Liveable city from an economic perspective

The purpose of this article is to provide an overall image of what a liveable city is. Starting from the theoretical aspects presented in the first part of this work, and ending up with the practical ones, an attempt was made to provide an answer to the following question: why are some cities more attractive than others and what criteria should be fulfilled in order for the life of a city’s inhabitants to be considered qualitative, and that city to be deemed liveable. For a city to be liveable, it is bound to fulfil several conditions, the most important ones being related to economy, environment, infrastructure (healthcare, transport, education etc.), and also to aesthetics & culture, ambient, ways of spending leisure time, safety of life, vicinity etc. Albeit there is no generally accepted concept of Liveable City, a series of methodologies recognised globally provide an assessment of this very aspect (many of them sharing the same elements). In this article, by means of the Liveability indices, cities are classified into several categories. The cities listed in one category are shown to be present in almost all the other categories, on positions that are similar. Hence, the city of Tokyo can be found in five out of six categories proposed by the international organisations which elaborated such methodologies, along with the City of London (in four out of six categories) and with New York City (in four out of six categories) etc. In Romania, the cities that might be classified as liveable are: Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca, Timisoara, Brasov, Constanța and Sibiu. The Capital City of Romania, i.e. Bucharest, is ranked the 28th in a List of European Capital Cities, being outranked by Cities like Sofia, Lisbon or Budapest, which means it still does not fulfil many of the criteria for a liveable city.


Introduction
The process of world urbanisation is obvious, according to international reports (prepared by the World Bank, by the European Commission etc.) which show a significant increase, in the last three decades, of the urban population: from 42.93% in 1990, to 53.86% in 2015 1 (3.943 billion inhabitants). According to specialists, the growth trend will continue, so that by 2030, approximately 70% of the world population will live in cities. Romania is also part of this active urbanisation phenomenon, the urban population reaching approximately 54.56% in 2015 (10.82 million inhabitants), yet with a much less aggressive growth trend registered in the reference period (in 1990, the percentage was 53.22%). Despite this trend, for the capital-city -Bucharest, the trend are to diminishing the total resident population (-2.38%), for the period 2012-2016, from 2.158 millions inhabitants to 2.107 millions. In the European Union, this percentage exceeds the global value, reaching (in 2015) the value of 74.8% (381.23 million inhabitants) from the total population, the growth trend being obvious in comparison with 1990, when the percentage was 70.7%. This growth trend of the urban population, and particularly from large cities, represents a phenomenon that mankind has undergone for some time, and which entails a particular level as regards the quality of life and the individual well-being. At the same time, the acute urbanisation phenomenon has also given rise to the enhanced role that cities play from an economic perspective, as they are considered actual economic growth engines, which contribute to an increased mobility of manpower and to (financial, technological, innovative and alike) capital. It is well-known that cities hold over 80% of the Global Gross Domestic product (GDP) (McKinsey Global Institute). Practically, in a globalised world, cities become economic competitors, joining the increased competitive struggle, aiming at boosting their attractiveness to inhabitants and companies, no matter the means. But the attractiveness of cities is closely related to the concept of "liveability", which thus becomes a fundamental characteristic of the worldwide competitive struggle to attract resources of any kind, as this is known to contribute to the local economic growth, economic resilience, social & cultural innovation, improved standard of living. Moreover, competition between cities is regarded as a strategic competition between nations, turning cities into the epicentre of economic, social, cultural advantage etc. For this reason, an increasing growth has been ascertained in recent years as regards the interest for the liveability of cities, both from the part of the academic environment, and from that of the policy-makers, which on the one hand, has determined the promotion of certain methodologies of assessment of the liveability level, and on the other hand, the launch of some proper urban policies, meant to contribute to the growth of this significant quality of present modern cities. The methodologies launched at international level are based on the elaboration of certain indices aiming at assessing the relative position that cities occupy, function of the obtained values. The indices are built on the basis of certain indicators which measure the multi-dimensional aspects of human well-being, namely: personal mobility, security, environment, urban aesthetics, good governance, cultural actions etc. Further on, there is a presentation of the means of assessment of a city's liveability level, along with the results obtained subsequent to the conduct of certain international surveys and research activities.

