This annual survey provides an extensivelook at citizen attitudes about local governance and municipal services.
Report link - http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2018-3-22_ukraine_poll.pdf
Ukrainian Municipal Survey, 20 January – 8 February, 2016Dmytro Lysiuk
Ukrainian Municipal Survey
20 January – 8 February, 2016
This annual survey provides an unprecedented
window into citizen attitudes about local governance
and municipal services.
Methodology 5
Concern About Corruption and Nepotism 6
Moods and Attitudes 18
Commitment to Move Ukraine towards the West 26
Approval of and Satisfaction with Officials and Institutions 32
Assessment of the Quality of Public Goods and Services 52
Citizen Participation in Local Governance 81
Municipal Authorities’ Performance 95
Interaction with Local Authorities 108
Accessibility of Information on City Authorities and Institutions 113
Electoral Moods 124
Local or National Responsibility 132
Demographics 146
The USAID-funded survey was conducted by Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization on behalf of IRI, and the fieldwork was carried out by Rating Group Ukraine.
Ukrainian Municipal Survey, 20 January – 8 February, 2016Dmytro Lysiuk
Ukrainian Municipal Survey
20 January – 8 February, 2016
This annual survey provides an unprecedented
window into citizen attitudes about local governance
and municipal services.
Methodology 5
Concern About Corruption and Nepotism 6
Moods and Attitudes 18
Commitment to Move Ukraine towards the West 26
Approval of and Satisfaction with Officials and Institutions 32
Assessment of the Quality of Public Goods and Services 52
Citizen Participation in Local Governance 81
Municipal Authorities’ Performance 95
Interaction with Local Authorities 108
Accessibility of Information on City Authorities and Institutions 113
Electoral Moods 124
Local or National Responsibility 132
Demographics 146
The USAID-funded survey was conducted by Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization on behalf of IRI, and the fieldwork was carried out by Rating Group Ukraine.
Assessment of the situation in the donbas minsk agreementsUIFuture
We have asked the respondents whether they are familiar with the text of the Minsk agreements. It turned out that only 11.4% of respondents are well acquainted with the content of the agreements. Most of the population (60.3%) has a superficial knowledge or heard about them in the media, and one in four (25.8%) is absolutely unfamiliar with the contents of the agreements.
Objective: to identify the attitude of citizens of Ukraine to the socio-political and economic situation in the country, to determine the electoral preferences and level of confidence towards the civil and public institutions, as well as to form an estimate of judgments of the situation in the Donbas, e-declaration and other high-profile events
The survey was conducted September 12–25, 2014 by Rating Group Ukraine and Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organizationon behalf of the International Republican Institute.
Assessment of the situation in the donbas minsk agreementsUIFuture
We have asked the respondents whether they are familiar with the text of the Minsk agreements. It turned out that only 11.4% of respondents are well acquainted with the content of the agreements. Most of the population (60.3%) has a superficial knowledge or heard about them in the media, and one in four (25.8%) is absolutely unfamiliar with the contents of the agreements.
Objective: to identify the attitude of citizens of Ukraine to the socio-political and economic situation in the country, to determine the electoral preferences and level of confidence towards the civil and public institutions, as well as to form an estimate of judgments of the situation in the Donbas, e-declaration and other high-profile events
The survey was conducted September 12–25, 2014 by Rating Group Ukraine and Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organizationon behalf of the International Republican Institute.
Public Opinion PollResidents of KyrgyzstanmResearcher
В исследовании приняли участие 1 483 респондентов в возрасте от 18 лет и старше – граждане, которые уже имеют право голоса на выборах. Отмечается, что выборка была однородной по возрасту, полу и прописке.
Public Opinion Survey: Residents of MoldovamResearcher
The survey was coordinated by Dr. Rasa Alisauskiene from Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization on behalf of the Center
for Insights in Survey Research. The field work was carried out by Magenta Consulting.
