What is the link between how we experience and perceive places in creating ‘pride in place’ or similar sentiments? And what are the roles of place managers and branders in influencing our experiences and perceptions of places? Those were questions foremost in my mind when I took a deep dive into international indices measuring either the liveability or image of cities.
International indices of city liveability and image
To get a global perspective on the role of place management and marketing in influencing our experiences and perceptions of places, I looked at a range of widely-used international indices that broadly fall into two camps: i). Those that monitor mostly quantitative measures of the liveability of cities experienced by residents; and ii). those that are more concerned with qualitative, external perceptions that might influence the behaviour of potential investors, transitory workers or tourists. Six indices were assessed for each of the disciplines.
Some of these indices are a hybrid of quantitative measures and qualitative perceptions, and some of the branding indices include liveability as a category within a wider assessment of place identity and image. All of the indices were global except one that looked at the quality of life in European cities and also happened to be based on residents’ responses.
The 12 international indices assessed for this research were:
i. City liveability indices
- Global Liveability Index (Economist Intelligence Unit)
- Happy City Index (Institute for Quality of Life)
- Numbeo Quality of Life Index
- Mercer Quality of Living City Ranking
- Oxford Economics Global Cities Index
- Report on the Quality of life in European cities
ii. City branding indices
- Anholt City Brand Index
- Resonance World’s Best Cities Report
- Kearney Global City Index and Outlook
- Brand Finance City Brand Index
- Global Power Index
- Elements that impact perceptions of a city (Bloom).
These international indices are mostly only applied to large cities and usually only include a handful of U.K. cities. If we look at the ranking of London (pictured) across them, we see the distinction between liveability as a resident-focused measure and brand as a more externally-focused concept. For liveability indices, London often has a modest ranking and in two of the indices appears as 11th and last, and 14th and last, of U.K. ranked cities. For place brand indices, London is always ranked in the top three cities and often in first spot. Vienna (also pictured), in contrast regularly features in the top 5 rankings, and often in the top spot, for liveability or quality of life. The cities ranking in place branding indices is strong though limited to the top 20.
Findings by attributes for liveability and brand
The analysis identified 14 place attributes used across the 12 international indices, with many common to all or most, as the summary below shows:
- Built and natural environment (liveability 6; branding 6)
- Economy and employment (liveability 5; branding 6)
- Culture and leisure (liveability 5; branding 6)
- Educational institutions and attainment (liveability 5; branding 6)
- Affordability and availability of accommodation (liveability 6; branding 3)
- Transport infrastructure and use (liveability 4; branding 4)
- Governance systems and participation (liveability 4; branding 4)
- Safety (liveability 4; branding 4)
- Societal values (liveability 3; branding 5)
- Healthcare provision and personal health (liveability 5; branding 2)
- Sport (liveability 1; branding 4)
- Public services and infrastructure (liveability 3; branding 1)
- Profile and influence (liveability 0; branding 4)
- Digital presence (liveability 0; branding 2)
This initial analysis is useful in recognising a consensus for the place attributes that are important in determining both the liveability and image of places. From this analysis the top 10 place attributes can in general be considered important for both disciplines. In addition, public services and infrastructure can be considered a key attribute because of its importance to liveability. Sport is an important part of place identity, though could possibly be grouped with culture and leisure attribute.
Investigation of the relationship between indicators
More detailed investigation is needed to understand the relationship between the various indicators used for each place attribute to the more full understand the role of place management and marketing in influencing our experiences and perceptions of places. This is a summary of what I found for each place attribute categorised according to the relationship between the indicators for place management or branding indices.
a. Joint attribute & contrasting indicators (36%)
This is the most common combination. It does not necessarily indicate opposing perspectives between how places are managed or marketed and could be portrayed as representing ‘different sides of the same coin’.
This combination is demonstrated by economy and employment as a key attribute of places in 11 out of the 12 indices. Here the emphasis switches from a resident focus for liveability that includes indicators of individual income and employment levels, to more of an emphasis on the macro-economy and opportunities for businesses as indicators of the strength of the city brand.
