1.
Analytical Report Flash EB No 251 – Public attitudes and perceptions in the euro areapage 1fFlashEurobarometer277–TheGallupOrganisationThis survey was requested by the Directorate General for Regional Policy andcoordinated by Directorate General Communication.This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission.The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.Flash EurobarometerPerception surveyon quality of lifein European citiesAnalytical reportFieldwork: November 2009EuropeanCommission

2.
Flash EB Series #277Perception surveyon quality of lifein European citiesConducted byThe Gallup Organisation, Hungaryupon the request of Directorate General forRegional PolicySurvey co-ordinated byDirectorate General CommunicationThis document does not represent the point ofview of the European Commission.The interpretations and opinions contained in itare solely those of the authors.THE GALLUP ORGANISATION

3.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 3ContentsIntroduction........................................................................................................................................... 4Main findings......................................................................................................................................... 61. Perceptions about social reality........................................................................................................ 81.1 Health care, employment opportunities and housing costs ........................................................... 81.2 Poverty and financial difficulties ................................................................................................ 161.3 The presence of foreigners.......................................................................................................... 201.4 Feelings of safety and trust.......................................................................................................... 241.5 Cities’ most important problems................................................................................................. 302. Pollution and climate change.......................................................................................................... 332.1 Clean and healthy cities............................................................................................................... 332.2 Cities committed to fight climate change.................................................................................... 413. Administrative services and city spending.................................................................................... 434. Satisfaction with cities’ infrastructure .......................................................................................... 475. Satisfaction with public transport.................................................................................................. 625.1 Frequency of using public transport............................................................................................ 625.2 Means of commuting and commuting time................................................................................. 645.3 Satisfaction with public transport................................................................................................ 70I. Annex tables ..................................................................................................................................... 91II. Survey details................................................................................................................................ 150III. Questionnaire.............................................................................................................................. 153

4.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 4IntroductionThis “Perception survey on quality of life in European cities” was conducted in November 2009 tomeasure local perceptions in 75 cities in the EU, Croatia and Turkey. The European Commission (DGRegional Policy) has been using such surveys for several years to get a snapshot of people’s opinionson a range of urban issues. Earlier surveys were conducted in 2004 and 20061. These perceptionsurveys allow for comparisons between perceptions and “real” data from various statistical sources onissues such as urban security, unemployment and air quality (e.g. the Urban Audit2).This perception survey included all capital cities of the countries concerned, together with between one andsix more cities in the larger countries. This resulted in the following 75 cities being selected:Country City Country CityBelgië/Belgique Antwerpen Lietuva VilniusBrussel/Bruxelles Luxembourg (G.D.) LuxembourgLiège Magyarország BudapestBulgaria Burgas MiskolcSofia Malta VallettaČeská Republika Ostrava Nederland AmsterdamPraha GroningenDanmark Aalborg RotterdamKøbenhavn Österreich GrazDeutschland Berlin WienDortmund Polska BiałystokEssen GdańskHamburg KrakówLeipzig WarszawaMünchen Portugal BragaRostock* LisboaEesti Tallinn România BucureştiÉire/Ireland Dublin Cluj-NapocaElláda Athina Piatra NeamţIrakleio Slovenija LjubljanaEspaña Barcelona Slovensko BratislavaMadrid KosiceMálaga Suomi/Finland HelsinkiOviedo OuluFrance Bordeaux Sverige MalmöLille StockholmMarseille United Kingdom BelfastParis CardiffRennes GlasgowStrasbourg LondonItalia Bologna ManchesterNapoli NewcastlePalermo Hrvatska ZagrebRoma Türkiye AnkaraTorino AntalyaVerona DiyarbakırKypros / Kıbrıs Lefkosia İstanbulLatvija Riga * Frankfurt an der Oder was included in earlier reportsand has now been replaced by Rostock.This Flash Eurobarometer survey (No227) was conducted by Gallup Hungary. In each city, 500randomly selected citizens (aged 15 and older) were interviewed. This constituted a representativeprofile of the wider population; the respondents were taken from all areas of the designated cities. Intotal, more than 37,500 interviews were conducted between 30 October and 10 November 2009. Moredetails on the survey methodology are included in the report’s annex.1For more details see: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_156_en.pdf (Flash EB 196) andhttp://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/urban/audit/index_en.htm (also in French and German)2www.urbanaudit.org

5.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 5Compared with previous surveys, Flash Eurobarometer No227 introduced new questions to assesspeople’s satisfaction with, for example, public spaces in their city (such as markets, squares andpedestrian areas) and possibilities for outdoor recreation (such as walking and cycling). A new seriesof questions was also introduced about transport modes and the usage of public transport, togetherwith a question on perceptions about the most important issues of cities. Finally, new questionstatements 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 aboutquality of life – from most positive to least positive. Note that due to rounding, the percentages shownin the charts and tables do not always add up exactly to the totals mentioned in the text.

6.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 6Main findingsHealth care, jobs and housingOf the 75 cities surveyed, residents of north-western European cities were most satisfied withhealth care services: at least 80% of respondents in those cities said they were content. The levelsof satisfaction were considerably lower in many southern and eastern European cities.The picture in regard to job opportunities was rather bleak: there were only six cities where morethan half of respondents agreed that it was easy to find a good job.Apart from 10 cities, respondents held a pessimistic view about the availability of reasonablypriced housing; many cities where respondents held such a view were capitals and/or large cities.Poverty / economic situationExcept for nine cities, respondents who thought that poverty was a problem in their cityoutnumbered those who believed it was not an issue.Despite those prevailing views about poverty, it was rare for more than half of respondents in anyof the cities to admit that they have financial difficulties themselves.Immigration / presence of foreignersOpinions about the presence of foreigners in the surveyed cities were generally positive: in 68cities, a slim majority of interviewees, at least, agreed that their presence was beneficial.However, in almost all cities, the proportion who agreed that foreigners in their city were wellintegrated was lower than the proportion who agreed that their presence was good for the city.Safety and trustAs to whether people could be trusted, the picture across cities was mixed. In about one-third, lessthan half agreed that most of their fellow citizens were trustworthy. Several eastern Europeancapitals were at the lower end of the scale.In most Nordic cities, about two-thirds of respondents always felt safe in their city. There was astrong correlation between the proportion of respondents who agreed that most of their fellowcitizens could be trusted and the proportion who always felt safe in their city.Respondents across all surveyed cities were more likely to say they always felt safe in theirneighbourhood than they were to say that they always felt safe in their city.Main issues facing city dwellersWhen asked to list the three main issues facing their city, respondents typically opted for “jobcreation/reducing unemployment”, “availability/quality of health services” and “educationalfacilities”.Job creation and reducing unemployment appeared among the three most significant problems thatrespondents’ cities faced in 64 of the 75 surveyed cities.The need to improve the quality/availability of health services appeared among the top threeproblems in 54 cities.Pollution / climate changeThere appears to have been an improvement in the situation regarding air and noise pollution inEuropean cities.In all Italian cities in this study, a large majority of respondents agreed that air pollution was amajor problem. A large number of cities in that same situation were capitals and/or large cities(with at least 500,000 inhabitants).In most cities, more than half of respondents agreed that noise was a major problem in their city –this proportion ranged from 51% in Rotterdam and Strasbourg to 95% in Athens.

7.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 7As with the results for air and noise pollution, a majority of cities seemed to have made progressin terms of cleanliness in the past few years.There was a strong correlation between the perceived levels of air pollution and perceptions aboutwhether a city was healthy to live in or not - the same cities appeared at the higher and lower endsof the rankings.Cities where respondents were more likely to agree that there was a commitment to fight climatechange were also the ones where respondents were somewhat more likely to agree that their citywas a healthy place to live.Administrative servicesIn roughly one in three of the surveyed cities, a slim majority of respondents – at least – thoughtthat their city spent its resources in a responsible way.All surveyed German cities (except Munich) were at the bottom of the ranking relating toadministrative services – the proportion of respondents who disagreed that resources were spentresponsibly 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 resourceswere spent in a responsible way and those who felt that administrative services helped citizensefficiently.City infrastructureIn a majority of cities (54 of 75), at least three-quarters of respondents were satisfied with theirown city’s cultural facilities, such as concert halls, museums and libraries.In 69 cities, a majority of respondents said they were satisfied with public spaces, such as marketsand pedestrian areas. Many cities at the higher end of the ranking (where most respondents weresatisfied with their city’s markets and pedestrian areas) were situated in northern and westernEuropean countries.In 25 cities, at least three-quarters of interviewees were satisfied with the beauty of streets andbuildings in their neighbourhood, and in another 40 cities, between half and three-quarters ofrespondents expressed satisfaction.Nonetheless, in almost all cities, respondents were more likely to be satisfied with their city’smarkets and pedestrian areas than they were to be satisfied with the outlook of the streets andbuildings in their neighbourhood.A majority of citizens were satisfied with parks and gardens in their cities except in 7 of the 75listed cities. Similarly, a majority of citizens were satisfied with outdoor recreational facilities inall cities except for 9 of the 75.Many citizens found it difficult to estimate their satisfaction with their city’s sports facilities – theproportion of “don’t know” responses reached 44% in Liege and Riga.Overall, a positive picture emerged in terms of satisfaction with the types of facilities provided. Ina majority of surveyed cities, at least three-quarters of respondents were satisfied with at least fourof the six items listed in the survey, while this proportion dropped below 50% in just 11 cities.Public transportIn about half of the surveyed cities roughly two-thirds of respondents said they were very or rathersatisfied with their city’s 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 oranother means of public transport in their city at least once a week.Europe’s capitals were among the cities with the highest proportions of respondents who usedpublic transport to commute – for example, 90% in London, 56% in Bratislava and 52% in Sofia.Commuting times were the longest in Europe’s capitals and large cities (i.e. those with more than500,000 inhabitants).In eight cities, a relative majority of respondents – at least – said they usually walked or cycled towork or college.

