Tokyo (40), Kobe and Yokohama (both at 41), Osaka (51) and Nagoya (57). The region’s lowest-ranking cities are Dhaka in Bangladesh (206) and two cities new to the list – Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan (209) and Dushanbe in Tajikistan (210).

City Rankings

Top 50 cities: Quality of living ranking

Base City: New York, US (=100)

Rank 2010 City Country Qol index 2010
1 VIENNA AUSTRIA 108.6
2 ZURICH SWITZERLAND 108
3 GENEVA SWITZERLAND 107.9
4 VANCOUVER CANADA 107.4
4 AUCKLAND NEW ZEALAND 107.4
6 DUSSELDORF GERMANY 107.2
7 FRANKFURT GERMANY 107
7 MUNICH GERMANY 107
9 BERN SWITZERLAND 106.5
10 SYDNEY AUSTRALIA 106.3
11 COPENHAGEN DENMARK 106.2
12 WELLINGTON NEW ZEALAND 105.9
13 AMSTERDAM NETHERLANDS 105.7
14 OTTAWA CANADA 105.5
15 BRUSSELS BELGIUM 105.4
16 TORONTO CANADA 105.3
17 BERLIN GERMANY 105
18 MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA 104.8
19 LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG 104.6
20 STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 104.5
21 PERTH AUSTRALIA 104.2
21 MONTREAL CANADA 104.2
23 HAMBURG GERMANY 104.1
24 NURNBURG GERMANY 103.9
24 OSLO NORWAY 103.9
26 CANBERRA AUSTRALIA 103.6
26 DUBLIN IRELAND 103.6
28 CALGARY CANADA 103.5
28 SINGAPORE SINGAPORE 103.5
30 STUTTGART GERMANY 103.3
31 HONOLULU UNITED STATES 103.1
32 ADELAIDE AUSTRALIA 103
32 SAN FRANCISCO UNITED STATES 103
34 PARIS FRANCE 102.9
35 HELSINKI FINLAND 102.6
36 BRISBANE AUSTRALIA 102.4
37 BOSTON UNITED STATES 102.2
38 LYON FRANCE 101.9
39 LONDON UNITED KINGDOM 101.6
40 TOKYO JAPAN 101.4
41 MILAN ITALY 100.8
41 KOBE JAPAN 100.8
41 YOKOHAMA JAPAN 100.8
44 BARCELONA SPAIN 100.6
45 LISBON PORTUGAL 100.3
45 CHICAGO UNITED STATES 100.3
45 WASHINGTON UNITED STATES 100.3
48 MADRID SPAIN 100.2
49 NEW YORK CITY UNITED STATES 100
50 SEATTLE UNITED STATES 99.8

_______________________________________________

Please go to my photo blog for the TOP TEN cities

_________________________________________


Posted in Ethiopia | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

C40 Large Cities – Climate

Posted by addisethiopia on June 14, 2009

C40 Climate Summit

C40_Cities

SEOUL Declaration 18-21 May 2009

Source: http://www.c40cities.org/

Having met at the third Summit of the C40 Climate Leadership Group (hereinafter “Group”) in Seoul,

Sharing the view that the earth and human beings are facing serious threats caused by climate change and that it is necessary to address these challenges by taking immediate and collective actions based on the principles of co-existence, mutual benefit, and common but differentiated responsibilities.

Recognising that at present over 50% of the world’s population lives in cities, which now account for 75% of global energy consumption and 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions and at this rate, by 2030, two thirds of the world’s population is predicted to live in urban areas,

Further recognising that densely populated cities and their citizens are facing fundamental lifestyle changes in the areas of housing, transportation, and other services, and, at the same time, are exposed to numerous threats, including extreme weather events, natural disasters and newly emerging diseases,

Reaffirming that cities must take responsibility for their contribution to climate change, and establish and implement immediate and practical measures for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to the threats caused by climate change at the individual city level,

Further reaffirming that it is important for C40 cities to cooperate with all cities around the world and share best practice and technologies, and that cities in developed countries need to assist the efforts of cities in developing countries in taking actions as they are more vulnerable to climate change and have lower capacity to cope with environmental hazards,

Proclaim that:

C40 cities hereby set a common goal of transforming themselves into low-carbon cities, by cutting greenhouse gas emissions to the largest extent possible, by adapting themselves to the unavoidable climate change consequences, by making cities less vulnerable to climate change, and by enhancing cities’ capacity for remediation.

C40 cities identify their current level of carbon emissions from all city operations and stages of community development including urban planning, design and infrastructure building. Cities reduce emissions wherever possible through policies, programmes and projects and taking steps to negate the impact of remaining emissions.