Defining "liveability"related literature
There is no generally accepted form/formula for the concept of liveability, yet it has several qualitative and quantitative facets. This concept depends on two other concepts, which render its definition possible: quality of life and well-being.
Frequently used in the '80s and '90s in the USA, this concept was initially approached in close connection with the urban community that it would define / characterise, on the background of the issues generated by city extension and growing dependency upon vehicles (cars). The surveys and analyses conducted with respect to the concept of liveability attempted to identify the elements underlying competitiveness at city level, trying to inform the authorities with regard to the living conditions, so as to attract human and financial / entrepreneurial capital. In his study entitled The Cities and the Creative Class 2 , Richard Florida, a renowned economist, supported the idea that cities need a "people climate", namely an environment where the city inhabitants can feel comfortable and where they can fulfil their life aspirations.
From a social perspective, the concept of liveability has tried to bring equity in the limelight, while from an economic viewpoint, its purpose was to contribute to the making of beneficial policies for all inhabitants, and particularly for those who are underprivileged.
The use of the concept of liveability has called for the recognition of other concepts, such as the concepts of sustainable-city, smart-city, global-city, perfectcity, fastest-city, which are strongly interdependent (but which cannot be entirely overlapped). More often than not, the concept of liveability is considered to represent one of the fundamental elements of sustainability (along with economic performances, environmental protection and good governance).
In the period after 1990, the interventions (discussions) with respect to the liveability of cities have become more and more frequent, because the inhabitants of urban areas have become aware of the fact that, besides the advantages related to economy, infrastructure and alike, a city should first and foremost be a place for them to live, to raise their children and to age in a pleasant way. As a matter of fact, most of the definitions of this concept focus on a certain standard for the quality of life, a standard aimed at by all cities and by their inhabitants.
In order to provide a definition for this concept, several approaches are necessary, but the majority of those who analyse it agree with the idea that, for a city to be liveable, it does not depend very much on the statute of the country to which it belongs (developed or less developed country), but this characteristic rather refers to the attractiveness of the city, given by social activities, economic solidity, entrepreneurial environment etc. It becomes obvious that the concept of city liveability is difficult to measure, despite the acknowledgment of certain joint elements: cost of living, quality of life, happiness, well-being etc. From this perspective, the concept of liveable city should fulfil three main functions, which finally provide the prosperity of the entire city ( Figure 1):  https://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/home/pictures-of-thefuture/infrastructure-and-finance/livable-and-sustainable-cities-facts-and-forecastseconomic-imbalances-are-growing-in-cities-worldwide.html

Means of assessing the liveability index. International rankings
For the purpose of assessing an economic or social phenomenon of high complexity, an index is usually elaborated so as to provide a synthetic expression of such phenomenon, on the basis of several indicators.
As regards the measurement of the liveability level, the literature specialised in this field provides a series of Indices, calculated by various international bodies on the basis of several well-known methodologies, indices which are used at specific moments (annually, as a rule) in to order to perform the liveability rankings of cities around the world, based on a rigorous selection and on certain official statistical data. A synthetic presentation of such indices is provided below: companies from every continent, and to use their assets in domains such as economic & social security and environmental protection. The Mori Index provides a general assessment of the power held by 40 leading cities worldwide, based on six main functions: economic, research & development, cultural interaction, environment and accessibility, considered to represent the driving force of cities. The performed analyses envisages the global players which lead the urban activities carried out in their cities, namely the Manager, the Researcher, the Artist, the Visitor and the Resident (Table 1).  This index assesses the current performance of cities based on 13 indicators from the following domains: economic (25%), individual well-being (25%), governance (25%) and innovation (25%), providing a follow-up of the evolution of 125 cities worldwide. From an economic perspective, the indicators subject to analysis are the GDP and the long-term investments. They are supplemented by the following innovative indicators: patent, private investments and business incubators. This index is calculated in two ways: the Global Cities Index and the Global Cities Outlook, whose values and rankings are presented below (Table 3).  3 The Global Cities Index, proposed by Frank Knight 4 (Citi Private Bank), known as the Knight Frank Index. In his assessment report, Knight proposes an approach mainly focused on economic aspects and on the human perception of the degree of liveability (the so-called people-centric approach). In other words, the driving force of urban development consists of finance, aerospace industry, consumer and / or processed goods, and the most important asset of all, educated and creative manpower. Consequently, the real estate activities become more and more attractive against the background of building an environment which attracts and preserves its inhabitants. 4 The Global City Competitiveness Index, proposed by Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and by Citi-Group, known as the EIU-Competitiveness Index.
In the first stage of its elaboration, this index envisaged the geographical / spatial characteristics of cities, grouped into six fields (25% of the Index), as well as the specific characteristics, grouped into five major domains: stability, health, culture, environment, education and infrastructure (75% of the Index).
Afterwards, other domains were also included, such as: shape of cities (expansion, extent, green space size), geographical location of cities (natural characteristics, isolation or connectivity), culture-related aspects and pollution level. Such space features are assessed in relation to 70 cities, by means of the Liveability Index, based on the following main selection criteria: population size, geographical distribution, and also the fact that all residents benefit from the city's natural resources, but suffer from air pollution. The top 10 city ranking performed on a global scale, elaborated on the basis of the Liveability Index value, is presented in Table 4. The Mercer Index is calculated on the basis of 39 factors grouped into ten categories, which contain all the key elements that can be used to describe the quality of life with respect to 450 cities. The calculation methodology for the MERCER index is based on the following elements:  to determine the tangible values of qualitative perception with regard to the assessed objectives;  to select the factors which represent the criteria considered to be the most relevant;  to establish the differences in terms of the quality of life among the cities subject to analysis;  to calculate the Index on a City-by-City basis (one-to-one comparison), in order to provide a synthesis of the differences between two such cities;  to determine the Quality of Life Index for cities.
The MERCER Index is based on the following categories of indicators: consumer goods, economic environment, housing, medical and health considerations, natural environment, political and social environment, public services and transport, recreation, schools and education and socio-cultural environment.

