Docstoc

manchin

Document Sample
manchin Powered By Docstoc
					The emotional capital and desirability of European cities

Robert Manchin
Gallup Europe October 11, 2007, Brussels

Note on data sources
Data are based on the results of Flash EB 194 (Urban Audit Perception Survey 2006), and the Gallup Soul of the City Database. Sample sizes are about 500 and 1000 per city, interviewing was carried out by telephone. The Gallup ‘Soul of the City’ programme measures and tracks the political, economic and social wellbeing of cities globally, based on how residents view their city’s performance in providing healthy living and working conditions.

The object of desire: cities as magnets





   



How European cities are shaping up on the needed emotional capital to keep and attract Attracting whom? Within country, outside A look at drivers of loyalty Is there a city-specific bias in the “eyes of beholders” Imagining cities as a place to make a living Attracting visitors A special case – is there a differential emotional appeal for the young and educated “creatives”? Drivers of loyalty and satisfaction

Slide 3
© 2007 Gallup Europe

10 0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10

0

Country native

Attracting from near and far

© 2007 Gallup Europe

EU immigrant (1st or 2nd generation) non-EU immigrant (1st or 2nd generation)

Slide 4

Luxembourg London Brussels Riga Antwerpen Manchester Paris Marseille Tallinn Munchen Liege Amsterdam Strasbourg Ljubljana Wien Zagreb Malmö Lille Lisboa Stockholm Hamburg Rotterdam Berlin Essen Graz Newcastle Glasgow Dortmund Bordeaux Kobenhaven Cardiff Dublin Athinia Braga Belfast Vilnius Kosice Madrid Frankfurt an der Oder Bratislava Groningen Leipzig Barcelona Rennes Ostrava Lefkosia Torino Aalborg Budapest Valetta Malaga Gdansk Irakleio Praha Roma Istanbul Helsinki Verona Ankara Burgas Warszawa Oulu Cluj-Napoca Sofia Antalya Miskolc Bucuresti Krakow Oviedo Bialystok Bologna Palermo Piatra Neamt Napoli Diyarbakir

Levels of Emotional Capital

“FULLY ENGAGED”

“GOOD BUT DISINTEGRATING” Cities with especially satisfactory infrastructure and housing, but citizens are discontent with city administration and the integration of immigrants is problematic

“STRIVING”

“DISENGAGED

Cities where it is generally good to live (residents gave positive assessments in all or most aspects investigated)

Cities, where -- despite various problems regarding services – citizens are satisfied, optimistic about the future, they see their city clean and well integrated

Cities where according to local evaluation it is generally bad to live (residents gave negative assessments in all or most aspects investigated)

Slide 5
© 2007 Gallup Europe

Cities in the various categories...
“FULLY ENGAGED” “GOOD, BUT DISINTEGRATING” “STRIVING” “DISENGAGED”

Aalborg, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Belfast, Bordeaux, Cardiff, Glasgow, Groningen, Helsinki, Copenhagen, Lille, Luxembourg, Munich, Newcastle, Oulu, Oviedo, Rennes, Rotterdam, Strasbourg, Vienna

Berlin, Bologna, Brussels, Dortmund, Dublin, Essen, Frankfurt a.d. Oder, Graz, Hamburg, Leipzig, Liege, London, Malmö, Paris, Prague, Stockholm

Barcelona, Bialystok, Braga, Cluj-Napoca, Gdansk, Herakleion, Kosice, Krakow, Ljubljana, Malaga, Manchester, Miskolc, Ostrava, Piatra Neamt, Riga, Tallinn, Verona, Vilnius,

Ankara, Antalya, Athens, Bratislava, Bucharest, Budapest, Burgas, Diyarbakir, Istanbul, Nicosia, Lisbon, Madrid, Marseille, Napoli, Palermo, Roma, Sofia, Torino, Valetta, Warszawa, Zagreb

Slide 6
© 2007 Gallup Europe

(regression model, dependent: satisfied in city, attributes with highest Beta shown for each cluster, in descending order) “FULLY ENGAGED” “GOOD, BUT DISINTEGRATING” “STRIVING” “DISENGAGED”

Pillars of Emotional Capital

HIGH on emotional attachment if very positive assessments of...:
Primary healthcare Feel safe in [CITY] Good place to live for immigrants or minority people Good place to live for people with disabilities Noise Foreigners well integrated 5-year optimism Cleanliness Donated money Cultural facilities Public transport Attractive for talented young people to come to live from elsewhere in [COUNTRY] Volunteerism Easy to find good housing Spends resources responsibly Green spaces such as public parks and gardens Donated money