8.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 81. Perceptions about social reality1.1 Health care, employment opportunities and housing costsHealth care servicesThere is a large variation, across cities in the EU, in the level of satisfaction with health care servicesoffered 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% incities such as Groningen, Antwerp, Vienna and Bordeaux.A detailed look at the ranking showed that residents of western European cities were most satisfiedwith health care services: at least 80% of respondents in those cities said they were rather or verysatisfied with health care services provided by doctors and hospitals in their city. Furthermore, notmore than 1 in 20 respondents in these cities said they were not at all satisfied. For example, 92% ofinterviewees in Bordeaux said they were content with the services provided by the city’s doctors andhospitals (35% “very satisfied” and 57% “rather satisfied”), while just 2% were not at all satisfiedwith such services.London and Paris ranked among the lowest western European cities: 78% of Londoners and 79% ofParisians were rather or very satisfied with health care services provided by doctors and hospitals intheir 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 Dublinersexpressed their satisfaction with the city’s health care services – compared to 40% who weredissatisfied (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 inthis study: 86% in both Aalborg and Stockholm, 80% in Copenhagen, 76% in Oulu, 73% in Malmoand 71% in Helsinki. As with the results for western European cities, very few respondents in theNordic cities were not at all satisfied with health care services provided by doctors and hospitals intheir city (between 2% and 4%).Satisfaction levels were considerably lower in many southern and eastern European cities. In the 10cities at the bottom of the ranking, satisfaction with health care services dropped below 50% andranged 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 intheir city largely outnumbered those who were very satisfied. For example, 32% of respondents inAthens answered they were not at all satisfied compared to 9% of “very satisfied” respondents.

9.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 9Satisfactionwith health care services (offered by doctors and hospitals)545862523855354543393454444842234539373144314236323339453634222824322226372020213114131919142519162611251412231516216131091314129111311474971041363240553757464852563644404663424750554255445054524538484858525546575239565452425860525255445051405238484937444135484042423936383533313238343630302424223525336579710104758786111010612121110131011137151916131818191718152123151922242118202517302125262426262224242532313326262911212122122211222231424211352342473511434127541071477161213813111215181215151522151419222121232225322828323532425424324128483636243534484484645633562523236265129410311873910151011113634810Groningen(NL)Graz (AT)Newcastle (UK)Antwerpen (BE)Liège (BE)Wien (AT)Bordeaux (FR)Luxembourg(LU)Rotterdam (NL)Lille(FR)Marseille(FR)München (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)København (DK)Bologna (IT)London (UK)Paris (FR)Praha (CZ)Antalya (TR)Oulu (FI)Kosice (SK)Malmö (SE)Ankara (TR)Barcelona(ES)Torino (IT)Helsinki (FI)Braga (PT)Ljubljana (SI)İstanbul (TR)Madrid (ES)Málaga (ES)Diyarbakir (TR)Lisboa (PT)Zagreb (HR)Bratislava (SK)Białystok (PL)Valletta (MT)Miskolc (HU)Dublin (IE)Lefkosia (CY)Roma (IT)Tallinn (EE)Gdaosk (PL)Kraków (PL)Irakleio(EL)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Budapest (HU)Riga (LV)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Vilnius (LT)Sofia (BG)Napoli (IT)Warszawa (PL)Palermo(IT)Athinia (EL)Bucureşti (RO)Burgas (BG)0 20 40 60 80 100Groningen(NL)Graz (AT)Newcastle (UK)Antwerpen (BE)Liège (BE)Wien (AT)Bordeaux (FR)Luxembourg(LU)Rotterdam (NL)Lille(FR)Marseille(FR)München (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)København (DK)Bologna (IT)London (UK)Paris (FR)Praha (CZ)Antalya (TR)Oulu (FI)Kosice (SK)Malmö (SE)Ankara (TR)Barcelona(ES)Torino (IT)Helsinki (FI)Braga (PT)Ljubljana (SI)İstanbul (TR)Madrid (ES)Málaga (ES)Diyarbakir (TR)Lisboa (PT)Zagreb (HR)Bratislava (SK)Białystok (PL)Valletta (MT)Miskolc (HU)Dublin (IE)Lefkosia (CY)Roma (IT)Tallinn (EE)Gdaosk (PL)Kraków (PL)Irakleio(EL)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Budapest (HU)Riga (LV)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Vilnius (LT)Sofia (BG)Napoli (IT)Warszawa (PL)Palermo(IT)Athinia (EL)Bucureşti (RO)Burgas (BG)Very satisfied Rather satisfied Rather unsatisfied Not at all satisfied DK/NAQ1. Generally speaking, please tell me if you are very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfiedor not at all satisfied with each of the following issues:Base: all respondents, % by city

10.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 10Employment opportunitiesAlthough satisfaction with health services was generally high, a less rosy picture emerged whenrespondents were asked about job opportunities in their cities. More than half of respondents agreedthat 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 theselocations, 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 outnumberedthose who agreed with the statement. For example, while a slim majority (53%) of respondents inEssen disagreed that good jobs were easy to find in their city, only half as many (25%) agreed that thiswas 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 and44% in Antwerp). For a more detailed discussion of the results of the cities where respondents werethe most pessimistic about job opportunities in their city, see page 12.

11.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 11It is easy to find a good job – cities ranked from most positive to least positive231416131114141211851310476410887685631393109254453553434542142112254622121311212021311003843404142383638384043323237333335282929303129312831212429212229252525232421212421211918171918161616151515121210141313121310121211121011984753314182124232321183032292224292624292419282828331232322726282620362939322934262932413231292946493423503245441630272227223347322847223530333344201215242089108617166131072022162525191524113023991311342416314010202525302332422712231834402917363818412034624854474755262650483052444644454269717170751717131518812279111713131491314232025513214421246172412102422715131716315222128141151511211510185653151192713510101381312115310732Stockholm (SE)København (DK)Praha (CZ)München (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)Malmö (SE)Manchester (UK)Wien (AT)Irakleio(EL)Kraków (PL)Groningen(NL)Antwerpen (BE)Aalborg (DK)Graz (AT)Antalya (TR)Newcastle (UK)Strasbourg (FR)Burgas (BG)Bucureşti (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)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Marseille(FR)Madrid (ES)Leipzig(DE)Ostrava (CZ)Valletta (MT)Berlin(DE)Białystok (PL)Dortmund(DE)Barcelona(ES)Zagreb (HR)Dublin (IE)İstanbul (TR)Budapest (HU)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Lisboa (PT)Liège (BE)Rostock (DE)Ankara (TR)Tallinn (EE)Oviedo (ES)Vilnius (LT)Roma (IT)Braga (PT)Torino (IT)Kosice (SK)Málaga (ES)Diyarbakir (TR)Riga (LV)Miskolc (HU)Napoli (IT)Palermo(IT)0 20 40 60 80 100Stockholm (SE)København (DK)Praha (CZ)München (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)Malmö (SE)Manchester (UK)Wien (AT)Irakleio(EL)Kraków (PL)Groningen(NL)Antwerpen (BE)Aalborg (DK)Graz (AT)Antalya (TR)Newcastle (UK)Strasbourg (FR)Burgas (BG)Bucureşti (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)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Marseille(FR)Madrid (ES)Leipzig(DE)Ostrava (CZ)Valletta (MT)Berlin(DE)Białystok (PL)Dortmund(DE)Barcelona(ES)Zagreb (HR)Dublin (IE)İstanbul (TR)Budapest (HU)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Lisboa (PT)Liège (BE)Rostock (DE)Ankara (TR)Tallinn (EE)Oviedo (ES)Vilnius (LT)Roma (IT)Braga (PT)Torino (IT)Kosice (SK)Málaga (ES)Diyarbakir (TR)Riga (LV)Miskolc (HU)Napoli (IT)Palermo(IT)Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NAQ2. 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

12.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 12In the cities where respondents were the most pessimistic about job opportunities, a large majority ofrespondents 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 ofrespondents expressed their strong disagreement were Vilnius (52%), Istanbul (54%), Lisbon (55%)and Zagreb (62%). Moreover, in the other surveyed cities in Italy, Hungary, Turkey and Portugal, arelative majority of interviewees - at least – disagreed strongly that good jobs were easy to find (e.g.44% in Rome, 46% in Braga and 50% in Ankara – in Bologna, however, just 33% “stronglydisagreed”).A comparison with results of the previous perception survey showed that Naples and Palermo scoredthe lowest in both surveys: in 2006 and in 2009, just 3% of respondents in these two Italian citiesagreed that it was easy to find a good job. Similarly, only a small change was observed in theproportion of respondents agreeing with this statement in Diyarbakir and Miskolc; Riga, however, hasexperienced a 28 percentage point decrease in the proportion of respondents who thought that goodjobs were easy to find (8% in 2009, compared to 36% in 2006). Other cities where respondents wereconsiderably less optimistic about job opportunities in 2009 than in 2006 included Dublin (-50percentage 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 inthe proportion of respondents who agreed that good jobs were easy to find was seen in Stockholm –from 20thposition in 2006 (43%) to top place in 2009 (61%); an increase of 18 percentage points.Comparable increases in respondents’ likelihood to agree with the statements were observed in Malmo(+17 percentage points) and Hamburg (+15). For more details, see the chart on page 75.