A Comparative Study of Urban and Rural Customers on Perception towards Online...ijtsrd
Digital payments are gradually replacing physical cash transactions. In other words, e payment systems or cashless transactions make up digital payments in the online platform, and online payments are widely used as they are perceived to be easy, quick, and comfortable. Digitalization is the key for future growth of the Indian economy. In order to make this into reality, the Indian government and e payment service providers banks are establishing numerous awareness programs to bring e payment systems into the hands of the people in India. These awareness programs under the vision of Digital India program are trying to increase awareness of cashless payments among Indians. Still, consumers have only some awareness of these online payments in India, especially due to the urban and rural divide. In addition to the medium awareness, there are some problems faced by consumers that prevent them from using digital payments. One big problem is network connectivity, again due to the urban and rural divide. Due to the low network connectivity in rural areas, usage of digital payments is limited. Information on the extent of consumer awareness of digital payments will allow the government and other organizations to take the next step to push towards complete digitalization. Therefore, this study focuses on urban and rural customers on perception towards online payment in Anantapur District. M. B. Sindhu | Dr. D. Jakir Hussain "A Comparative Study of Urban and Rural Customers on Perception towards Online Payment System at Anantapur District" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-5 | Issue-6 , October 2021, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd47710.pdf Paper URL : https://www.ijtsrd.com/management/consumer-behaviour/47710/a-comparative-study-of-urban-and-rural-customers-on-perception-towards-online-payment-system-at-anantapur-district/m-b-sindhu
FUTURE AND THE ASSESSMENT OF HIGH-PROFILE EVENTSUIFuture
In anticipation of 2017 respondents pondered over events that might happen next year. 37.2% don't expect any fundamental changes, but 23.9% believe that next year early parliamentary elections will be held, and 17.2% think that there will be early presidential election, whereas 7.6% predict a violent overthrow of Poroshenko. One in ten anticipates that in 2017 Russia will begin a new military advance in Ukraine. Comfortingly, there is a part of the respondents optimistic about the next year: 21.6% expect the emergence of new political leaders who will change the country for the better, and 12.1% expect that there will be stabilization and economic growth in Ukraine.
Analysis of Fertility Indicators in the Republic of Uzbekistanijtsrd
This article contains the results of a statistical study of the dynamics of the population’s birth rate in the Republic of Uzbekistan over the years of independence. Also statistically analyzed and estimated fertility rates and total fertility rates. Abdurakhmanov Abduazim Djalalitdinovich "Analysis of Fertility Indicators in the Republic of Uzbekistan" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-7 | Issue-3 , June 2023, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com.com/papers/ijtsrd57449.pdf Paper URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com.com/humanities-and-the-arts/statistics/57449/analysis-of-fertility-indicators-in-the-republic-of-uzbekistan/abdurakhmanov-abduazim-djalalitdinovich
As we have for every general election since 1979, Ipsos MORI has produced estimates of how the voters voted in 2017. Here are the key findings from the results.
Digital 2016 Russian Federation (January 2016)DataReportal
Everything you need to know about mobile, internet, social media, and e-commerce use in The Russian Federation in 2016. For more reports, including the latest global trends and individual data for more than 230 countries around the world, visit http://datareportal.com
Fieldwork: August-September 2017
Report: November 2017
The interviews were conducted with residents of Ukraine aged 18 years and older. Sample design correspondents to the distribution of adult population of Ukraine by age, sex, oblast and settlement type according to the data of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine as of January 1, 2016 (excluding AR Crimea
and non-government controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts). Margin of error of the sample is 2,2% (not including design effect).
Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI). Interviews were conducted face-to-face at respondents’ home, assisted with the use of tablets showing questions (visuals), recording answers.
Three major thematic sections: awareness of and engagement in civic activities, including CSO brand and name recognition, reforms, civic literacy and values.
Did you know there are 54,000 registered voters in Lowell? In the 2012 presidential election, 34,000 of them voted. In the past two city elections, far fewer participated – 11,500 in 2013 and just 10,000 in 2011.
We believe that if more people were to vote in local elections, the city of Lowell and all here would benefit. To help make that happen, join with other Lowellians in a nonpartisan, grass roots effort to increase participation in the next city election, especially in neighborhoods with historically low turnout and among groups that have faced barriers to voting.
Український ринок упаковки - основні показники, інновації та тенденції розвитку Pro-Consulting LLC
Аналіз українського та світового ринку різних видів упаковки – паперового, скляного, полімерного і гручкого, розглянула основні фактори, що впливають на ринок та освітила декілька новинок на міжнародному ринку у сфері пакування.
The portfolio of a consulting company in the services industry includes successfully completed projects related to improving the efficiency of service delivery. The company provides consulting services on market and competitive analysis, development of growth strategies and marketing plans, improvement of operations and customer service processes.
The portfolio of a consulting company in the transport and logistics industry includes successfully implemented projects related to the optimization and development of transport infrastructure, improving logistics processes and increasing supply efficiency. The company can provide expert advice on transport solutions, risk management and regulatory compliance to help clients achieve optimal results in the transport and logistics industry.
The portfolio of a consulting company in the telecommunications and information technology (IT) industry includes successfully implemented projects related to the development, implementation and optimization of IT solutions. The company provides consulting services in the field of network infrastructure, cloud technologies, cybersecurity, digital transformation and other aspects of IT.
The portfolio of a consulting company in the building materials industry includes successfully completed projects related to this industry. The company provides consulting services focused on improving business processes, optimizing production and supply, developing marketing strategies and researching the building materials market. It helps customers to improve product quality, optimize costs and increase competitiveness in the market. The company works to help them achieve their business goals and succeed in the building materials industry.
The portfolio of the consulting company in the real estate industry includes a number of successfully implemented projects related to various aspects of this industry. The company provides consulting services in the field of development, management and investment in real estate. Her portfolio may include projects in the development of strategic plans, market analysis, assessment of the investment attractiveness of objects, development of management models and optimization of operations, financial advice, as well as assistance in attracting financing for real estate projects. The company works with various types of real estate, including commercial, residential and industrial, and helps its clients achieve successful results and maximize their investment potential in real estate.