C40 cities continue to catalogue and monitor their greenhouse gas emissions and implement Climate Change Action Plans. C40 cities include measures or targets for greenhouse gas reductions and specific policies, projects and programmes with a schedule for implementation wherever possible. The majority of C40 cities have already completed Climate Change Action Plans. C40 cities that are reviewing existing plans or developing new Climate Change Action Plans are asked to consider the measures presented in the attached Annex: Policies and Measures to Address Climate Change. The 2011 C40 Summit will include a review of progress on the implementation of Climate Change Action Plans.

C40 cities actively work together to accelerate delivery of low-carbon technologies, programmes and financing, including through active coordination in procurement of specific technologies through the C40 Secretariat.

C40 cities work collaboratively with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and other international bodies, national governments, non-governmental organisations, and eco-friendly businesses, including sharing goals and experiences and, in some instances, engaging in joint projects, and providing resources. We are committed to delivering common awareness and measures outlined in the UNFCCC to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change

In the run up to the COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009, the leading role of cities in the global effort against climate change must be recognised. C40 cities and all cities with shared goals, must be engaged, empowered and resourced, so that cities can work together to deliver on greenhouse gas reduction targets and stop climate change.

Cities will notify the C40 Secretariat of the names of staff in charge of climate change policies and programmes to enhance implementation of various action items set forth in this Declaration, as well as report on their established measures, targets and achievements at the 4th C40 Summit and subsequent summits

The C40 Climate Leadership Group calls upon cities and their citizens to exert their efforts to address the threats caused by climate change for the benefit of all the people and future generations.

Annex Policies and Measures to Address Climate Change in Cities

To tackle climate change, cities shall adopt and implement policies and measures most suitable to their circumstances. It is important that C40 cities cooperate with all cities around the world and share best practices and technologies. The Clinton Climate Initiative has developed a Measurement Tool that each C40 city can use to calculate a baseline inventory of current emissions. The tool will also allow cities to track progress on their climate change goals.

In establishing their own Climate Change Action Plans, cities will give preferential consideration to the following measures proven to be effective in many cities.

  1. To take a systematic and secure approach, take institutional measures such as enacting city ordinances based on technical studies, engaging in long-term planning, and establishing Climate Change Funds.

  2. To avoid, mitigate, or delay the impact of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

      • adopt eco-friendly architectural design guidelines for construction, lighting, and insulation, etc., introduce a new and renewable energy certification, prescribed ratio of new and renewable energy for new and renovated buildings, and promote eco-friendly buildings and rationalise energy consumption by providing incentives for energy-efficient designs;

      • establish a sustainable transport system through policies that favour public transit and encourage the use of bicycles, promote sustainable land-use and urban design, including preserving natural landscape, continuous expansion of green areas and other eco-spaces and conduct urban planning with focus on low-energy consumption;

      • expand citywide resource reclamation and reuse facilities and promote recycling programmes, and

      • raise the share of new and renewable energy in the total energy mix.

  1. To adapt cities to the unavoidable climate change consequences, providing citizens with a secure environment and higher quality of life by conducting forecasting analysis and thus minimising the damages caused by climate change:
      • prepare for disasters by building infrastructure and establishing management plans that will protect citizens against extreme weather events;

      • ensure networks such as disaster information systems and weather observation facilities are in place ;

      • prepare measures to protect population groups most vulnerable to intense heat waves and improve the monitoring and control systems for communicable and other diseases;

      • strengthen ability to anticipate changes in the urban eco-system, improve monitoring of air and other types of pollution, and enhance early warning systems;

      • improve energy demand management, such as ability to forecast and respond to fluctuations in seasonal energy demands;

      • reflect climate change impacts, such as heat island effects, in the urban planning process; and

        improve water resource management.

  1. To promote the engagement of city residents to address climate change effectively:
      • provide tools for measuring individual carbon footprints and the amount of emission generated by normal, daily activities of citizens;

      • develop and promote practical ways for a low-carbon lifestyle,

      • support activities of civic organisations to tackle climate change.

      • Promote environmental educational policies to prepare next generations for climate change and to think on what citizens can do to develop a sustainable lifestyle and mitigate greenhouse gas emission

  • ________________________________________________________

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia – view on map

Leader: Mayor Kuma Demeksa
Population: 3,146,999
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.addisababacity.gov.et

Athens, Greece – view on map

Leader: Mayor Nikitas Kaklamanis
Population: 3,072,992
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.cityofathens.gr

Bangkok, Thailand – view on map

Leader: Governor Apirak Kosayodhin
Population: 8,160,552
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.bangkoktourist.com

Beijing, China – view on map

Leader: Mayor Guo Jinlong
Population: 15,380,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.ebeijing.gov.cn

Berlin, Germany – view on map

Leader: Governing Mayor Klaus Wowereit
Population: 3,387,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.berlin.de/english

Bogotá, Colombia – view on map

Leader: Alcalde Mayor de Bogotá Samuel Mareno
Population: 8,550,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.bogotaturismo.gov.co