13.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 13It is easy to find a good job – ranked from most negative to least negative (% strongly diagree)757171706962555452504848474746454444424241404038363434343231303030292726262525252524242323232220202019181817171616161513131211111010109998876620121524201622272232302822273033353344293220292334292744262629472846323347323926241926323428242245292950312349282129243230412832213632181233241429231837534121310111012121413109121182115221716161821152121231230192412132525333329242124313232152535161938182936372828382129314029404331294138434238011035162341222210151942451325105172321447689336101325414141314410611483162814581323511122107336931355101511131181253101011211114651612131055152713157913201721171313131822141528815241214232192225241324111744211517171827Palermo(IT)Riga (LV)Miskolc (HU)Napoli (IT)Diyarbakir (TR)Zagreb (HR)Lisboa (PT)İstanbul (TR)Vilnius (LT)Ankara (TR)Dublin (IE)Tallinn (EE)Budapest (HU)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Braga (PT)Kosice (SK)Roma (IT)Torino (IT)Málaga (ES)Athinia (EL)Białystok (PL)Bucureşti (RO)Marseille(FR)Valletta (MT)Ostrava (CZ)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Antalya (TR)Barcelona(ES)Glasgow (UK)Burgas (BG)Belfast (UK)Oviedo (ES)Irakleio(EL)Madrid (ES)Verona (IT)Liège (BE)Rostock (DE)Lille(FR)Oulu (FI)Ljubljana (SI)Gdansk (PL)Manchester (UK)Newcastle (UK)Bordeaux (FR)Bologna (IT)Kraków (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)Malmö (SE)Aalborg (DK)Helsinki (FI)Essen (DE)Wien (AT)Graz (AT)Praha (CZ)Rennes (FR)Luxembourg(LU)København (DK)Antwerpen (BE)Groningen(NL)München (DE)Stockholm (SE)Hamburg (DE)Amsterdam (NL)Rotterdam (NL)0 20 40 60 80 100Palermo(IT)Riga (LV)Miskolc (HU)Napoli (IT)Diyarbakir (TR)Zagreb (HR)Lisboa (PT)İstanbul (TR)Vilnius (LT)Ankara (TR)Dublin (IE)Tallinn (EE)Budapest (HU)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Braga (PT)Kosice (SK)Roma (IT)Torino (IT)Málaga (ES)Athinia (EL)Białystok (PL)Bucureşti (RO)Marseille(FR)Valletta (MT)Ostrava (CZ)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Antalya (TR)Barcelona(ES)Glasgow (UK)Burgas (BG)Belfast (UK)Oviedo (ES)Irakleio(EL)Madrid (ES)Verona (IT)Liège (BE)Rostock (DE)Lille(FR)Oulu (FI)Ljubljana (SI)Gdansk (PL)Manchester (UK)Newcastle (UK)Bordeaux (FR)Bologna (IT)Kraków (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)Malmö (SE)Aalborg (DK)Helsinki (FI)Essen (DE)Wien (AT)Graz (AT)Praha (CZ)Rennes (FR)Luxembourg(LU)København (DK)Antwerpen (BE)Groningen(NL)München (DE)Stockholm (SE)Hamburg (DE)Amsterdam (NL)Rotterdam (NL)Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree DK/NAQ2. 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

14.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 14Housing costsAbout two-thirds of respondents living in Leipzig, Aalborg, Braga and Oulu strongly or somewhatagreed that it was easy to find good housing at a reasonable price in their respective cities (between64% and 71%). In six other cities – Dortmund, Oviedo, Newcastle, Malaga, Diyarbakir and Berlin – aslim majority of interviewees agreed (between 51% and 59%).In all other cities, respondents had a less optimistic view about housing in their city; the proportion ofrespondents who strongly or somewhat disagreed that it was easy to find good housing at a reasonableprice ranged from less than a quarter in some of the above-mentioned cities (Leipzig, Aalborg andBraga – 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 thatreasonably priced housing was easy to find in their respective cities; this proportion, however, waslower in Munich and Luxembourg (48% and 53%, respectively). Other cities where more than half ofrespondents 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. Themost important exception among these large capital cities was Berlin, which was ranked in the top 10of cities where at least half of respondents agreed that it was easy to find reasonably priced housing intheir city; none of the others in the top 10 were capitals and most of the cities had less than 500,000inhabitants (such as Leipzig, Braga or Oulu).Contrary to the negative change, from 2006 to 2009, in city dwellers’ perceptions about jobopportunities in their city, not many of the surveyed cities have seen a decrease in the proportion ofrespondents who agreed that it was easy to find reasonably priced good housing. In fact, in one-thirdof the cities, this proportion has even increased by 10 percentage points or more. The most significantchanges in such positive opinions about the availability of reasonably priced housing were seen inRiga (+32 percentage points), Vilnius (+28), Tallinn (+23), Cluj-Napoca (+25), Piatra Neamt (+25),Valetta (+25) and Dublin (+23). For more details on the latter, see the chart on page 76.

15.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 15It is easy to find good housingat a reasonable price292322161712218211412111314161416121217171812111210813816812861148711355853642254232136374424334311212100424444484244334530373837353330323134332826232929282930252919262225272128222218242121172022171920211717181617171512141013121412131110999886562171616272022222421323026331820232322211720142822272327242121322134312230322719372926303635313737294326262234284420332737313612483521322228203541412319358766159239891218231225221927182229271726213434292337181627212535483037314234283424242325474150323630563846414536672645605464556453444865778111131617914491216817101961115121822312171314491511915211917149578173611121617261061481418771210571351064348637571Leipzig(DE)Aalborg (DK)Braga (PT)Oulu (FI)Dortmund(DE)Oviedo (ES)Newcastle (UK)Málaga (ES)Diyarbakir (TR)Berlin(DE)Essen (DE)Groningen(NL)Rostock (DE)Miskolc (HU)Belfast (UK)Białystok (PL)Antalya (TR)Cardiff (UK)Manchester (UK)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Vilnius (LT)Riga (LV)Ankara (TR)Valletta (MT)Tallinn (EE)Glasgow (UK)Ostrava (CZ)Irakleio(EL)Palermo(IT)Burgas (BG)Malmö (SE)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Rotterdam (NL)Madrid (ES)Sofia (BG)Liège (BE)Gdansk (PL)Athinia (EL)Dublin (IE)Bordeaux (FR)Praha (CZ)Budapest (HU)İstanbul (TR)Lille(FR)Barcelona(ES)Kraków (PL)Graz (AT)Kosice (SK)Antwerpen (BE)Rennes (FR)Napoli (IT)Torino (IT)Lefkosia (CY)Wien (AT)Verona (IT)Strasbourg (FR)Bucureşti (RO)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Warszawa (PL)København (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)München (DE)Roma (IT)Paris (FR)0 20 40 60 80 100Leipzig(DE)Aalborg (DK)Braga (PT)Oulu (FI)Dortmund(DE)Oviedo (ES)Newcastle (UK)Málaga (ES)Diyarbakir (TR)Berlin(DE)Essen (DE)Groningen(NL)Rostock (DE)Miskolc (HU)Belfast (UK)Białystok (PL)Antalya (TR)Cardiff (UK)Manchester (UK)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Vilnius (LT)Riga (LV)Ankara (TR)Valletta (MT)Tallinn (EE)Glasgow (UK)Ostrava (CZ)Irakleio(EL)Palermo(IT)Burgas (BG)Malmö (SE)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Rotterdam (NL)Madrid (ES)Sofia (BG)Liège (BE)Gdansk (PL)Athinia (EL)Dublin (IE)Bordeaux (FR)Praha (CZ)Budapest (HU)İstanbul (TR)Lille(FR)Barcelona(ES)Kraków (PL)Graz (AT)Kosice (SK)Antwerpen (BE)Rennes (FR)Napoli (IT)Torino (IT)Lefkosia (CY)Wien (AT)Verona (IT)Strasbourg (FR)Bucureşti (RO)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Warszawa (PL)København (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)München (DE)Roma (IT)Paris (FR)Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NAQ2. 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