5-year optimism Feel safe in the neighborhood Attractive for talented young people to come to live from abroad Public transport Cinemas Volunteerism Good place to live for people with disabilities The beauty of the city Hospitals

Slide 7
© 2007 Gallup Europe

Distribution of urban emotional capital: North(west )– South(east) divide
FULLY ENGAGED GOOD, BUT DISINTEGRATING STRIVING DISENGAGED

Kép: Európa népsűrűségi térképe

© 2007 Gallup Europe

The strength of attraction is related to urban quality == but straining manageability
Country native
100

EU immigrant (1st or 2nd generation)

non-EU immigrant (1st or 2nd generation)

95

9

11

9 4

5 4

90

85

10

12 91

80

75

86 80 77

70

65

60

FULLY ENGAGED

GOOD, BUT DISINTEGRATING

STRIVING

DISENGAGED

© 2007 Gallup Europe

Degrees of satisfaction
mostly dissatisfied but feel secure, still love the city overall cultural offerings are satisfactory, but jobs and housing as well as immigration are seen as problems satisfied to live, proud of history, inclusiveness -- but not the rest generally dissatisfied generally satisfied
1 00%

1 3 24

3 15 8 26

3 21 6 34

9 0%

7 9 11

13 14 17

13 10

7

12 26 23 8 18 5

80%

7 0%

39 23 14 21

6 0%

21

5 0%

39 23 26

4 0%

44

3 0%

52

40

2 0%

48

37

35

33

1 0%

28

19 Rome

13

11

0%

Helsinki Stockholm Paris
© 2007 Gallup Europe

Berlin

London

Dublin

Barcelona Madrid
Slide 10

(attributes that make the European Creative Class satisfied with living in their city)
In the next five years, it w ill be m ore pleasant to live in [CITY] Attractive for talented young people to com e live from abroad The beauty of the city Attractive for talented young people from elsew here in country [CITY] is a clean city [CITY] citizens can be proud of the city's history The adm inistrative services of [CITY] help you efficiently Cultural facilities Good place to live for people from other EU countries [CITY] is a good place to live for im m igrants [CITY] is a good place to live for people w ith disabilites [CITY] spends its resources in a responsible w ay Cinem as Foreigners w ho live in [CITY] are w ell integrated Internet access at hom e In [CITY], it is easy to find a good job Schools Public Internet access Green spaces Health care services offered by doctors Health care services offered by hospitals Easy to find good housing at a reasonable price Public transport in the city Sports facilities You feel safe in [CITY] In [CITY], noise is a big problem You feel safe in the neighborhood you live in Donated m oney to poor or disadvantaged people in [CITY] [CITY], air pollution is a big problem You have difficulty paying your bills at the end of the m onth

Demands of the Creative Class

Slide 11
© 2007 Gallup Europe

You are satisfied to live in [CITY]
(strongly agree, %)
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

GENERAL POPULATION YOUNG & CREATIVE POPULATION
77 78 67 55 56 74 64 57 49 51 54 50 46 50 41 34

(NEXT TO THE CITY’S NAME, THE OVERALL RANK AMONG 75 EU CITIES IS SHOWN)
67

54

3. Stockholm

7. Stockholm

58. Barcelona

56. Barcelona

69. Helsinki

31. Helsinki

22. Rome

53. Rome

26. Berlin

39. Dublin

64. Paris

68. London

59. London

51. Berlin

15. Dublin

55. Paris

55. Madrid

© 2007 Gallup Europe

73. Madrid
Slide 12

[CITY] is a good place to live for people from other EU countries (strongly agree, %)
70

GENERAL POPULATION YOUNG & CREATIVE POPULATION
(NEXT TO THE CITY’S NAME, THE OVERALL RANK AMONG 75 EU CITIES IS SHOWN)
49 45 41 39 37 31

60

50

40

35

35

30

29 22

32

31 23

29

28

25 20

24

20

10

0

42. Helsinki

14. Helsinki

26. Stockholm

39. Stockholm

24. Barcelona

40. Dublin

36. Barcelona

43. Rome

44. Madrid

56. Berlin

55. Rome

18. London

16. London

7. Dublin

51. Madrid

59. Paris

© 2007 Gallup Europe

54. Paris
Slide 13

2. Berlin

Foreigners are well integrated
(strongly agree, %)
30

25

25

25

GENERAL POPULATION YOUNG & CREATIVE POPULATION
(NEXT TO THE CITY’S NAME, THE OVERALL RANK AMONG 75 EU CITIES IS SHOWN)
18 16