Similarly high levels of recognition with contrasting perspectives are also shown for place attributes covering: educational institutions and attainment; transport infrastructure and use; affordability and availability of accommodation; and societal values to a degree.
b. Joint attributes & similar indicators (14%)
This is one of the rarest combinations and is mostly clearly shown for the governance systems and participation attribute of places, where four out of six indices for both disciplines focus on participation and suitable systems being in place.
Similarly complementary perspectives are shown across the two sets of indices for the attribute of safety.
c. Joint attributes with inconsistent indicators (14%)
This is also the join rarest combination and is illustrated by attributes of place such as culture and leisure where though referenced in 11/12 indices, indicators of cultural activity vary from a focus on cultural institutions and infrastructure to events and nightlife. Under liveability there is a slightly stronger emphasis on indicators of cultural activity serving the resident population.
There are similar inconsistencies between the indicators used for the attribute of the built and natural environment.
d. Stronger attributes for single discipline (36%)
This is the joint most common combination across the disciplines. It reflects the reality that place managers and brand may be focused on different attributes of place, though can be interpreted that need to assessed for a fuller understandiing of the rtole of both in influencing our experiences and perceptions of places.
It is demonstrated by the healthcare provision and personal health attribute of places. This is recognised in five of the six liveability indices with a focus on the quality of health care and availability per head, as might be expected. Not surprisingly perhaps, there is much more limited reference to this attribute across branding indices, with only two making limited reference to availability of healthcare.
There is a similar imbalance in the level of references between indices for the attribute of public services and infrastructure, with more references under liveability. There is an imbalance in favour of place branding indices for sport; profile and influence; and digital presence.
What this more detailed analysis suggests is that there is a more detailed relationship between indicators for two-thirds of the place attributes, albeit that sometimes they may represent different sides of the same coin. The last category is where the relationship is weakest, though it includes healthcare and public services as attributes that are important to liveability, and sport that could be grouped with leisure and culture. If we are taking a resident focus, the more ephemeral attributes of profile and digital presence can perhaps be discounted.
Influence on experiences and perceptions of place
There are several useful learning points from this analysis of international indices of the liveability and image of cities, that help us in influencing experiences and perceptions of places in an integrated way. This helpful in applying a concept such pride in place needs to combine how people experience and benefit from places alongside nurturing enhanced perceptions amongst residents and other stakeholders.
-
For place managers involved perhaps in neighbourhood, high street, town or city centre revitalisation, it helps broaden our scope from functional metrics like footfall or vacancy rates, to indicators that help focus on the wider liveability of places for local residents.
-
For place brand managers perhaps concentrating on improving the outward portrayal and promotion of places, it helps give legitamacy to widening our focus to embrace a range of malluable attributes that impact on how newcomers will experience and perceive places alongside residents.
-
More broadly the analysis offers place leaders a wider set of attributes to address in the wider reimagining of places that involve place managers and branders in jointly influencing our experiences and perceptions of places in more integrated ways.
Although still only indicative, the consensus achieved by analysing these twelve international indices across the disciplines of city liveability and branding, provides encouragement for informing practical applications and further research that builds on the identified inter-relationships. At People & Places we will next look to apply this learning at different scales of places and through defining suitable indicators that are already available or can be readily measured locally. We will look to do this alongside our existing research, including the responses of different stakeholders as documented in our recent account of pride in youthful and disadvantaged places.
Watch this space if your council and community is looking to manage and monitor changes to local pride in place in ways that go beyond counting outputs and are guided by a deeper understanding of how we experience and perceive places.
Futher reading
Read our earlier post on promoting pride in place through progress that takes a detailed look at the role of place branding in engaging stakeholders and creating a greater sense of local belief.
Take a look at how at People & Places we can help councils and communities in boosting pride in place by applying our tried and tested steps.
