/question/ 15296674.html
What is the most livable city in China? What is the standard to measure whether a city is livable?
Since the Beijing Municipal People's Congress formally put forward the position of livable city in June 5438+ 10, 2005, about 20 cities across the country have set the goal of building livable cities. However, what is livable, what indicators does this thematic concept include, and what are the weights of different indicators?
On June 5438+ 10, 2005, Business Weekly and Horizon Research Consulting Group jointly conducted a multi-stage exploratory survey on "Livability Index of China City". This paper describes the public's comprehensive evaluation of the balance and integrity of the city to meet its residential needs in various dimensions, including the public's evaluation of residential space, community space and public space, in order to find the concrete performance of the city in the eyes of the public and explore the path of livable city construction.
First of all, we interviewed 32 12 18-60-year-old residents in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Chengdu, Shenyang, Xi, Jinan, Dalian and Xiamen, and asked them to put forward the main considerations for evaluating whether a city is suitable for living.
Secondly, on the basis of public surveys, through an expert system composed of experts in urban planning, urban economy, real estate research, architectural design, ecological research and other related fields, professors of research institutions, relevant government leaders and senior media people, after three rounds of rigorous Delphi expert surveys, the index system and corresponding weight system of "China City Livability Index" are obtained, including three first-level indicators, 20 second-level indicators and 56 third-level indicators.
In the third step, 3434 residents aged 18-65 were randomly selected from 3 1 representative provincial capital cities and large, medium and small cities with different economic development levels, and 1604 investors in 15 cities were interviewed by telephone, asking them to combine their own experiences and subjective feelings about their respective cities. The report shows that
Based on this, Businessweek magazine and Horizon Research Consulting Group will conduct continuous annual surveys and follow-up studies, and publish an annual report and ranking of China Livable Index every year in the future.
Core Results of China Livability Index in 2005
● Discovery 1: Big cities need to learn from small coastal and inland cities.
Livability embodies a comprehensive concept, including living conditions, community environment, human environment, economic environment, ecological environment and other factors. Therefore, being outstanding in one aspect does not mean that the livability of this city is good. This survey shows that the livable level of cities in China is generally not high at present. The cities with the highest livability index are less than 70 points, and even some cities fail in the livability index, which is far from the public's requirements.
Further analysis shows that among the 3 1 cities in this survey, the top 10 cities include coastal cities such as Dalian, Xiamen and Qingdao, as well as inland cities such as Mianyang, Chengdu, Wuhan, Nanjing and Chongqing, while among megacities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, only Shanghai is shortlisted, and Beijing, Guangzhou and Shenzhen can only be ranked in the middle reaches. According to the survey, coastal cities are naturally favored because of their unique and superior natural environment and rapid economic development. The natural advantages of central and western cities are not as good as those of coastal cities, but the climate is suitable, the transportation is convenient, the humanistic atmosphere is strong, and the life is relatively leisurely, which also attracts many residents. Therefore, from the perspective of livable city construction, big cities need to learn from coastal and inland small cities.
● Discovery 2: The human environment and living facilities are relatively good, but the economic environment and personal home environment are obviously insufficient. The survey found that personal housing conditions, environmental management, living security, community management, leisure and sports conditions have great influence on the overall livability level, but the satisfaction is generally low. Relatively speaking, the residents interviewed are satisfied with the human environment and living facilities in each city.
● Discovery 3: In terms of personal living space, residents live quietly, but they are not happy.
According to the survey, at present, more than 60% of the residents live in the first suite with an average area of less than 80 square meters, and the per capita living area is only 30. 1 square meter, which is still far from the average urban area of 35 square meters stipulated by the Ministry of Construction. In addition, nearly 15% residents rent or borrow houses, and the proportion of residents who own second leisure property or holiday property for leisure is less than 8%. Generally speaking, the living standard of residents is still at the basic level of "living in peace", and there is still a certain distance from "happy living".
The per capita living area of different income groups is quite different. Residents with an average monthly income of less than 4,000 yuan have a smaller living area, less than 30 square meters, and such groups have a lower evaluation of the living environment. 3 1 Urban residents generally have a low evaluation of the privacy of housing and the application of new energy-saving and environmental protection technologies in housing, except for the small per capita living area.