Bucharest -the most liveable city in Romania
The Capital City Romania, i.e. Bucharest, is currently considered as the most liveable city in the country, followed by Cluj-Napoca,Timișoara, Brașov, Constanța and Sibiu.
Despite the fact that Bucharest is not listed in any of the above-mentioned rankings, it is one of the most attractive cities in Romania, due to its location in the Bucharest -Ilfov region, one of the most important EU-28 regions. In this region, the GDP value per inhabitant amounted to EUR 35,500 in 2014, being ranked the 40 th out of the 276 EU regions (in the first 15%) (Figure 2). If the GDP value per inhabitant provides a certain comfort for Bucharest inhabitants, from an economic perspective, in terms of the quality of life, there are certain shortcomings, which need time to be remedied and which affect the liveability level of this city.
In order to provide an assessment of how liveable Bucharest is, below are given the results of a Report elaborated by the European Commission in 2015 under the title Quality of life in European Cities, and which concerns 83 EU cities, the criteria underlying such analysis being given in Table 5.  4. The level of satisfaction of inhabitants with respect to the education sector in Bucharest is 48%, the lowest in Europe (after the inhabitants of Sofia, with 47%). The first ranks are occupied by the inhabitants of Groningen, Rennes (both with 88%), Prague (87%), Antwerp (86%) and Zurich (85%).
5. The condition of buildingsless than 50% of the respondents are satisfied with it. The most satisfied ones live in Zurich (93%) and in Stockholm (90%).
6. The level of satisfaction regarding the degree of cleanliness in Bucharest is very small (only 37%), and the remaining 62% of inhabitants are totally dissatisfied with this aspect; in the UE, 95% of the citizens of Luxemburg are satisfied with the degree of cleanliness of their city, and 90% of the inhabitants of Vienna.
7. The level of noise is also disturbing for the inhabitants of Bucharest, 69% being completely dissatisfied with this aspect.
8. The quality of air can be an important criterion for determining a liveable city.
78% of the inhabitants of Bucharest are dissatisfied with this aspect. In Vienna, Helsinki and Dublin, 88% of the inhabitants are dissatisfied with the quality of air in their cities.
9. 42% of the inhabitants of Bucharest are satisfied with the public administration of their city, in comparison with Zurich (90%), Luxembourg (87%), Graz (83%) and Oslo (80%). Also, 45% of the inhabitants of Bucharest believe that the public administration of their city is efficient, while the other 55% consider it is inefficient. 10. With respect to safety, only 18% of the inhabitants of Bucharest feel safe in their city.
11. The difficulty of finding a workplace is a criterion which, for most of the inhabitants, represents an essential condition in order to survive in a city like Bucharest. Around 48% of the respondents consider that finding a workplace in Bucharest is easy.
12. The financial satisfaction of the inhabitants of European cities varies a lot from one city to another. In Bucharest, 9% of the inhabitants are satisfied with this aspect, and approximately 55% are relatively satisfied. The level of financial satisfaction is maximum in Zurich (92%) and minimum in Athens (33%).
Given the above-mentioned statistics, one can conclude that, despite the fact that the level of development of Bucharest is superior to that of other cities in Romania, the degree of satisfaction of the inhabitants of this city is relatively low. Even if the overall level of satisfaction is 80% among its inhabitants, the other problems (low quality public healthcare services, high degree of air pollution, infrastructure, education system which needs improvement), endanger the liveability feature of this city, and intense efforts are necessary in order to remedy such problems.
In terms of the overall perception dynamics, the level of satisfaction with respect to life in Bucharest decreased in 2015, in comparison with 2013, from 83% to 80%, which shows a negative trend as regards the quality of life in the Capital City of Romania.

Conclusions
The purpose of this article is to provide an overall image of what liveable cities are.
Starting from the theoretical aspects presented in the first part of this work, and ending up with the practical ones, an attempt was made to provide an answer to the following question: why are some cities more attractive than others and what criteria should be fulfilled in order for the life of a city's inhabitants to be considered qualitative, and that city to be deemed liveable. For a city to be liveable, it is bound to fulfil several conditions, the most important ones being related to economy, environment, infrastructure (healthcare, transport, education etc.), and also to aesthetics & culture. The economic aspects are not always revealing for the liveability level, unless they are accompanied by positive effects on the overall quality of life.
Albeit there is no generally accepted concept of Liveability Index, one can ascertain that the cities ranked on the first positions worldwide are found in most methodologies identified in this study. Hence, the city of Tokyo can be found in five out of six categories (methodologies) proposed by international organisations, along with the City of London (in four out of six categories) and with New York City (in four out of six categories) ( Table 7).