The portfolio of a consulting company in the industrial goods industry includes successfully completed projects related to various aspects of this industry. The company works with manufacturers of industrial products such as machinery and equipment, electronics, chemical products, building materials and others. The portfolio may include projects to optimize production processes, improve product quality and safety, introduce new technologies, develop strategic plans, research the market and consumer preferences, as well as improve the efficiency of supply and logistics. The company helps its customers increase competitiveness, reduce costs, improve production processes and make effective decisions for successful development in the industrial sector.
The portfolio of a consulting company in the food industry includes a number of successfully implemented projects. The company works with food manufacturers, restaurants, cafes, food chains and other players in the food industry market. The company helps customers improve the efficiency and competitiveness of their business, meet regulatory requirements, improve the quality and safety of their products, and adapt to changing market trends and consumer needs.
The portfolio of a consulting company in the banking and financial sector includes successfully implemented projects and solutions related to the improvement and optimization of activities in this area. The company works with banks, financial institutions, investment companies and other players in the financial services market. Her portfolio includes projects such as strategic planning, risk assessment, development and implementation of new financial products and services, business process optimization, improvement of risk and compliance management systems, market and competitiveness analysis, development and implementation of technology solutions, etc. The company specializes in providing clients with professional advice and solutions aimed at increasing efficiency, reducing risks, improving customer experience and complying with strict regulations and requirements in banking and finance.
The portfolio of a Pro-Consulting company in the field of agro-industrial complex (AIC) includes a wide range of projects and services. It provides advice and expert support on various aspects of the agro-industrial complex, including strategic planning, risk management, process improvement, marketing and sales, financial analysis and investment planning. Works with clients at all levels of individual farmers and businesses up to agricultural holdings and government organizations. The company's portfolio demonstrates its experience and success in solving complex problems and achieving goals in the agricultural sector.
Consulting company Pro-Consulting provides professional consulting services in the field of business and management. The company specializes in strategy development, project management, evaluation and analysis of business processes, and also provides expert support in the field of finance, marketing, personnel management and other key aspects of organization management. With a team of experienced and qualified professionals, Pro-Consulting helps its clients optimize business processes, develop strategic advantages and achieve their goals.
Pro-Consulting – член міжнародної дослідницької асоціації ESOMAR; постійний член Української Асоціації Маркетингу з 2005 року, кваліфікований консультант програм підтримки малого і середнього бізнесу ЄБРР з 2010 року.
Ми реалізували понад 1900 проектів для більш ніж 1000 клієнтів, які включають корпорації, МСБ, некомерційні організації, приватних осіб і міжнародні організації різних ринків.
Pro-Consulting - член международной исследовательской ассоциации ESOMAR; постоянный член Украинской Ассоциации Маркетинга с 2005 года; квалифицированный консультант программ поддержки малого и среднего бизнеса ЕБРР с 2010 года.
Мы реализовали более 1900 проектов для более 1000 клиентов, включая корпорации, МСБ, некоммерческие организации, частных лиц и международные организации различных рынков.
Market Analysis of Agrarian Transport Logistics of UkrainePro-Consulting LLC
Market Analysis of Agrarian Transport Logistics of Ukraine. The volume of dynamics, the growth rate of tariffs for railway transportation in Ukraine. Cargo turnover structure of agricultural products by types of transport. Dynamics of growth of the cost of transportation of goods in grain-carriers of Ukrzaliznytsia. Share of the carriage component in the tariffs of Ukrzaliznytsia for grain carriers in 2018
Анализ рынка логистических услуг Украины. Тренды и перспективы отраслиPro-Consulting LLC
В данном обзоре представлены аналитические сведения по рынку логистических услуг Украины. Рассмотрено: динамика грузооборота, производства промышленной продукции в 2014 - 9 мес. 2018 гг., географическая структура внешнеторгового оборота за 9 месяцев 2017 и 9 месяцев 2018 гг., структура грузооборота по видам транспорта, динамика стоимости и объемы грузоперевозок ж/д транспортом, стоимость фрахт и объемы грузоперевозок автомобильным транспортом, динамика среднемесячных оптовых цен на дизельное топливо в Украине с января 2016 года, сезонность колебаний цен на ДТ в Украине с 2017-2018 гг., динамика капитальных инвестиций в логистику с 2012 - 6 мес. 2018 гг., структура капитальтных инвестиций в логистику, прогнозы развития рынка грузовых перевозок и цен на ДТ на 2018 - 2019 гг., другие тренды рынка, общие факторы влияния на рынок грузовых перевозок в Украине
Анализ рынка кофейных зерновых напитков в Украине и миреPro-Consulting LLC
Аналитиками компании Pro-Consulting подготовлена презентация рынка кофе в Украине и в мире. Представлено: тенденции на рынке зернового кофе в мире, развитие и показатели украинского рынка зернового и молотого кофе в Украине, сегментация рынка кофе, развитие внутреннего производства, потребительские предпочтения и каналы сбыта кофейных зерновых напитков, перспективы развития украинского рынка кофеен и кофейных зерновых напитков.