16.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 161.2 Poverty and financial difficultiesPoverty at city levelRespondents in Prague, Luxembourg, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Warsaw and Nicosia were not onlyamong the most likely to agree that it was easy to find a good job in their respective cities, they werealso 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 ofperceptions about job opportunities, but they were also among the most likely to agree that povertywas a problem. Nevertheless, the correlation between perceptions about these two topics wasrelatively weak (a correlation coefficient of .544)3– as illustrated in the scatter plot on this page.Half or more respondents in Aalborg, Oulu, Prague, Oviedo, Valletta, Bratislava and Luxembourgsomewhat or strongly disagreed that poverty was a problem in their city (between 50% and 69%). InGroningen and Copenhagen, just less than half of respondents disagreed with this statement (48%-49%). These nine cities were the only ones where respondents who did not think that poverty was aproblem outnumbered those who believed it was an issue in their city (the level of agreement rangedfrom 21% in Aalborg to 46% Luxembourg).About 9 in 10 interviewees in Miskolc, Riga, Budapest, Lisbon and Diyarbakir somewhat or stronglyagreed that poverty was a problem in their city (between 87% and 93%). Furthermore, in each of thesecities at least half of respondents strongly agreed that poverty constituted a problem: ranging from50% in Lisbon to 78% in Miskolc. Other cities were a majority of interviewees strongly agreed withthe statement were Athens (61%), Istanbul (58%) and Zagreb (53%).There was not only a large variation between European cities in respondents’ perceptions aboutpoverty being an issue in their city, but also between cities within some countries. For example, inGermany, the proportion of respondents who thought that poverty was a problem in their city rangedfrom 48% in Munich to 79% in Dortmund and 82% in Berlin. Similarly, while 85% of respondents inAthens agreed that poverty was a problem, this proportion was 60% in Iraklion.Correlation between perceptions about job opportunities and poverty01020304050607080901000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%disagreeingthatpovertyisaprobleminthecity% agreeing it is easy to find a good job in the cityCorrelation coefficient:rxy = .5443A correlation coefficient summarises the strength of the (linear) relationship between two measures. While a correlation of -1 or1 indicates a perfect correlation, a coefficient of 0 indicates that there is no correlation between two measures. A positivecorrelation means that as one measure gets larger, the other gets larger too (i.e. the higher the score on variable A, the higher thescore is for variable B). A negative correlation means that as one measure gets larger the other gets smaller.

17.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 17Poverty is a problem2714141023121210111614128121011118151291111109676101361057512766591247946449711788468443284235343533414248474930393839373031323531333232342629312928292930282824212722262426192324232419162420182219212115181317141417151115141515911141210101010777431627273128343733353039323633373635442628343234363243463936284634444249384743514334264745434639524532362229273835323249494134254948413742245323392117155696101091172081812191014161130262224202128141220253115271814182318211720324419172820332220433553424837394545193036475834314145416132645067707811534105471148695108633655742877576861328563963711283111252544524143521364442311242Aalborg (DK)Oulu (FI)Praha (CZ)Oviedo (ES)Valletta (MT)Bratislava (SK)Luxembourg(LU)København (DK)Groningen(NL)Lefkosia (CY)Stockholm (SE)Warszawa (PL)München (DE)Gdansk (PL)Rennes (FR)Cardiff (UK)Kraków (PL)Helsinki (FI)Antalya (TR)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Bologna (IT)Verona (IT)Newcastle (UK)Ljubljana (SI)Irakleio(EL)Ostrava (CZ)Amsterdam (NL)Wien (AT)Białystok (PL)Burgas (BG)Graz (AT)Manchester (UK)Kosice (SK)Malmö (SE)Málaga (ES)Belfast (UK)Strasbourg (FR)Bordeaux (FR)Madrid (ES)Rostock (DE)Piatra Neamţ (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)Bucureşti (RO)Dublin (IE)Tallinn (EE)Napoli (IT)Glasgow (UK)Antwerpen (BE)Lille(FR)Torino (IT)Palermo(IT)İstanbul (TR)Paris (FR)Dortmund(DE)Berlin(DE)Marseille(FR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Athinia (EL)Liège (BE)Diyarbakir(TR)Lisboa (PT)Budapest (HU)Riga (LV)Miskolc (HU)0 20 40 60 80 100Aalborg (DK)Oulu (FI)Praha (CZ)Oviedo (ES)Valletta (MT)Bratislava (SK)Luxembourg(LU)København (DK)Groningen(NL)Lefkosia (CY)Stockholm (SE)Warszawa (PL)München (DE)Gdansk (PL)Rennes (FR)Cardiff (UK)Kraków (PL)Helsinki (FI)Antalya (TR)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Bologna (IT)Verona (IT)Newcastle (UK)Ljubljana (SI)Irakleio(EL)Ostrava (CZ)Amsterdam (NL)Wien (AT)Białystok (PL)Burgas (BG)Graz (AT)Manchester (UK)Kosice (SK)Malmö (SE)Málaga (ES)Belfast (UK)Strasbourg (FR)Bordeaux (FR)Madrid (ES)Rostock (DE)Piatra Neamţ (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)Bucureşti (RO)Dublin (IE)Tallinn (EE)Napoli (IT)Glasgow (UK)Antwerpen (BE)Lille(FR)Torino (IT)Palermo(IT)İstanbul (TR)Paris (FR)Dortmund(DE)Berlin(DE)Marseille(FR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Athinia (EL)Liège (BE)Diyarbakir(TR)Lisboa (PT)Budapest (HU)Riga (LV)Miskolc (HU)Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree DK/NAQ2. 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

18.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 18Difficulties in paying billsThe proportion of respondents who answered that they never or rarely have difficulties in paying theirbills at the end of month was the highest in Copenhagen, Aalborg and Stockholm (between 88% and94%). In 12 other cities, more than 80% of respondents said they never or rarely have difficulties inpaying such bills – almost all of these cities being in the northern or western part of Europe (e.g.Luxembourg, Essen, Hamburg and Helsinki).A majority of respondents in many cities across Europe thought that poverty was a problem in theircity (see previous section); nevertheless, it was rare for more than half of them to admit havingfinancial difficulties themselves. In Istanbul and Diyarbakir, roughly two-thirds (65%-66%) ofrespondents felt that they sometimes or always have difficulties in paying their monthly bills. InValletta, Antalya, Ankara, Naples and Riga, between 50% and 57% of respondents stated that theyhave had a similar experience.A comparison with the results of the previous perception survey showed that, in Naples and Valletta,there was only a small change in the proportion of respondents who said they never have difficulties inpaying monthly bills. However, the other cities at the bottom of the ranking in the current survey –Istanbul, Diyarbakir, Ankara, Athens and Iraklion – have seen a considerable decrease in theproportion of respondents who never or rarely have difficulties in paying such bills (between -9 and -16 percentage points).The opposite trend (i.e. a larger proportion of respondents who never or rarely have difficulties in payingbills in 2009 than in 2006) was observed, for example, in the Polish cities included in this survey:Gdansk (+18 percentage points), Cracow (+14), Warsaw (+12) and Bialystok (+6). For more details onthe comparison of the results of the 2006 and 2009 perception surveys, see the chart on page 77.Correlation between “poverty” and “difficulties to pay bills”01020304050607080901000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%“never”havingdifficultiestopaybills% disagreeing that poverty is a problem in the cityCorrelation coefficient:rxy = .424