Through the correlation analysis between the factors of housing conditions and the satisfaction of home conditions, it is found that in all aspects of living conditions, the higher the income, the lower the attention to lighting and the higher the attention to ventilation. Middle-income groups pay more attention to privacy than low-income and high-income groups.
● Discovery 4: In terms of community space, the residential density, property management and green area are not ideal, and sports, entertainment and leisure facilities are obviously insufficient. The survey results show that residential density, residential property management and residential green area are the most concerned aspects of the community space where 3 1 urban people live, but public satisfaction has just passed and needs to be greatly improved. Community sports, entertainment and leisure facilities also have great influence on community space, but at present, community space is obviously insufficient.
● Discovery 5: In the field of public space, the city's environmental governance, leisure and entertainment conditions, economic development level, work and development opportunities are generally unsatisfactory, but the city's human environment and future development potential are optimistic. In terms of urban ecological environment, the leading work is generally done well, but the deep management needs to be strengthened, and high-income groups enjoy more benefits from the artificial transformation project of ecological greening. The survey results show that in terms of green environment, cities perform well in explicit indicators such as domestic water consumption, environmental cleanliness and convenience of tourist destinations, but they are not satisfied with the effects of implicit indicators such as light pollution, sewage treatment and solid waste treatment. From the perspective of group differences, everyone feels the same about noise and water resources, even the low-income groups feel better, while the urban greening and tourism resources of high-income groups are obviously higher than those of low-income groups. In terms of urban humanistic environment, cultural integration and interpersonal atmosphere are good, but basic cultural life is lacking. The survey results show that the good performance of urban humanistic environment is reflected in the absorption of foreign cultures, the local habits of foreigners and the degree of harmony among people, while residents are obviously dissatisfied with the richness of cultural life, libraries, museums and other basic cultural facilities. Different groups have similar feelings about social stability in interpersonal integration, and the satisfaction of low-income groups in cultural life and basic cultural facilities is obviously lower than that of high-income groups. In terms of living facilities, shopping, restaurants, banks and other commercial facilities, as well as educational resources at all levels, are relatively satisfied, while sports and fitness, leisure and entertainment, health care places, low/free parks, cinemas and other aspects are obviously insufficient, and the rationality of fees has been criticized. Different income groups have the same satisfaction with transportation and commercial facilities, but there are great differences in sports and fitness, leisure and entertainment, medical care and education. The higher the income, the higher the satisfaction.
In terms of economic environment, the survey shows that people are generally satisfied with the macro-economic activity, market order and talent attraction of the city, but their satisfaction with the per capita GDP, employment situation and entrepreneurial opportunities of the individuals concerned is obviously low, and the personal development environment of low-income groups is obviously insufficient.
Discovery 6: Different cities have different livable performances, and different regions and scales have their own characteristics.
In the six regions of East China, Southwest China, South China, Northeast China, North China and Northwest China, the evaluation of living facilities and services is the closest, while the evaluation of urban economic environment and green ecological environment is significantly different. The green ecological environment and personal living environment in southwest China win, the urban economic environment and urban humanistic environment in east China are dominant, and the northwest China is the worst in all aspects.
The natural conditions and economic development of coastal cities go hand in hand, municipalities directly under the central government take the lead, and northern cities are generally superior to human environment. On the whole, the livable level of large and small cities is comparable. The natural conditions of small cities are better than intangible, and the performance of air quality and temperature and humidity is obviously better than that of big cities, while the performance of big cities in tangible, urban cleaning and sewage treatment is better than that of small cities. Smooth traffic is closely related to the size of the city. The bigger the city, the less smooth the traffic. Kunming, Beijing, Nanning, Xi and Chongqing are the five cities with the least smooth traffic in this survey, and the difference of residents' satisfaction with traffic smoothness in different cities is up to 32 points. The transportation in small cities is relatively convenient, and 74% of the respondents work within 30 minutes; Traffic jams in big cities, 70% of respondents need more than 30 minutes to go to work. The survey results of urban informatization show that the computer penetration rate, Internet usage rate and media richness in big cities are obviously better than those in small and medium-sized cities.
● The city's "livable capital" score is greater than "livable".