An introduction to the cryptocurrency investment platform Binance Savings.Any kyc Account
Learn how to use Binance Savings to expand your bitcoin holdings. Discover how to maximize your earnings on one of the most reliable cryptocurrency exchange platforms, as well as how to earn interest on your cryptocurrency holdings and the various savings choices available.
The world of search engine optimization (SEO) is buzzing with discussions after Google confirmed that around 2,500 leaked internal documents related to its Search feature are indeed authentic. The revelation has sparked significant concerns within the SEO community. The leaked documents were initially reported by SEO experts Rand Fishkin and Mike King, igniting widespread analysis and discourse. For More Info:- https://news.arihantwebtech.com/search-disrupted-googles-leaked-documents-rock-the-seo-world/
Premium MEAN Stack Development Solutions for Modern BusinessesSynapseIndia
Stay ahead of the curve with our premium MEAN Stack Development Solutions. Our expert developers utilize MongoDB, Express.js, AngularJS, and Node.js to create modern and responsive web applications. Trust us for cutting-edge solutions that drive your business growth and success.
Know more: https://www.synapseindia.com/technology/mean-stack-development-company.html
In the Adani-Hindenburg case, what is SEBI investigating.pptxAdani case
Adani SEBI investigation revealed that the latter had sought information from five foreign jurisdictions concerning the holdings of the firm’s foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) in relation to the alleged violations of the MPS Regulations. Nevertheless, the economic interest of the twelve FPIs based in tax haven jurisdictions still needs to be determined. The Adani Group firms classed these FPIs as public shareholders. According to Hindenburg, FPIs were used to get around regulatory standards.
Personal Brand Statement:
As an Army veteran dedicated to lifelong learning, I bring a disciplined, strategic mindset to my pursuits. I am constantly expanding my knowledge to innovate and lead effectively. My journey is driven by a commitment to excellence, and to make a meaningful impact in the world.
Event Report - SAP Sapphire 2024 Orlando - lots of innovation and old challengesHolger Mueller
Holger Mueller of Constellation Research shares his key takeaways from SAP's Sapphire confernece, held in Orlando, June 3rd till 5th 2024, in the Orange Convention Center.
Buy Verified PayPal Account | Buy Google 5 Star Reviewsusawebmarket
Buy Verified PayPal Account
Looking to buy verified PayPal accounts? Discover 7 expert tips for safely purchasing a verified PayPal account in 2024. Ensure security and reliability for your transactions.
PayPal Services Features-
🟢 Email Access
🟢 Bank Added
🟢 Card Verified
🟢 Full SSN Provided
🟢 Phone Number Access
🟢 Driving License Copy
🟢 Fasted Delivery
Client Satisfaction is Our First priority. Our services is very appropriate to buy. We assume that the first-rate way to purchase our offerings is to order on the website. If you have any worry in our cooperation usually You can order us on Skype or Telegram.
24/7 Hours Reply/Please Contact
usawebmarketEmail: support@usawebmarket.com
Skype: usawebmarket
Telegram: @usawebmarket
WhatsApp: +1(218) 203-5951
USA WEB MARKET is the Best Verified PayPal, Payoneer, Cash App, Skrill, Neteller, Stripe Account and SEO, SMM Service provider.100%Satisfection granted.100% replacement Granted.
3.0 Project 2_ Developing My Brand Identity Kit.pptxtanyjahb
A personal brand exploration presentation summarizes an individual's unique qualities and goals, covering strengths, values, passions, and target audience. It helps individuals understand what makes them stand out, their desired image, and how they aim to achieve it.
Company Valuation webinar series - Tuesday, 4 June 2024FelixPerez547899
This session provided an update as to the latest valuation data in the UK and then delved into a discussion on the upcoming election and the impacts on valuation. We finished, as always with a Q&A
Implicitly or explicitly all competing businesses employ a strategy to select a mix
of marketing resources. Formulating such competitive strategies fundamentally
involves recognizing relationships between elements of the marketing mix (e.g.,
price and product quality), as well as assessing competitive and market conditions
(i.e., industry structure in the language of economics).
Understanding User Needs and Satisfying ThemAggregage
https://www.productmanagementtoday.com/frs/26903918/understanding-user-needs-and-satisfying-them
We know we want to create products which our customers find to be valuable. Whether we label it as customer-centric or product-led depends on how long we've been doing product management. There are three challenges we face when doing this. The obvious challenge is figuring out what our users need; the non-obvious challenges are in creating a shared understanding of those needs and in sensing if what we're doing is meeting those needs.