19.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 19Difficultiesin paying bills at the end of the month83797676786877677068726767656168666563666170616368546259616056576256586056565357565856605352556050505448515350454952534347444041324040293328333426232511912118187171315101514162012141516121781614822131514141817121816131716191515131411161714919191420161317201611111814161915231413221315107141183710118971411121312131015913141791712181613161519201719201818201918182021222020241823182421232124222125252824222827242229302534353433313827353711111322321435334435233464424644364255733465551045476584565129101316101216910182025192330292411427123423428431839245464133253274515463274336542656528223435454324211012Aalborg (DK)Stockholm (SE)København (DK)Luxembourg(LU)Graz (AT)Essen (DE)Malmö (SE)Helsinki (FI)Dortmund(DE)Rostock (DE)Wien (AT)Oviedo (ES)Hamburg (DE)Praha (CZ)Leipzig(DE)Ostrava (CZ)München (DE)Newcastle (UK)Oulu (FI)Kosice (SK)Gdansk (PL)Antwerpen (BE)Warszawa (PL)Berlin(DE)Bratislava (SK)Dublin (IE)Groningen(NL)Kraków (PL)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Barcelona(ES)Białystok (PL)Madrid (ES)Rotterdam (NL)Tallinn (EE)Bucureşti (RO)Rennes (FR)Cardiff (UK)Glasgow (UK)Ljubljana (SI)Strasbourg (FR)Paris (FR)Liège (BE)Amsterdam (NL)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Braga (PT)Lille(FR)Málaga (ES)Vilnius (LT)Belfast (UK)Manchester (UK)Bologna (IT)London (UK)Lisboa (PT)Verona (IT)Bordeaux (FR)Lefkosia (CY)Marseille(FR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Zagreb (HR)Burgas (BG)Torino (IT)Budapest (HU)Miskolc (HU)Roma (IT)Athinia (EL)Palermo(IT)Sofia (BG)Irakleio(EL)Riga (LV)Napoli (IT)Ankara (TR)Antalya (TR)Valletta (MT)İstanbul (TR)Diyarbakir(TR)0 20 40 60 80 100Aalborg (DK)Stockholm (SE)København (DK)Luxembourg(LU)Graz (AT)Essen (DE)Malmö (SE)Helsinki (FI)Dortmund(DE)Rostock (DE)Wien (AT)Oviedo (ES)Hamburg (DE)Praha (CZ)Leipzig(DE)Ostrava (CZ)München (DE)Newcastle (UK)Oulu (FI)Kosice (SK)Gdansk (PL)Antwerpen (BE)Warszawa (PL)Berlin(DE)Bratislava (SK)Dublin (IE)Groningen(NL)Kraków (PL)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Barcelona(ES)Białystok (PL)Madrid (ES)Rotterdam (NL)Tallinn (EE)Bucureşti (RO)Rennes (FR)Cardiff (UK)Glasgow (UK)Ljubljana (SI)Strasbourg (FR)Paris (FR)Liège (BE)Amsterdam (NL)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Braga (PT)Lille(FR)Málaga (ES)Vilnius (LT)Belfast (UK)Manchester (UK)Bologna (IT)London (UK)Lisboa (PT)Verona (IT)Bordeaux (FR)Lefkosia (CY)Marseille(FR)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Zagreb (HR)Burgas (BG)Torino (IT)Budapest (HU)Miskolc (HU)Roma (IT)Athinia (EL)Palermo(IT)Sofia (BG)Irakleio(EL)Riga (LV)Napoli (IT)Ankara (TR)Antalya (TR)Valletta (MT)İstanbul (TR)Diyarbakir(TR)Never Rarely Sometimes Always DK/NAQ3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or neverhappens to you?Base: all respondents, % by city

20.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 201.3 The presence of foreignersThe presence of foreigners is good for the cityCity dwellers’ opinions about the presence of foreigners in their city were generally positive: in 68cities (out of 75), a slim majority of interviewees, at least, strongly or somewhat agreed that thepresence of foreigners was good for their city.Respondents living in Luxembourg or Stockholm were the most likely to think that the presence offoreigners was beneficial to their cities: 92% and 88%, respectively, of respondents in these citiesagreed with the statement (48% and 55%, respectively, “strongly agreed”). Other cities whererespondents were very likely to see their presence as being useful were Cracow, Gdansk, PiatraNeamt, Burgas, Copenhagen and Paris – in these cities more than 8 in 10 respondents agreed (between81% and 84%).Respondents in Nicosia, on the other hand, were the least likely to strongly or somewhat agree that thepresence of foreigners was good (7% “strongly agreed” and 24% “somewhat agreed”), while abouttwo-thirds of them disagreed with the statement (41% “strongly disagreed” and 24% “somewhatdisagreed”). Respondents who disagreed with the statement outnumbered those who agreed in just twoother 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 theequivalent number in Nicosia: 47%-48% of respondents in those cities strongly or somewhat agreedwith the statement. About 4 in 10 interviewees in Antwerp and Ankara disagreed that the presence offoreigners was good for their cities; however, this proportion was only 32% in Ostrava – in this city, afifth 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 onlyvary between cities in Europe, but also between cities within a specific country. For example, while80% of respondents in Amsterdam agreed that the presence of foreigners was beneficial for their city,this proportion dropped to 61% in Rotterdam. In some other countries, however, a more uniformpicture emerged; for example, it was noted above that both Liege and Antwerp were found at thebottom 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.

21.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 21The presence of foreigners is good for the city4855455034484827314440283545413739253443282339402118242430392728221928191915282120173340312628202728223216171312141116159813149191289168108974433383350343354493640524433364038514234485236355455494942334543495041505054404747493325343936433635392945434647454842424746424044344144413239383331246466865812510111068137981012911101018131414101812181011191015121920201014121312151315141223232423232725262926271933162526261923232924242345552433326655725107481016777108747117611144958161214131120157177912117910810158179161418182020919324115663812741378411105913114512661427678297149516679410166129111148171010756116895511105158561310211344Luxembourg(LU)Stockholm (SE)Kraków (PL)Piatra Neamţ (RO)København (DK)Burgas (BG)Gdansk (PL)Paris (FR)Amsterdam (NL)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Tallinn (EE)Groningen(NL)Ljubljana (SI)Białystok (PL)Warszawa (PL)Braga (PT)Bucureşti (RO)Bratislava (SK)Vilnius (LT)Dublin (IE)Lisboa (PT)Bordeaux (FR)Belfast (UK)London (UK)Kosice (SK)Málaga (ES)Strasbourg (FR)Aalborg (DK)Malmö (SE)Antalya (TR)Helsinki (FI)Budapest (HU)Hamburg (DE)Lille(FR)Cardiff (UK)Berlin(DE)Rennes (FR)Palermo(IT)Glasgow (UK)München (DE)Oulu (FI)Rostock (DE)Sofia (BG)Zagreb (HR)Diyarbakir(TR)Newcastle (UK)Manchester (UK)Marseille(FR)Irakleio(EL)İstanbul (TR)Miskolc (HU)Riga (LV)Rotterdam (NL)Praha (CZ)Verona (IT)Roma (IT)Essen (DE)Oviedo (ES)Wien (AT)Leipzig(DE)Barcelona(ES)Bologna (IT)Dortmund(DE)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Madrid (ES)Valletta (MT)Graz (AT)Torino (IT)Napoli (IT)Ankara (TR)Antwerpen (BE)Ostrava (CZ)Liège (BE)Athinia (EL)Lefkosia (CY)0 20 40 60 80 100Luxembourg(LU)Stockholm (SE)Kraków (PL)Piatra Neamţ (RO)København (DK)Burgas (BG)Gdansk (PL)Paris (FR)Amsterdam (NL)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Tallinn (EE)Groningen(NL)Ljubljana (SI)Białystok (PL)Warszawa (PL)Braga (PT)Bucureşti (RO)Bratislava (SK)Vilnius (LT)Dublin (IE)Lisboa (PT)Bordeaux (FR)Belfast (UK)London (UK)Kosice (SK)Málaga (ES)Strasbourg (FR)Aalborg (DK)Malmö (SE)Antalya (TR)Helsinki (FI)Budapest (HU)Hamburg (DE)Lille(FR)Cardiff (UK)Berlin(DE)Rennes (FR)Palermo(IT)Glasgow (UK)München (DE)Oulu (FI)Rostock (DE)Sofia (BG)Zagreb (HR)Diyarbakir(TR)Newcastle (UK)Manchester (UK)Marseille(FR)Irakleio(EL)İstanbul (TR)Miskolc (HU)Riga (LV)Rotterdam (NL)Praha (CZ)Verona (IT)Roma (IT)Essen (DE)Oviedo (ES)Wien (AT)Leipzig(DE)Barcelona(ES)Bologna (IT)Dortmund(DE)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Madrid (ES)Valletta (MT)Graz (AT)Torino (IT)Napoli (IT)Ankara (TR)Antwerpen (BE)Ostrava (CZ)Liège (BE)Athinia (EL)Lefkosia (CY)Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NAQ2. 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

22.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 22Integration of foreignersAlthough many city dwellers appeared to agree that the presence of foreigners in their city wasadvantageous (see previous section), they were less likely to agree that those foreigners were wellintegrated. In almost all surveyed cities, the proportion of respondents who agreed that foreigners intheir city were well integrated was lower than the proportion who agreed that their presence was goodfor their city – this can easily be seen on the scatter plot below.The proportion of respondents who strongly or somewhat agreed that foreigners in their city were wellintegrated ranged from 20% in Athens to 67% in Antalya. Other cities at the higher end of this rankingwere Groningen, Cluj-Napoca, Cardiff, Kosice, Braga and Luxembourg; in these cities, roughly two-thirds (65%-66%) of respondents agreed that foreigners were well integrated.More than three-quarters of respondents in Athens disagreed that foreigners in their city were wellintegrated: 25% somewhat disagreed and 52% strongly disagreed. A majority of respondentssomewhat 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 theircity: the proportion of “don’t know” responses ranged from 3% in Athens and Luxembourg to 44% inGdansk. Other cities where roughly 4 in 10 respondents could not, or would not, say whetherforeigners were well integrated were Miskolc and Burgas (40%-41%).The correlation coefficient for the relationship between the proportion of respondents who agreed thata) the presence of foreigners was good and b) they were well integrated was .503 – a relatively weakcorrelation between the two variables at a city level. In other words, cities where many respondentsbelieved that the presence of foreigners was positive, were not necessarily characterised by a highproportion 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 thepresence of foreigners was good for their city; however, they were among the least likely to think thatforeigners were well integrated (88% vs. 38% agreed). Note that the city’s current result on the latterquestion 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 (see the chart onpage 78).Correlation between two statements about foreigners01020304050607080901000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%agreeingthatforeignersarewellintegrated% agreeing that the presence of foreigners is goodCorrelation coefficient:rxy = .503