For residents, livable cities reflect the feeling of living, while for investors, livable cities are linked to investment. In this survey of 15 city, it is found that there is a positive correlation between investors' evaluation of livable environment and investment environment. Cities that investors think are more livable are also cities that investors think have a better investment environment, such as Dalian, Shanghai, Xiamen, Qingdao and Hangzhou. On the whole, in the same city, investors' evaluation of its livability (70.3 points) is higher than that of ordinary residents (65.7 points). At present, the "capital friendship" component of many cities is far greater than the "livable" component. The reason for this difference is that many city managers regard economic development as their primary task, vigorously attract investment and build an investment environment, but ignore the needs of ordinary residents. Therefore, to build a livable city, we need to break the traditional concept of GDP growth as the core. The characteristics of a city are determined by its residents. The construction of a livable city conforms to the wishes of residents, making the city truly a paradise for investors and a paradise for residents. From this perspective, the construction of "livable" from the perspective of residents still needs efforts.
Low-income people prefer cities with comfortable living environment, while high-income people have diversified views.
Residents in cities have different incomes, different living environments and different resources, so the livable standards are naturally different. The survey shows that low-income groups think livable cities are comfortable cities, such as Hangzhou, Xiamen, Chengdu and Sanya, while high-income groups think livable cities are diverse, including Wuhan, Chongqing and Shanghai, as well as coastal cities like Dalian and Xiamen, and inland cities like Nanjing and Chengdu. While Sanya and Yichang, which low-income groups think are better, the evaluation of high-income groups is obviously reduced. Therefore, how to realize the unity and harmony of livable cities is also a very important topic.
For the city, the biggest product made by human beings, livability itself is the foundation of its existence. At present, many cities in China have put forward the livable position. For example, Beijing aims at "national capital, world city, famous cultural city and livable city"; Tianjin plans to build a livable city with fresh air, clear rivers, clean environment and beautiful city appearance by the end of 2007; Nanning implements the project of "Quiet Settlement with Clear Water and Blue Sky"; Guangzhou plans to take the lead in building an eco-modern metropolis with a high degree of harmony between man and nature, and so on. And how far are these cities from the cities in the public's mind? This survey shows that Beijing ranks 15, Tianjin ranks 20th, Nanning ranks 18 and Guangzhou ranks 16. On the contrary, some cities that don't shout livable slogans have been recognized by urban residents.
The prosperity of a city is the coordinated and balanced development of environment, economy, politics, culture and other factors. Only such a city is the most valuable city in life. Livable cities not only need to consider the living feelings of different groups, but also need the joint efforts of urban managers, real estate developers, urban planning departments, environmental governance and other fields. Livable is not a slogan, but a city that combines public needs to practice.
Who is a livable city built for?
The slogan of "livable" is being valued by more local governments, real estate developers and the general public. Faced with numerous vague slogans about livable cities, China Livable City Index 2005, which was jointly compiled and published by Business Week magazine and Horizon Research Consulting Group, intuitively showed the standards of livable cities recognized by the public and the public's attitude towards the construction of livable cities for the first time, which can provide reference for city managers everywhere. Obviously, according to this independent study, the livability level of some cities holding high the banner of livability is really not high enough; Moreover, some cities with very hot real estate may not really perform well in the standard of public livability.
◆ The difference of livability in the same city is very common.
In many evaluated cities, different social strata living in the same city present the same distribution characteristics of livable feelings, that is, in the same city, high satisfaction of high-income groups and low satisfaction of low-income groups coexist. Investigating various specific factors, it is found that different residents have limited cognitive differences on the economic development, cultural characteristics and natural conditions of the city, while the outstanding differences are concentrated on the level of personal living space and community conditions. This shows that the residential community division of residents with different wealth levels in the city has been formed, that is, the pattern of different social classes living in different cities is basically determined. Space and its buildings and living facilities are not only the product of social relations, but also the generation mechanism of social relations. It not only provides concrete symbols for people to pursue and choose, but also provides simple and clear residential connection direction for similar residents.
The city itself is the aggregation of living spaces of different social groups, and an important topic that people have been arguing and will continue to argue is whether the mainstream group in the social sense, that is, the general public, is a social group living in the core and most valuable section of a city? The answer now is usually no, and the ever-changing vitality of a city's space can also be strengthened because of this diversified difference in the same city, which shows a city's dynamic and enterprising ability. Even though these enterprising realistic achievements are not owned by the general public, they have at least given more people goals and hopes.
◆ Livability of a city does not mean that the city has sufficient capital.