In this webinar, we won't focus on the research methods for discovering user-needs. We will focus on synthesis of the needs we discover, communication and alignment tools, and how we operationalize addressing those needs.
Industry expert Scott Sehlhorst will:
• Introduce a taxonomy for user goals with real world examples
• Present the Onion Diagram, a tool for contextualizing task-level goals
• Illustrate how customer journey maps capture activity-level and task-level goals
• Demonstrate the best approach to selection and prioritization of user-goals to address
• Highlight the crucial benchmarks, observable changes, in ensuring fulfillment of customer needs
LA HUG - Video Testimonials with Chynna Morgan - June 2024Lital Barkan
Have you ever heard that user-generated content or video testimonials can take your brand to the next level? We will explore how you can effectively use video testimonials to leverage and boost your sales, content strategy, and increase your CRM data.🤯
We will dig deeper into:
1. How to capture video testimonials that convert from your audience 🎥
2. How to leverage your testimonials to boost your sales 💲
3. How you can capture more CRM data to understand your audience better through video testimonials. 📊
2. • This annual survey provides an extensive look at
citizen attitudes about local governance and
municipal services.
• Polling was conducted in the 22 regional capitals of
Ukraine not under the control of Russian or Russian-
backed forces, as well as in the cities of Mariupol and
Severodonetsk in the Donbas region. The survey is
based on a sample size of more than 19,000
respondents.
• The findings will inform future discussions on
decentralization, anti-corruption initiatives and other
reforms set forth by the pro-European government in
Kyiv.
2
The Fourth In-Depth Look at
Ukrainian Local Governance
3. 3
Geographical Key
*Due to the Russian occupation of Crimea and ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, citizens of the oblast centers of
Simferopol, Donetsk and Luhansk did not participate in the survey. Mariupol and Severodonetsk were included in
the survey to represent Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. As a result of legislation passed in 2016 changing Soviet-era
names of cities, the names of Dnipropetrovsk and Kirovograd have been changed to Dnipro and Kropyvnytskyi,
respectively.
4. Survey Contents Page No.
Methodology 5
Moods and Attitudes 6
Corruption at the Local Level 42
Assessment of the Quality of Public Goods and Services 65
Electoral Moods 128
Municipal Authorities’ Performance 134
Approval of and Satisfaction with Officials and Institutions 150
Travel to Other Cities, Countries 194
Sources of Information 206
Demographics 209
4
5. Methodology
• The survey was conducted by Rating Group Ukraine on behalf of the Center for Insights in Survey
Research.
• The data was collected in 24 cities in Ukraine (Kyiv and all oblast centers, as well as in Mariupol and
Severodonetsk in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts) between 20 January and 10 February, 2018, through
face-to-face interviews at the respondents’ homes.
• The sample consisted of 19,200 permanent residents of Ukraine aged 18 and older and is
representative of the general population of the cities and by age and gender.
• In order to obtain this representative sample, 800 respondents were interviewed in each city
regardless of population size. The survey data obtained in each city was weighted by gender and age
using national statistical data. The geographical coverage of the city area was based on the electoral
districts established by the Central Election Commission of Ukraine. At least 50 sites, or primary
sampling units, were covered and randomly selected using the “curtain step method.” The “random
route” and “next birthday” methods were used to select respondents.
• IRI’s first municipal survey was conducted in 22 cities between March 2 and 20, 2015. The sample size
consisted of 17,600 respondents. The second municipal survey was conducted in 24 cities from
January 20 to February 8, 2016, in which 19,200 respondents were interviewed. The third survey was
conducted between January 20 and February 12, 2017 and included a sample size of 19,200
respondents.
• The margin of error for each city does not exceed plus or minus 3.5 percent.
• Average response rate is 64.8 percent.
• Charts and graphs may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
• This survey was funded by the National Endowment for Democracy. The previous three surveys were
funded by the Government of Canada.
5
8. Generally speaking, do you think that things in Ukraine are going
in the right direction or wrong direction? (continued)
8
(Percentage of respondents who believe things are going in the right direction)
*The cities of Mariupol and Sievierodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
24% 24% 24% 21% 20% 18% 17% 17% 17% 16% 16% 15% 15% 13% 13% 13% 13% 12% 11% 10% 10% 10% 9% 8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
10. Generally speaking, do you think that things in your city are going
in the right direction or wrong direction? (continued)
10
(Percentage of respondents who believe things are going in the right direction)
*The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
65% 60% 55% 50% 47% 46% 45% 42% 40% 35% 35% 35% 34% 32% 32% 31% 31% 30% 28% 24% 22% 20% 15% 12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80% March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
11. Generally speaking, do you think that things in Ukraine and in your city are going
in the right direction or wrong direction? (continued)
11
Change in Perception Over Time (February 2017 to
February 2018)
18%
17% 16% 15% 14%
13%
11%
9% 9% 9%
6%
5% 5%
3% 2%
1% 1%
-1% -1% -2% -2%
-3%
-5%
-14%
3%
2%
5%
9%
4%
3%
-5%
5%
1%
4%
2%
<1%
-1%
2% 1%
<1%
9%
2%
5%
<-1%
-2%
1%
4%
2%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30% Change in percentage for those who believe their
city is going in the right direction
Change in percentage for those who believe
Ukraine is going in the right direction
*This slide reflects changes over time from 2017 to 2018.