23.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 23Foreigners are well integrated3114272114221517171313131315109311892019201718192292228881611881789516142717451251222131431376751261787955234441045363652384551445046465049494846505027415038393841393734473327454436414343334241453334213144423542352432294030363734352833223131293331343331302820252423141316716111328111517151626112424618222319171622151927151632261226352520323128128724333127332010179351539322541193315293927474429473741423153445025912101752844455683151113131514145141112157227681376141034201013157796313710142388513231211101425122310143412161452111625823153231416181772210933897101112825127171492034167161710149294041898121427363244935911101133233310112566116515126612103Antalya (TR)Groningen(NL)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Cardiff (UK)Kosice (SK)Braga (PT)Luxembourg(LU)Bratislava (SK)Ljubljana (SI)Lille(FR)Bordeaux (FR)Rennes (FR)Málaga (ES)Budapest (HU)Strasbourg (FR)Lisboa (PT)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Dublin (IE)Palermo(IT)London (UK)Newcastle (UK)Manchester (UK)Glasgow (UK)Marseille(FR)Bucureşti (RO)İstanbul (TR)Verona (IT)Diyarbakir(TR)Zagreb (HR)Oviedo (ES)Rostock (DE)Kraków (PL)Praha (CZ)Amsterdam (NL)Aalborg (DK)Ankara (TR)Paris (FR)München (DE)Bologna (IT)Valletta (MT)Miskolc (HU)Burgas (BG)Irakleio(EL)København (DK)Roma (IT)Belfast (UK)Oulu (FI)Ostrava (CZ)Sofia (BG)Warszawa (PL)Gdansk (PL)Torino (IT)Vilnius (LT)Rotterdam (NL)Napoli (IT)Liège (BE)Hamburg (DE)Białystok (PL)Leipzig(DE)Riga (LV)Bruxelles/Brussel(BE)Stockholm (SE)Tallinn (EE)Madrid (ES)Barcelona(ES)Antwerpen (BE)Helsinki (FI)Malmö (SE)Essen (DE)Dortmund(DE)Lefkosia (CY)Berlin(DE)Graz (AT)Wien (AT)Athinia (EL)0 20 40 60 80 100Antalya (TR)Groningen(NL)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Cardiff (UK)Kosice (SK)Braga (PT)Luxembourg(LU)Bratislava (SK)Ljubljana (SI)Lille(FR)Bordeaux (FR)Rennes (FR)Málaga (ES)Budapest (HU)Strasbourg (FR)Lisboa (PT)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Dublin (IE)Palermo(IT)London (UK)Newcastle (UK)Manchester (UK)Glasgow (UK)Marseille(FR)Bucureşti (RO)İstanbul (TR)Verona (IT)Diyarbakir(TR)Zagreb (HR)Oviedo (ES)Rostock (DE)Kraków (PL)Praha (CZ)Amsterdam (NL)Aalborg (DK)Ankara (TR)Paris (FR)München (DE)Bologna (IT)Valletta (MT)Miskolc (HU)Burgas (BG)Irakleio(EL)København (DK)Roma (IT)Belfast (UK)Oulu (FI)Ostrava (CZ)Sofia (BG)Warszawa (PL)Gdansk (PL)Torino (IT)Vilnius (LT)Rotterdam (NL)Napoli (IT)Liège (BE)Hamburg (DE)Białystok (PL)Leipzig(DE)Riga (LV)Bruxelles/Brussel(BE)Stockholm (SE)Tallinn (EE)Madrid (ES)Barcelona(ES)Antwerpen (BE)Helsinki (FI)Malmö (SE)Essen (DE)Dortmund(DE)Lefkosia (CY)Berlin(DE)Graz (AT)Wien (AT)Athinia (EL)Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NAQ2. 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

24.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 241.4 Feelings of safety and trustPeople can be trustedWhen city dwellers were asked whether they thought that, generally speaking, most people living intheir city could be trusted, there was, once more, a large variation. Aalborg was found at the top of theranking with 34% of respondents who strongly agreed and 56% that somewhat agreed – only 6% inAalborg disagreed that most people could be trusted. Istanbul was found at the bottom of the rankingwith results that were almost a mirror image of Aalborg’s: 59% of people living in Istanbul stronglydisagreed 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 thestatement (between 24% and 27%). The largest proportions of “strongly agree” responses were inAalborg (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 oftheir fellow citizens could be trusted. Several capital cities of eastern European countries joinedIstanbul 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 ofrespondents thought the opposite (between 50% and 71%). Other cities where at least half ofinterviewees 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%. Thelargest proportion of “strongly disagree” responses, however, was almost twice that figure: 59% ofrespondents 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%).

25.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 25Generally speaking, most people in the city can be trusted342627242231242131272624262035183020301817131315151217201278111125276111810171513102014623101055817111251665151479861545573635456626164655662635255555654594359455444565760585656585146535857545438365650424942434547364349314240444440313635413039392829353233322232302924242019161047599887101210121311919101511131819172115241720192415151815162224172016202022212527222124232832232725292130322627292828302438363222292225232622013133232324838411854348510878510616169121413111011151414152221191914152813252025181127292521232035121926413748504859447324364465675267364594636783151111658398141311685446799511326971552510812414108765282Aalborg (DK)Rostock (DE)Groningen(NL)Oviedo (ES)Luxembourg(LU)Leipzig(DE)Oulu (FI)München (DE)Stockholm (SE)Braga (PT)Hamburg (DE)Graz (AT)Essen (DE)København (DK)Newcastle (UK)Helsinki (FI)Belfast (UK)Dortmund(DE)Glasgow (UK)Cardiff (UK)Wien (AT)Berlin(DE)Amsterdam (NL)Málaga (ES)Malmö (SE)Madrid (ES)Verona (IT)Białystok (PL)Rennes (FR)Barcelona(ES)Antwerpen (BE)Bordeaux (FR)Rotterdam (NL)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Dublin (IE)Strasbourg (FR)Bologna (IT)Manchester (UK)Lille(FR)Valletta (MT)Gdansk (PL)Kraków (PL)Ljubljana (SI)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Palermo(IT)Lisboa (PT)Diyarbakir(TR)Marseille(FR)London (UK)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Liège (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)Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)Sofia (BG)İstanbul (TR)0 20 40 60 80 100Aalborg (DK)Rostock (DE)Groningen(NL)Oviedo (ES)Luxembourg(LU)Leipzig(DE)Oulu (FI)München (DE)Stockholm (SE)Braga (PT)Hamburg (DE)Graz (AT)Essen (DE)København (DK)Newcastle (UK)Helsinki (FI)Belfast (UK)Dortmund(DE)Glasgow (UK)Cardiff (UK)Wien (AT)Berlin(DE)Amsterdam (NL)Málaga (ES)Malmö (SE)Madrid (ES)Verona (IT)Białystok (PL)Rennes (FR)Barcelona(ES)Antwerpen (BE)Bordeaux (FR)Rotterdam (NL)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Dublin (IE)Strasbourg (FR)Bologna (IT)Manchester (UK)Lille(FR)Valletta (MT)Gdansk (PL)Kraków (PL)Ljubljana (SI)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Palermo(IT)Lisboa (PT)Diyarbakir(TR)Marseille(FR)London (UK)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Liège (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)Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)Sofia (BG)İstanbul (TR)Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NAQ2. 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

26.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 26Feeling safe in the cityThe proportion of respondents who answered that they always felt safe in their city was highest inOviedo (84%). Other cities where respondents were more likely to say they always felt safe in theircity were Groningen (79%), Aalborg (78%), Oulu (77%), Munich (76%), Piatra Neamt andLuxembourg (both 73%). Not more than 1 in 20 respondents in the aforementioned cities rarely ornever felt safe in their city (between 1% and 5%).Similarly, in most other surveyed cities in the Nordic countries (e.g. Copenhagen and Helsinki), abouttwo-thirds of respondents always felt safe in their city (between 64% and 67%), while less than 1 in 20respondents rarely or never did so (3%-4%). There was, however, one exception: only half (49%) ofrespondents in Malmo said they always felt safe and one-tenth (9%) rarely or never felt this way. Thatcity’s 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 (see the chart onpage 79).This dominant feeling of safety was in sharp contrast to the results for cities at the lower end of thisranking; 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. Intervieweesin Athens, Istanbul, Sofia and Bucharest were the least likely to always feel safe in their respectivecities (between 14% and 25%). In Istanbul and Sofia, about half of interviewees answered that theyrarely 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 agreedthat 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 werealso characterised by a large proportion of respondents who always felt safe in their city – cities in thisgroup included Oviedo, Luxembourg and Stockholm. There were, nevertheless, a few outliers worthmentioning: although Brussels, Liege, London, Manchester and Lisbon had average scores for theproportion 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%).Correlation between “trust in people” and “feeling safe in the city”01020304050607080901000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%“always”feelingsafeintheircity% agreeing that most people in the city can be trustedCorrelation coefficient:rxy = .828