20

15

14 10 10 6 10 11 9 9 6 3 5

10

5

4

4 2

0

46. Barcelona

65. Helsinki

52. Helsinki

49. Rome

73. Stockholm

67. Stockholm

34. Dublin

40. Madrid

50. Paris

65. Rome

15. Barcelona

31. London

16. London

21. Dublin

56. Madrid

© 2007 Gallup Europe

74. Berlin
Slide 14

72. Berlin

71. Paris

Easy to find good housing at a reasonable price
(strongly agree, %)
40

36
35

GENERAL POPULATION YOUNG & CREATIVE POPULATION
(NEXT TO THE CITY’S NAME, THE OVERALL RANK AMONG 75 EU CITIES IS SHOWN)

30

25

20

19

15

12 7 5 7 5 5 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 0

10

5

0

58. Stockholm

47. Helsinki

62. Stockholm

73. Helsinki

41. Barcelona

8. Barcelona

42. London

48. Dublin

52. Dublin

58. Rome

2. Berlin

15. Berlin

37. London

28. Madrid

32. Madrid

72. Rome

© 2007 Gallup Europe

70. Paris
Slide 15

71. Paris

It is easy to find a good job
(strongly agree, %)
40

36
35

35

GENERAL POPULATION YOUNG & CREATIVE POPULATION
(NEXT TO THE CITY’S NAME, THE OVERALL RANK AMONG 75 EU CITIES IS SHOWN)
25

30

25

20

18

19 15 12 9 6 7 6 4 2 2 1 1 13 12

15

10

5

0

26. Stockholm

28. Helsinki

14. Barcelona

13. Helsinki

40. Madrid

64. Rome

11. Stockholm

59. Rome

5. London

5. London

31. Barcelona

54. Madrid

© 2007 Gallup Europe

65. Berlin
Slide 16

47. Paris

47. Paris

67. Berlin

1. Dublin

1. Dublin

Competitive creative destinations
100

DESTINATIONS
90 HELSINKI 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 MADRID ROME BARCELONA BERLIN LONDON PARIS STOCKHOLM DUBLIN

Berlin

Barcelona Madrid

Paris

Dublin

Rome

Helsinki Stockholm London
Slide 17

© 2007 Gallup Europe

Q8.b - What do you think what are the most attractive cities for innovative people to migrate to? % by city

Moscow StPetersburg Bucharest Budapest Hamburg Warsaw Milan Munich Naples Brussels Cologne Turin Marseille Riga Salonika Palermo Frankfurt Glasgow Vilnius Lisbon Helsinki Oslo Copenhagen Dublin Liverpool Antwerp Edinburgh Manchester Lyon Bologna Firenze Nice Amsterdam Zürich Cardiff Belfast NewcastleuponTyne Strasbourg Graz Geneve

Desirability as visiting destinations
Stockholm Graz

VIENNA
Berlin

Vienne

BERLIN
Roma Torino Paris Riga Burgas Diyarbakir Bologna Aalborg Dortmund Rennes Belfast Ljubljana Kobenhaven Groningen

PRAGUE

Prague

Zagreb Palermo

Barcelona Madrid Strasbourg Essen Lille Marseille Rotterdam Amsterdam

Sofia Luxembourg

Athinia

Antwerpen Lisboa Newcastle Verona Barcelona Kosice

AMSTERDAM

Malaga Madrid

BARCELONA LONDON
London Paris Roma

Glasgow

Berlin Istanbul

MADRID
Braga Oviedo Liege Bordeaux

Cardiff

ROME PARIS
Hamburg

Antalya Venezia

Frankfurt

Helsinki

London Manchester Leipzig Malmö Munchen Brussel Stockholm Oulu Warszawa Krakow Napoli Budapest Bucuresti Vilnius Tallinn Miskolc Praha Ostrava Ankara Irakleio Gdansk Piatra-Neamt Lefkosia

Bialystok

VENICE

Valetta

Dublin Cluj-Napoca

Wien

Bratislava

the Respondent’s cities Cities people would like most to visit
© 2007 Gallup Europe

Q8. If you would be completely free to choose, which European city would you like to visit the most? Slide 18

ATHENS

Athens

Satisfied with living in [CITY] Explore it:
(very satisfied, %)

Slide 19
© 2007 Gallup Europe


				
DOCUMENT INFO