13. Over the last 12 months, how has the economic situation in
Ukraine changed? (continued)
13
2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
*These scores are based on citizen perceptions of the economy, with “1” indicating the perception that the economy
has worsened a lot and “5” indicating the perception that the economy has improved a lot.
15. Over last 12 months, how has the economic situation of your
household changed? (continued)
15
2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
*These scores are based on citizen perceptions of the economic situation of one’s household, with “1” indicating the
perception that the economy has worsened a lot and “5” indicating the perception that the economy has improved a lot.
17. In the next 12 months, how do you expect the economic situation
in Ukraine to change? (continued)
17
3.0 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
*These scores are based on citizen perceptions of the economy, with “1” indicating the perception that the economy
will worsen a lot and “5” indicating the perception that the economy will improve a lot.
20. If Ukraine could only enter one international economic union,
which of the following should it be? (continued)
20
(Percentage of respondents who believe Ukraine should join the European Union)
*The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
86% 85% 82% 79% 78% 74% 72% 68% 64% 62% 61% 58% 57% 57% 56% 52% 51% 49% 48% 38% 35% 32% 24% 23%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100% March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
22. 80% 77% 73% 66% 65% 59% 57% 55% 50% 49% 48% 46% 44% 42% 38% 37% 35% 34% 33% 29% 28% 23% 20% 17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100% March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
If a referendum were held today on Ukraine joining NATO,
how would you vote? (continued)
22
(Percentage of respondents who believe Ukraine should join NATO)
*The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
24. 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 February 2017 February 2018
24
Freely Express Your Thoughts and Beliefs
How would you assess your ability to do the following in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.
26. 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
February 2017 February 2018
26
How would you assess your ability to do the following in your city? (continued)
Move Freely in All Districts and Quarters of Your City
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.
28. 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
February 2017 February 2018
28
How would you assess your ability to do the following in your city? (continued)
Take Part in Decision-Making Processes in the City
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.
30. 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
February 2017 February 2018
30
How would you assess your ability to do the following in your city? (continued)
Enjoy a Variety of Leisure and Cultural Activities
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.
32. 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
February 2017 February 2018
32
How would you assess your ability to do the following in your city? (continued)
Obtain High-Quality Education for Different Professions and Levels
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.
34. 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
February 2017 February 2018
34
How would you assess your ability to do the following in your city? (continued)
Achieve Your Full Potential and Pursue Your Dreams
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.
36. 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
February 2017 February 2018
36
How would you assess your ability to do the following in your city? (continued)
Engage in Entrepreneurship
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.
38. 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
February 2017 February 2018
38
How would you assess your ability to do the following in your city? (continued)
Be Paid Enough for Your Work
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.
40. 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
February 2017 February 2018
40
How would you assess your ability to do the following in your city? (continued)
Freely Exercise Your Spiritual Beliefs
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.
41. 2.8
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Kherson
Severodonetsk
Mykolaiv
Poltava
Sumy
Kropyvnytskyi
Odesa
Zaporizhia
Chernivtsi
Mariupol
Cherkasy
Kyiv
Khmelnytskyi
Chernihiv
Zhytomyr
Lviv
Dnipro
Uzhgorod
Kharkiv
Ternopil
Rivne
Vinnytsia
Ivano-Frankivsk
Lutsk
41
Average Score for Perceived Opportunities and
Freedoms in Each City
*This score represents the average value of the quality of the previous 9 measured opportunities and freedoms in this
survey, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an excellent score.
57. In the past two years, how often, if ever, have you or an
acquaintance had to do a favor, give a gift or pay a bribe to a local
official in order to get services or a document from him or her?