27.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 27Respondents feel safe in the city8479787776737369676765646363636161616060605959595857565655545353525251515150494948484747474745454444424241414141393636353434343333323232313030252020141419212019212325303031332929282329273132343229293336393632363629394143373730424230284138374036323734463246313048404425514435333236553632373546363030421112423422136678783657785636866964496765967999712816714714138159188111812131481616182211152011171010131211211238344222332222434933236112412173665121110441051415361021411121920155131913121222293927Oviedo (ES)Groningen(NL)Aalborg (DK)Oulu (FI)München (DE)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Luxembourg(LU)Bordeaux (FR)København (DK)Helsinki (FI)Amsterdam (NL)Stockholm (SE)Rostock (DE)Ljubljana (SI)Wien (AT)Zagreb (HR)Verona (IT)Graz (AT)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Essen (DE)Hamburg (DE)Leipzig(DE)Dortmund(DE)Málaga (ES)Białystok (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)Malmö (SE)Antwerpen (BE)Diyarbakir(TR)Kraków (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)Liège (BE)Bucureşti (RO)Sofia (BG)İstanbul (TR)Athinia (EL)0 20 40 60 80 100Oviedo (ES)Groningen(NL)Aalborg (DK)Oulu (FI)München (DE)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Luxembourg(LU)Bordeaux (FR)København (DK)Helsinki (FI)Amsterdam (NL)Stockholm (SE)Rostock (DE)Ljubljana (SI)Wien (AT)Zagreb (HR)Verona (IT)Graz (AT)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Essen (DE)Hamburg (DE)Leipzig(DE)Dortmund(DE)Málaga (ES)Białystok (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)Malmö (SE)Antwerpen (BE)Diyarbakir(TR)Kraków (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)Liège (BE)Bucureşti (RO)Sofia (BG)İstanbul (TR)Athinia (EL)Always Sometimes Rarely Never DK/NAQ3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or neverhappens to you?Base: all respondents, % by city

28.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 28Feeling safe in one’s neighbourhoodNot surprisingly, a strong correlation was observed between a more general feeling of safety (at a citylevel – discussed in the previous section) and the more specific feeling of being safe in one’sneighbourhood (a correlation coefficient of .897). In addition, the scatter plot below shows thatrespondents across all cities in this study were more likely to say they always felt safe in theirneighbourhood 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 feltsafe in their neighbourhood – ranging from 52% in Napoli to 91% in Munich, Aalborg and Rostock. Inthe other 10 cities, not more than half of interviewees said they always felt safe in the area where theylived, 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 – whereabout 9 in 10 respondents always felt safe in their neighbourhood: 91% of interviewees in Rostock andMunich, 90% in Leipzig, 89% in Essen, 88% in Dortmund and Hamburg and 87% in Berlin alwaysfelt 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 ornever 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 inthe area where they lived (between 22% and 27%). While the proportion of respondents who alwaysfelt 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 2006vs. 52% in 2009).Other cities that have seen an increase in the proportion of interviewees who always felt safe in theirarea included the German cities (e.g. Berlin: +21 percentage points; Essen: +16; Munich: +8), Gdansk(+18) and Dublin (+15). For more details on the comparison of the results of the 2006 and 2009perception surveys, see the chart on page 80.Correlation between feeling safe in cities and neighbourhoods01020304050607080901000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%“always”feelingsafeintheirownneighbourhood% “always” feeling safe in their cityCorrelation coefficient:rxy = .897v

29.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 29Respondents feel safe in theirneighbourhood91919190898988888887878784848383828280797978777676767575747474747372717170707069686767676766666564636362616060605959585655545353525049484646464438383378879891110111210121315141714181613191919182119202218201921221921182625242424252120302522232725273028252322232522372734382134312530292732383532111202101111211112244233222324423436333554457251067966678119810487512712617910991113000011110023212020141113132242632729222244772428335457989911411541588217161513141321Rostock (DE)Aalborg (DK)München (DE)Leipzig(DE)Oviedo (ES)Essen (DE)Dortmund(DE)Groningen(NL)Hamburg (DE)Oulu (FI)Berlin(DE)Luxembourg(LU)Graz (AT)Bordeaux (FR)København (DK)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Stockholm (SE)Wien (AT)Helsinki (FI)Ljubljana (SI)Zagreb (HR)Amsterdam (NL)Rotterdam (NL)Białystok (PL)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Dublin (IE)Lille(FR)Braga (PT)Belfast (UK)Málaga (ES)Rennes (FR)Antalya (TR)Strasbourg (FR)Malmö (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)Liège (BE)Kraków (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)İstanbul (TR)Praha (CZ)Vilnius (LT)Riga (LV)Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)Burgas (BG)Sofia (BG)0 20 40 60 80 100Rostock (DE)Aalborg (DK)München (DE)Leipzig(DE)Oviedo (ES)Essen (DE)Dortmund(DE)Groningen(NL)Hamburg (DE)Oulu (FI)Berlin(DE)Luxembourg(LU)Graz (AT)Bordeaux (FR)København (DK)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Stockholm (SE)Wien (AT)Helsinki (FI)Ljubljana (SI)Zagreb (HR)Amsterdam (NL)Rotterdam (NL)Białystok (PL)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Dublin (IE)Lille(FR)Braga (PT)Belfast (UK)Málaga (ES)Rennes (FR)Antalya (TR)Strasbourg (FR)Malmö (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)Liège (BE)Kraków (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)İstanbul (TR)Praha (CZ)Vilnius (LT)Riga (LV)Bucureşti (RO)Athinia (EL)Burgas (BG)Sofia (BG)Always Sometimes Rarely Never DK/NAQ3. For each of the following statements, please tell me, if this always, sometimes, rarely or neverhappens to you?Base: all respondents, % by city

30.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 301.5 Cities’ most important problemsThe chart on the following page shows – for each city – respondents’ views about the three majorissues facing their city, chosen from a list of 10 potential problems (e.g. housing conditions, jobcreation/reducing unemployment, education, urban safety and air pollution).A first glance showed that “job creation/reducing unemployment”, “quality/availability of healthservices” and “education” were among the three most important problems in the largest number ofcities.In 64 (out of 75) cities, job creation and reducing unemployment appeared among the three mostsignificant problems that respondents’ cities faced. In these cities, the proportion of respondents whoselected 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 thatrespondents in these cities were among the least likely to agree that it was easy to find a good job intheir city (see section 1.1).The need to improve the quality/availability of health services appeared among the top three problemsin 54 cities; respondents in Lisbon, Braga, Dublin, Helsinki and Oulu were the most likely to selectthis issue (between 62% and 67%). Education and training was chosen as one of the main issues in39 cities; respondents in Diyarbakir, Berlin, Hamburg and Belfast were the most likely to mention thischallenge for their city (between 58% and 61%).It was noted earlier that respondents in Paris and Luxembourg were among the most likely to thinkthat reasonably priced housing was difficult to find in their city. Not surprisingly, the availability ofgood housing also appeared among the three most important problems identified by inhabitants ofthose cities (51% and 39%, respectively, mentioned this problem). Other cities where “housingconditions” appeared among the most important problems were Bordeaux, Stockholm, Ljubljana andZagreb (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 theproportion of respondents who selected urban safety as a priority issue for their city; this was one ofthe top three problems in 23 cities, with the proportion selecting “urban safety” ranging from 27% inKosice to 52% in Rotterdam.Other regularly mentioned issues were air pollution, road infrastructure and public transport. Theproblem 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% and63%). Road infrastructure was chosen as one of the main problems in 11 cities, while publictransport appeared among the top three of most important problems in four cities. A problematic roadinfrastructure was most frequently mentioned by respondents in Sofia (51%) and respondents in thesurveyed 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 importantproblems in their city – selected by 45% of respondents. Each of these topics will be discussed inmore detail in the following chapters.