The survey found that livable and suitable capital (suitable for investment) cannot be equated. Because capital-friendly cities are largely related to the economic level of cities, a considerable number of cities often have a greater pressure on ordinary residents because of their higher economic development level, higher real estate investment value and higher overall living expenses.
Appropriate capital means the conditions corresponding to groups with investment ability in urban construction, and the proportion of such groups in the whole urban residents is still very limited. On the contrary, livable is a concept applicable to a wider range of residents. The requirements of ordinary urban residents, especially the middle-and low-income classes in a large number of cities for livable cities, such as realizing the dislocation of different social groups and enjoying high-end service conditions, are just the opposite to the needs of groups that attach importance to urban capital (more emphasis on isolation, highlighting distinctive social status and occupying special high-end social services). However, on the other hand, the concept of livability is also related to the concept of capital adequacy ratio: developers and investors are increasingly considering and adopting residents' livability requirements when investing in real estate; Residents pay more attention to the appreciation opportunities and investment value of housing and communities when choosing housing, even if they are purely self-occupied.
◆ Medium-sized cities are more livable.
Ideally, the livable factors of a city should be balanced-covering economic development, social security, human conditions, natural environment and other major aspects, and can develop well in all aspects. The livable environment that residents can actually get is often only strong in some aspects and weak in many others, thus forming a so-called characteristic city. These characteristics probably mean that the urban environment with better economy is not very good, while the urban economy and humanities with better environment are still relatively backward. In the annual urban livability score level with an overall score of only 65.7, this means that the overall score level of most cities is not high or the score distribution is very different. A specific city may be in the forefront of the livability ranking because of some strengths, but this may not conform to the panoramic factors that different people think are livable, especially when the study of livable conditions takes the residents of the city as the evaluation subject, which may not conform to the impression gained by foreign tourists. In our initial exploratory research stage, we have found that some cities that are highly recognized by local residents in terms of livable conditions have been criticized by netizens in many other cities. However, one thing can be seen clearly. Judging from the balance level of existing livable factors and the easing degree of social differences, medium-sized cities obviously have relatively good livable conditions.
◆ Livable class nature.
Although there are different social groups in terms of livable feelings and requirements for livable conditions, they generally reflect the right of permanent residents to express a balanced discourse on the living environment of a city. On the contrary, the housing market reflects the choice trend of real estate buyers, especially strong buyers. Because our public livability index is oriented to the whole city residents, in terms of population structure and pyramid income distribution map, people at the lower level have a greater say in this index because of their larger scale; From the structural diagram of real estate value distribution, people living in the lower class are not the most profitable user groups of developers, but they have little influence on house prices and transaction volume. In this sense, there is a great natural difference between the housing market index and the livability index.
Another factor that affects the level of the housing market is the real estate investor groups in different places. Other special surveys of Zero Company show that Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Dalian, Hangzhou, Qingdao, Xiamen and other cities are increasingly becoming hot spots for foreign investors to buy real estate. What these investors value is the current appreciation space of real estate in these cities, and most of them are concentrated in high-end and leisure properties, which further widens the gap between the housing market index and the livable index to some extent. Of course, the development of the housing market itself can drive the diversified development of the real estate market in a specific city, improve the level of local real estate industry, improve the supporting level of urban communities, and promote consumption upgrading, thus contributing to the long-term development of the overall livable level of the city in the sense of economies of scale. But this requires both an inflection point of a certain industrial scale and a certain policy drive.
There are many factors that make people feel that a city is not suitable for living, such as the deterioration of natural environmental conditions, traffic jams and poor public service conditions, and some of them are also related to the diversification of human conditions and the level of employment security conditions in this city. But in fact, many residents today are too dissatisfied with these factors. On the contrary, the house they live in is too small and old, the community is dilapidated and the service is backward. Many residents hope to improve their personal living space in the near future. The basic conclusion we draw from it is that the definition of livable construction in the sense of urban public management is really different from the goal put forward by developers. The former focuses more on improving the living conditions of social groups with limited purchasing power, while the latter will find it more profitable to provide upgraded leisure houses and investment properties for strong buyers. We don't blame developers for their choices as businessmen, but when considering the trend of resource allocation, city managers who claim to build livable cities must make it clear whether they are building a livable environment recognized by diverse public or a city mainly recognized by middle and high-end investors.
The most livable city ranking
/xinwong/guonei xinwong/2005 10/xinwong _ 10293 . html
/5082626.html