(continued)
57
(Percentage of respondents who have experienced corruption once or twice)
51% 48% 48% 46% 42% 41% 40% 38% 37% 37% 35% 33% 32% 31% 29% 28% 27% 26% 26% 25% 22% 21% 20% 15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60% March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
*The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
58. 58
1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
In the past two years, how often, if ever, have you or an acquaintance
had to do a favor, give a gift or pay a bribe to a local official in order
to get services or a document from him or her? (continued)
(Frequency of reported cases of giving a gift or paying a bribe)
*These scores are based on instances of giving a gift or paying a bribe, with “0” indicating never, “1” indicating one or
two times, “2” indicating three to five times, and “3” indicating more than five times. The cities of Mariupol and
Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
63. 28% 25% 25% 23% 22% 22% 20% 20% 19% 18% 18% 17% 15% 15% 13% 12% 11% 9% 9% 8% 6% 6% 6% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50% March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Do you think that your mayor is making an effort to end corruption
at the municipal authority level? (continued)
63
(Percentage of respondents who think that their mayor is making an effort to end corruption at the
municipal level)
*The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
64. Vinnytsia
Dnipro
Zhytomyr
Zaporizhia
Ivano-Frankivsk
Kyiv
Kropyvnytskyi
Lutsk
Lviv
Mykolaiv
Odesa
Poltava
Rivne
Sumy
Ternopil
Uzhgorod
Kharkiv
Kherson
Khmelnytskyi
Cherkasy
Chernivtsi
Chernihiv
Mariupol
Severodonetsk
Local corruption 25% 47% 45% 70% 43% 63% 44% 50% 56% 66% 42% 58% 54% 41% 49% 52% 42% 51% 32% 45% 41% 38% 39% 34%
Lack of investment
money
42% 38% 49% 32% 48% 44% 30% 46% 40% 52% 41% 37% 53% 41% 61% 32% 36% 57% 67% 40% 40% 59% 56% 28%
Lack of security 10% 37% 41% 61% 26% 46% 35% 26% 45% 45% 38% 27% 22% 29% 26% 25% 34% 38% 43% 21% 32% 27% 42% 42%
Poor local infrastructure 6% 24% 22% 49% 27% 31% 30% 28% 31% 19% 20% 32% 28% 29% 41% 39% 16% 46% 29% 18% 25% 33% 32% 8%
Lack of skilled
workforce
21% 26% 25% 20% 31% 25% 22% 28% 33% 28% 28% 24% 22% 30% 39% 19% 14% 36% 42% 18% 29% 30% 33% 13%
Other 7% 7% 15% 3% 10% 8% 10% 6% 4% 15% 8% 5% 6% 4% 12% 4% 5% 6% 17% 8% 5% 5% 8% 16%
Difficult to answer 39% 22% 23% 7% 21% 16% 29% 12% 12% 14% 19% 18% 15% 19% 9% 13% 36% 13% 23% 34% 29% 22% 17% 34%
What do you see as the top three obstacles that stop businesses
that you want from coming to your city?
64*The top two results for each city have been highlighted.
66. 2.7
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.6
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Kherson
Chernivtsi
Uzhgorod
Sumy
Poltava
Mykolaiv
Zaporizhia
Kropyvnytskyi
Odesa
Dnipro
Severodonetsk
Kyiv
Cherkasy
Chernihiv
Khmelnytskyi
Ivano-Frankivsk
Rivne
Lviv
Zhytomyr
Mariupol
Ternopil
Kharkiv
Lutsk
Vinnytsia
66
Average Score of the Quality of Public Goods and
Services in the City
*This score represents the average value of the quality of all 22 measured services in this survey, with “1” indicating a
terrible score and “5” indicating an excellent score.
67. 67
3.6 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Average Score of the Quality of Public Goods and
Services in the City (continued)
*This score is the average value of the quality of all 22 measured services in this survey, with “1” indicating a terrible
score and “5” indicating an excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015
survey. This data reflects scores through 2016.
69. 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Sidewalks
69
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
71. 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.6
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Trash Collection
71
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
73. 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.4
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Sewage
73
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
75. 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Medical Institutions
75
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
77. 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.4
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Transportation Infrastructure/Public Transport
77
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
79. 4.0 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Street Lighting
79
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
81. 3.4 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Roads
81
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
83. 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Industrial Zones/Industrial Development
83
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
85. 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Sports Facilities
85
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
87. 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.9
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
87
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
Universities, Technical Institutes, Colleges
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
89. 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Schools
89
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
91. 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.9
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Kindergartens
91
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
93. 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.9
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
93
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
Cultural Venues (Concert Halls, Libraries, Etc.)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
95. 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Street Markets
95
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
96. How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city?
Public Parks and Gardens
96
2%
3%
5%
4%
3%
4%
8%
5%
11%
5%
5%
10%
10%
6%
11%
7%
4%
7%
12%
8%
24%
26%
6%
18%
24%
22%
26%
32%
34%
36%
33%
37%
35%
42%
45%
41%
41%
46%
43%
47%
54%
55%
52%
58%
49%
55%
39%
45%
61%
49%
38%
33%
42%
45%
35%
46%
33%
39%
33%
37%
30%
30%
36%
34%
33%
30%
26%
25%
17%
14%
50%
28%
13%
19%
17%
23%
16%
9%
22%
6%
15%
11%
12%
8%
16%
12%
8%
7%
6%
6%
7%
8%
6%
3%
1%
5%
1%
2%
9%
6%
3%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
1%
1%
1%
4%
3%
6%
4%
2%
3%
5%
3%
4%
3%
3%
1%
4%
2%
2%
4%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Severodonetsk
Kherson
Uzhgorod
Mykolaiv
Chernivtsi
Poltava
Dnipro
Zhytomyr
Zaporizhia
Kropyvnytskyi
Sumy
Khmelnytskyi
Lviv
Ivano-Frankivsk
Odesa
Kyiv
Ternopil
Cherkasy
Rivne
Lutsk
Mariupol
Chernihiv
Kharkiv
Vinnytsia
Excellent Good Average Bad Terrible Difficult to answer
<1%
<1%
<1%1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
<1%
1%
<1%
97. 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Public Parks and Gardens
97
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
98. How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city?
98
2%
1%
1%
4%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
5%
1%
1%
3%
4%
6%
3%
3%
4%
4%
10%
9%
9%
13%
13%
12%
14%
16%
16%
17%
19%
18%
20%
23%
23%
29%
30%
31%
32%
31%
34%
38%
37%
38%
48%
59%
34%
35%
34%
44%
46%
32%
36%
61%
54%
37%
43%
37%
50%
38%
52%
36%
49%
39%
41%
38%
43%
40%
32%
29%
50%
45%
36%
32%
29%
32%
32%
18%
24%
32%
23%
32%
18%
29%
13%
23%
12%
19%
16%
15%
13%
13%
7%
1%
5%
4%
12%
2%
7%
16%
10%
2%
2%
10%
11%
6%
2%
2%
3%
6%
2%
2%
4%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
1%
1%
3%
5%
2%
2%
4%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
3%
2%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Severodonetsk
Zaporizhia
Kherson
Chernivtsi
Mykolaiv
Poltava
Sumy
Dnipro
Chernihiv
Khmelnytskyi
Odesa
Cherkasy
Kropyvnytskyi
Ternopil
Uzhgorod
Lviv
Kyiv
Rivne
Ivano-Frankivsk
Zhytomyr
Kharkiv
Lutsk
Mariupol
Vinnytsia
Excellent Good Average Bad Terrible Difficult to answer
2%
1%
1%
1%
<1%
1%
1%
<1%
Yards and Areas Near Buildings
99. 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Yards and Areas Near Buildings
99
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
101. 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Police Activities
101
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
103. 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Water Supply
103
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. The cities of Mariupol and Severodonetsk did not participate in the 2015 survey.
105. 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
Environment
105
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. Data on this was not collected until IRI’s 2016 survey.
107. Parking
107
3.1 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. Data on this was not collected until IRI’s 2016 survey.
109. Heating
109
3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. Data on this was not collected until IRI’s 2016 survey.
110. How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city?
Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities
110
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
4%
5%
1%
1%
3%
4%
4%
4%
5%
6%
5%
5%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
7%
7%
8%
10%
12%
13%
12%
16%
23%
27%
8%
30%
23%
25%
24%
27%
26%
25%
33%
29%
28%
21%
21%
27%
23%
22%
21%
28%
26%
20%
25%
18%
34%
34%
55%
46%
37%
35%
40%
36%
46%
41%
41%
34%
28%
27%
37%
41%
37%
42%
37%
36%
24%
33%
42%
39%
19%
31%
33%
11%
17%
29%
14%
22%
17%
24%
19%
28%
24%
37%
23%
20%
19%
22%
15%
11%
31%
26%
13%
16%
9%
7%
3%
10%
18%
8%
18%
10%
5%
5%
1%
3%
13%
7%
12%
5%
13%
6%
19%
15%
7%
8%
6%
7%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Uzhgorod
Severodonetsk
Khmelnytskyi
Chernihiv
Chernivtsi
Mariupol
Kropyvnytskyi
Odesa
Zaporizhia
Kherson
Poltava
Kyiv
Mykolaiv
Cherkasy
Rivne
Ivano-Frankivsk
Ternopil
Kharkiv
Lviv
Sumy
Dnipro
Zhytomyr
Lutsk
Vinnytsia
Excellent Good Average Bad Terrible Difficult to answer
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
111. Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities
111
How would you rate the quality of each of the following services and/or
public goods that are available in your city? (continued)
2.9 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
* These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score. Data on this was not collected until IRI’s 2016 survey.
113. Do you feel secure walking home alone in your neighborhood at
night? (continued)
113
1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0 March 2015 February 2016 February 2017 February 2018
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating feeling terribly unsafe and “3” indicating
feeling completely safe. Please note that Mariupol and Severodonetsk were not included in the 2015 survey.
115. 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 February 2017 February 2018
115
Pedestrians
In your opinion, how convenient is your city for each of the following?
(continued)
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.
117. 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0 February 2017 February 2018
117
Bicyclists
In your opinion, how convenient is your city for each of the following?
(continued)
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.
119. 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 February 2017 February 2018
119
Drivers of Private Vehicles
In your opinion, how convenient is your city for each of the following?
(continued)
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.
121. 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0 February 2017 February 2018
121
Public Transportation Passengers
In your opinion, how convenient is your city for each of the following?
(continued)
*These scores are based on citizen satisfaction ratings, with “1” indicating a terrible score and “5” indicating an
excellent score.