31.
Analytical report Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European citiespage 31473030453735504333554032433834494740393833685934665131605129595235695031504334725136554434524738454439544641594837Antwerpen(BE)Urban safetyRoadsAir pollutionBruxelles/Brussel(BE)Urban safetyJobs creationEducationLiège (BE)Urban safetyJobs creationAir pollutionOstrava (CZ)Air pollutionJobs creationUrban safetyPraha (CZ)Air pollutionNoiseUrban safetyAalborg (DK)HealthservicesEducationJobs creationKobenhavn(DK)HealthservicesEducationJobs creationBerlin (DE)Jobs creationEducationUrban safetyDortmund (DE)Jobs creationEducationRoadsEssen (DE)Jobs creationEducationHealthservicesHamburg (DE)EducationJobs creationUrban safetyLeipzig(DE)Jobs creationEducationRoadsMünchen (DE)EducationJobs creationUrban safetyRostock(DE)Jobs creationEducationHealthservicesTallinn(EE)Jobs creationHealthservicesSocial servicesAthinia(EL)HealthservicesAir pollutionJobs creationIrakleio (EL)RoadsHealthservicesJobs creationBarcelona(ES)Jobs creationHealthservicesUrban safetyMadrid (ES)Jobs creationHealthservicesUrban safetyPerceptions about cities’ most important problems (three most mentioned issues)Q5. Among the following issues, which are the three most important for your city?Base: all respondents, % by city724539654840523736513937503834514136514235474439636348423837733935623836493933623937484229454435695938534631474439Málaga (ES)Jobs creationHealthservicesEducationOviedo (ES)Jobs creationHealthservicesEducationBordeaux(FR)Jobs creationHousingHealthservicesLille (FR)Jobs creationUrban safetyHealthservicesMarseille(FR)Jobs creationUrban safetyEducationParis (FR)HousingJobs creationEducationRennes(FR)Jobs creationEducationHealthservicesStrasbourg (FR)Jobs creationAir pollutionEducationDublin (IE)Jobs creationHealthservicesEducationBologna(IT)Jobs creationAir pollutionUrban safetyNapoli(IT)Jobs creationAir pollutionHealthservicesPalermo (IT)Jobs creationAir pollutionHealthservicesRoma (IT)Jobs creationAir pollutionPublictransportTorino (IT)Jobs creationAir pollutionUrban safetyVerona (IT)Air pollutionJobs creationUrban safetyLefkosia(CY)PublictransportHealthservicesAir pollutionRiga (LV)Jobs creationHealthservicesSocial servicesVilnius(LT)Jobs creationHealthservicesUrban safetyLuxembourg (LU)EducationJobs creationHousing504639784940453731463938444140524138484645414138716038524944534543564438706743625137454533303029442723664640645953Budapest(HU)Jobs creationHealthservicesAir pollutionMiskolc (HU)Jobs creationUrban safetyHealthservicesValletta(MT)Air pollutionHealthservicesRoadsAmsterdam (NL)EducationUrban safetyHealthservicesGroningen(NL)EducationJobs creationHealthservicesRotterdam(NL)Urban safetyEducationHealthservicesWien (AT)EducationJobs creationUrban safetyGraz (AT)Jobs creationEducationAir pollutionBiałystok(PL)Jobs creationHealthservicesRoadsGdaosk(PL)HealthservicesRoadsJobs creationKraków (PL)HealthservicesRoadsJobs creationWarszawa (PL)HealthservicesRoadsPublictransportBraga (PT)Jobs creationHealthservicesEducationLisboa (PT)HealthservicesJobs creationUrban safetyLjubljana (SI)HealthservicesJobs creationHousingBratislava(SK)RoadsAir pollutionHealthservicesKosice (SK)Jobs creationUrban safetyAir pollutionHelsinki(FI)HealthservicesEducationPublictransportOulu (FI)HealthservicesJobs creationEducation544638414040585752554946535147494442474644535250635139565138674731553737525234645932535244515035616152504847Malmö (SE)Jobs creationHealthservicesUrban safetyStockholm(SE)HousingJobs creationHealthservicesBelfast(UK)EducationHealthservicesJobs creationCardiff (UK)HealthservicesEducationJobs creationGlasgow (UK)HealthservicesEducationJobs creationLondon (UK)HealthservicesEducationJobs creationManchester(UK)EducationHealthservicesJobs creationNewcastle(UK)HealthservicesJobs creationEducationBurgas (BG)Air pollutionHealthservicesJobs creationSofia (BG)Air pollutionRoadsHealthservicesZagreb (HR)Jobs creationHealthservicesHousingBucureşti(RO)HealthservicesEducationAir pollutionCluj-Napoc(RO)Jobs creationHealthservicesEducationPiatra Neamţ (RO)Jobs creationHealthservicesEducationAnkara (TR)HealthservicesEducationJobs creationAntalya (TR)HealthservicesEducationJobs creationDiyarbakir (TR)EducationJobs creationHealthservicesİstanbul(TR)HealthservicesJobs creationEducation

32.
Flash EB No 277 – Perception survey on quality of life in European cities Analytical reportpage 32787372727170696968676665646362626160595955545453525252525251515150504948474746464544444444444343434242424141414040403939383735353333323131282422191817Miskolc (HU)Napoli (IT)Málaga (ES)Rostock (DE)Białystok (PL)Braga (PT)Leipzig(DE)Riga (LV)Berlin(DE)Zagreb (HR)Dortmund(DE)Oviedo (ES)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Dublin (IE)Palermo(IT)Torino (IT)Diyarbakir(TR)Essen (DE)Oulu (FI)Madrid (ES)Tallinn (EE)Barcelona(ES)Malmö (SE)Vilnius (LT)Belfast (UK)Bordeaux (FR)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Hamburg (DE)Newcastle (UK)Lisboa (PT)Rennes (FR)Lille(FR)Marseille(FR)Budapest (HU)Roma (IT)İstanbul (TR)Glasgow (UK)Strasbourg (FR)Cardiff (UK)Wien (AT)Ljubljana (SI)Luxembourg(LU)Gdaosk (PL)Kosice (SK)Manchester (UK)Ankara (TR)Kraków (PL)München (DE)Liège (BE)Bologna (IT)Verona (IT)London (UK)Graz (AT)Groningen(NL)Paris (FR)Aalborg (DK)Stockholm (SE)Ostrava (CZ)Burgas (BG)Irakleio(EL)Athinia (EL)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Antalya (TR)Helsinki (FI)Bucureşti (RO)København (DK)Rotterdam (NL)Warszawa (PL)Amsterdam (NL)Lefkosia (CY)Antwerpen (BE)Bratislava (SK)Valletta (MT)Sofia (BG)Praha (CZ)Perceptions about cities’ most important problems:Jobs creation, reducing unemploymentQ5. Among the following issues, which are the three most important for your city?Base: all respondents, % by city676664636260595957565555535353535252525251515049494848474646464646454544444444404040393838383737373636363535333232313029292929292828272727262423201815Braga (PT)Helsinki (FI)Oulu (FI)Dublin (IE)Lisboa (PT)Białystok (PL)Riga (LV)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Belfast (UK)Warszawa (PL)Bucureşti (RO)Cardiff (UK)Kraków (PL)Ankara (TR)Glasgow (UK)Newcastle (UK)Diyarbakir(TR)Athinia (EL)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Gdaosk (PL)Burgas (BG)Antalya (TR)İstanbul (TR)Aalborg (DK)London (UK)Madrid (ES)Oviedo (ES)Zagreb (HR)Budapest (HU)Malmö (SE)Barcelona(ES)Vilnius (LT)Manchester (UK)Ljubljana (SI)Málaga (ES)Tallinn (EE)Irakleio(EL)Lefkosia (CY)Wien (AT)Miskolc (HU)Stockholm (SE)Groningen(NL)Kobenhavn (DK)Rotterdam (NL)Sofia (BG)Amsterdam (NL)Lille(FR)Valletta (MT)Luxembourg(LU)Palermo(IT)Rostock (DE)Bordeaux (FR)Napoli (IT)Rennes (FR)Graz (AT)Marseille(FR)Roma (IT)Strasbourg (FR)Torino (IT)Paris (FR)Essen (DE)Bratislava (SK)Hamburg (DE)Leipzig(DE)Dortmund(DE)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Bologna (IT)Liège (BE)Berlin(DE)München (DE)Verona (IT)Antwerpen (BE)Kosice (SK)Praha (CZ)Ostrava (CZ)61595958535251515151505050504948484747474746464444434241414039393938373636363535343433323230292828272524242423232222222120191818181717161613139986Diyarbakir(TR)Berlin(DE)Hamburg (DE)Belfast (UK)Oulu (FI)Ankara (TR)Essen (DE)Glasgow (UK)Dortmund(DE)Rostock (DE)Leipzig(DE)München (DE)Newcastle (UK)Antalya (TR)Cardiff (UK)Dublin (IE)Wien (AT)Aalborg (DK)İstanbul (TR)Manchester (UK)Luxembourg(LU)Amsterdam (NL)Helsinki (FI)Groningen(NL)London (UK)Braga (PT)Rennes (FR)Graz (AT)Rotterdam(NL)Oviedo (ES)Málaga (ES)Strasbourg (FR)Barcelona(ES)Kobenhavn (DK)Bucureşti (RO)Madrid (ES)Riga (LV)Paris (FR)Lisboa (PT)Bruxelles/Brussel (BE)Cluj-Napoc (RO)Marseille(FR)Lille(FR)Piatra Neamţ (RO)Bordeaux (FR)Liège (BE)Athinia (EL)Białystok (PL)Gdaosk (PL)Irakleio(EL)Antwerpen (BE)Lefkosia (CY)Malmö (SE)Warszawa (PL)Valletta (MT)Sofia (BG)Stockholm (SE)Kraków (PL)Ljubljana (SI)Tallinn (EE)Zagreb (HR)Napoli (IT)Bologna (IT)Vilnius (LT)Budapest (HU)Torino (IT)Roma (IT)Palermo(IT)Burgas (BG)Verona (IT)Miskolc (HU)Praha (CZ)Ostrava (CZ)Kosice (SK)Bratislava (SK)Education and trainingHealth services