Buenos Aires, Argentina – view on map

Leader: Mayor Mauricio Macri
Population: 3,034,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.buenosaires.gov.ar

Cairo, Egypt – view on map

Leader: Governor Abdel Azim Wazir
Population: 6,800,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.cairo.gov.eg

Caracas, Venezuela – view on map

Leader: Mayor Antonio Ledezma
Population: 3,140,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.alcaldiamayor.gob.ve

Chicago, USA – view on map

Leader: Mayor Richard M. Daley
Population: 2,833,000
Chicago Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/home.do

Delhi NCT, India – view on map

Leader: Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit
Population: 17,000,000
City status: Participating city
Website: delhigovt.nic.in

Dhaka, Bangladesh – view on map

Leader: Mayor Sadeque Hossain Khoka
Population: 6,700,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.dhakacity.org

Hanoi, Vietnam – view on map

Leader: Chairman of the Hanoi Municipal People’s Committee Nguyen The Thao
Population: 3,399,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.hanoi.gov.vn/hanoien

Houston, USA – view on map

Leader: Mayor Bill White
Population: 2,200,000
Houston Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.houstontx.gov

Hong Kong, China – view on map

Leader: Chief Executive Donald Tsang
Population: 6,985,000
Hong Kong Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.gov.hk

Istanbul, Turkey – view on map

Leader: Mayor Kadir Topbas
Population: 11,373,000
City status: Participating city
Website: english.istanbul.gov.tr

Jakarta, Indonesia – view on map

Leader: Governor Fauzi Bowo
Population: 8,389,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.jakarta.go.id/v21/home/default.asp?lg=2

Johannesburg, South Africa – view on map

Leader: Mayor Amos Masondo
Population: 3,888,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.joburg.org.za

Karachi, Pakistan – view on map

Leader: Nazim Syed Mustafa Kamal
Population: 16,500,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.karachicity.gov.pk

Lagos, Nigeria – view on map

Leader: Governor of Lagos State Babatunde Raji Fashola
Population: 7,938,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.lagosstate.gov.ng

Lima, Peru – view on map

Leader: Mayor of Metropolitan Lima Luís Castañeda Lossio

Population: 7,800,000

City status: Participating cityWebsite: http://www.munlima.gob.pe

London, United Kingdom – view on map

Leader: Mayor Boris Johnson
Population: 7,500,000
London Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.london.gov.uk

Los Angeles, USA – view on map

Leader: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
Population: 3,800,000
Los Angeles Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.ci.la.ca.us

Madrid, Spain – view on map

Leader: Mayor Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón
Population: 3,200,000
Madrid Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.munimadrid.es

Melbourne, Australia – view on map

Leader: Lord Mayor Robert Doyle
Population: 3,800,000
Melbourne Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au

Mexico City, Mexico – view on map

Leader: Mayor Marcelo Ebrard Casaubon
Population: 8,700,000
Mexico City Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.df.gob.mx/

Moscow, Russia – view on map

Leader: Mayor Yuri Mikhailovich Luzhkov
Population: 10,300,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.mos.ru/

Mumbai, India – view on map

Leader: Mayor Shubha Raul
Population: 13,000,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.mcgm.gov.in/

New York, USA – view on map

Leader: Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Population: 8,200,000
New York Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.nyc.gov

Paris, France – view on map

Leader: Mayor Bertrand Delanoë
Population: 2,200,000
Paris Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.paris.fr

Philadelphia, USA – view on map

Leader: Mayor Michael Nutter
Population: 5,800,000
Philadelphia Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.phila.gov

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – view on map

Leader: Prefeito Eduardo Paes
Population: 6,100,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.rio.rj.gov.br

Rome, Italy – view on map

Leader: Mayor Gianni Alemanno
Population: 4,000,000
Rome Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.comune.roma.it

Sao Paulo, Brazil – view on map

Leader: Mayor Gilberto Kassab
Population: 10,000,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.capital.sp.gov.br

Seoul, South Korea – view on map

Leader: Mayor Oh Se-hoon
Population: 10,300,000
City status: Participating city
Website: english.seoul.go.kr

Shanghai, China – view on map

Leader: Mayor Han Zheng
Population: 18,450,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.shanghai.gov.cn/shanghai/node8059/index.html

Sydney, Australia – view on map

Leader: Lord Mayor Clover More
Population: 4,280,000
Sydney Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au

Tokyo, Japan – view on map

Leader: Governor Shintaro Ishihara
Population: 12,800,000
Tokyo Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/

Toronto, Canada – view on map

Leader: Mayor David Miller
Population: 5,500,000
Toronto Climate Change Action Plan
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.toronto.ca

Warsaw, Poland – view on map

Leader: Mayor Hanna Gronkiewicz Waltz
Population: 3,350,000
City status: Participating city
Website: http://www.e-warsaw.pl

Posted in Ethiopia | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: