The emotional capital and

desirability of European cities

Robert ManchinGallup 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 well-being of cities globally, based on how residents view their city’s performance in providing healthy living and working conditions.

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 3

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

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 4

Attracting from near and far

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Luxe

mbo

urg

Lond

onB

russ

els

Rig

aA

ntw

erpe

nM

anch

este

rP

aris

Mar

seille

Tal

linn

Mun

chen

Lieg

eA

mst

erda

mS

tras

bour

gLj

ublja

naW

ien

Zag

reb

Mal

mö

Lille

Lisb

oaS

tock

holm

Ham

burg

Rot

terd

amB

erlin

Ess

enG

raz

New

cast

leG

lasg

owD

ortm

und

Bor

deau

xK

oben

have

nC

ardi

ffD

ublin

Ath

inia

Bra

gaB

elfa

stV

ilniu

sK

osic

eM

adrid

Fra

nkfu

rt a

n de

r O

der

Bra

tisla

vaG

roni

ngen

Leip

zig

Bar

celo

naR

enne

sO

stra

vaLe

fkos

iaT

orin

oA

albo

rgB

udap

est

Val

etta

Mal

aga

Gda

nsk

Irak

leio

Pra

haR

oma

Ista

nbul

Hel

sink

iV

eron

aA

nkar

aB

urga

sW

arsz

awa

Oul

uC

luj-N

apoc

aS

ofia

Ant

alya

Mis

kolc

Buc

ures

tiK

rako

wO

vied

oB

ialy

stok

Bol

ogna

Pal

erm

oP

iatr

a N

eam

tN

apol

iD

iyar

baki

r

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

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 5

Levels of Emotional Capital

“FULLY ENGAGED” “GOOD BUT DISINTEGRATING”

“STRIVING” “DISENGAGED

Cities where it is generally good to live

(residents gave positive assessments in all or most aspects investigated)

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

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)

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 6

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

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 7

Pillars of Emotional Capital(regression model, dependent: satisfied in city, attributes with highest Beta

shown for each cluster, in descending order)

“FULLY ENGAGED” “GOOD, BUT DISINTEGRATING”

“STRIVING” “DISENGAGED”

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

HIGH on emotional attachment if very positive assessments of...:

© 2007 Gallup Europe

Distribution of urban emotional capital: North(west )– South(east) divide

Kép

: E

uró

pa n

ép

sűrű

ség

i té

rkép

e

FULLY ENGAGED

GOOD, BUT DISINTEGRATING

STRIVING

DISENGAGED

© 2007 Gallup Europe

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

80 77

8691

1012

4

49 11 95

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

FULLY ENGAGED GOOD, BUTDISINTEGRATING

STRIVING DISENGAGED

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

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 10

Degrees of satisfaction

4837 35 33 28

19 13 11

21 2634 39

2326

2144

40

248

611

17 23

14

85

315 21 9

14 10

3923

18

1 3 3 7 13 13 7 1226

52

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Helsinki Stockholm Paris Berlin London Dublin Rome Barcelona Madrid

mostly dissatisfied but feel secure, still love the city overallcultural offerings are satisfactory, but jobs and housing as well as immigration are seen as problemssatisfied to live, proud of history, inclusiveness -- but not the restgenerally dissatisfiedgenerally satisfied

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 11

Demands of the Creative Class(attributes that make the European Creative Class satisfied with living

in their city)

In the next five years, it w ill be more pleasant to live in [CITY]

Attractive for talented young people to come live from abroad

The beauty of the city

Attractive for talented young people from elsewhere in country

[CITY] is a clean city

[CITY] citizens can be proud of the city's history

The administrative 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 immigrants

[CITY] is a good place to live for people with disabilites

[CITY] spends its resources in a responsible way

Cinemas

Foreigners who live in [CITY] are well integrated

Internet access at home

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 money 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 month

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 12

77 78

55

67

56

64

74

57

4951

5450

4650

67

41

54

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

7. S

tock

holm

3. Sto

ckholm

53. R

om

e

22. R

om

e

51.

Berl

in

26. B

erl

in

15. D

ublin

39. D

ublin

64. P

ari

s

55. P

ari

s

56. B

arc

elo

na

58. B

arc

elo

na

68. London

59. London

31.

Hels

inki

69. H

els

inki

55. M

adri

d

73. M

adri

d

You are satisfied to live in [CITY](strongly agree, %)

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

GENERAL POPULATION

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 13

22

49

29

4139

37

31

35 3532

45

31

23

29 2825

20

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

56. B

erl

in

2. B

erl

in

42. H

els

inki

14. H

els

inki

16. London

18. London

36. B

arc

elo

na

24. B

arc

elo

na

26. Sto

ckholm

39. Sto

ckholm

7. D

ublin

40

. D

ublin

55. R

om

e

43. R

om

e

44. M

adri

d

51.

Madri

d

59. P

ari

s

54. P

ari

s

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

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

GENERAL POPULATION

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 14

10

25

14

25

18

16

4

10

6

1011

9 9

6

3

54

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

46. B

arc

elo

na

15. B

arc

elo

na

31.

London

16. London

21.

Dublin

34. D

ublin

71. P

ari

s

50

. P

ari

s

65. H

els

inki

52. H

els

inki

40

. M

adri

d

56. M

adri

d

49. R

om

e

65. R

om

e

73. Sto

ckholm

67.

Sto

ckholm

72. B

erl

in

74. B

erl

in

Foreigners are well integrated(strongly agree, %)

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

GENERAL POPULATION

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 15

12

36

5

19

7 75 5

13 3

21

2 21 1

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

15. B

erl

in

2. B

erl

in

41.

Barc

elo

na

8. B

arc

elo

na

28. M

adri

d

32. M

adri

d

42. London

37.

London

73. H

els

inki

47.

Hels

inki

48. D

ublin

52. D

ublin

72. R

om

e

58. R

om

e

58. Sto

ckholm

62. Sto

ckholm

71. P

ari

s

70. P

ari

s

Easy to find good housing at a reasonable price

(strongly agree, %)

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

GENERAL POPULATION

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 16

3635

18

25

9

19

15

1213

12

67

64

2 21 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1. D

ublin

1. D

ublin

5. London

5. London

31.

Barc

elo

na

14. B

arc

elo

na

11. Sto

ckholm

26. Sto

ckholm

13. H

els

inki

28. H

els

inki

47.

Pari

s

47.

Pari

s

40

. M

adri

d

54. M

adri

d

64. R

om

e

59. R

om

e

67.

Berl

in

65. B

erl

in

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

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

GENERAL POPULATION

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Berlin Barcelona Madrid Paris Dublin Rome Helsinki Stockholm London

ROMEMADRID

BARCELONA

PARIS

LONDON

DUBLIN

BERLIN

HELSINKI

STOCKHOLM

Competitive creative destinations

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

to?% by city

DESTINATIONS

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 18

Brussel

Liege

Antwerpen

Praha

Ostrava

Kobenhaven

Aalborg

Berlin

Dortmund

Essen

Frankfurt

HamburgLeipzig

Munchen

Tallinn

Athinia

Irakleio

Barcelona

Madrid

Malaga

Oviedo

Paris

Rennes

Bordeaux

Marseille

Lille

Strasbourg

Dublin

Roma

Napoli

Torino

Palermo

Bologna

Verona

Lefkosia

Riga

Vilnius

Luxembourg

Budapest

Miskolc

Valetta

Amsterdam

Groningen

Rotterdam

Graz

Wien

Bialystok

Gdansk

Krakow

Warszawa

Lisboa

Braga

Ljubljana

Bratislava

Kosice

Helsinki

Oulu

Stockholm

Malmö

London

Glasgow

Cardiff

Manchester

Belfast

Newcastle

Sofia

Burgas

Zagreb

Bucuresti

Piatra-Neamt

Cluj-Napoca

Ankara

Antalya

Diyarbakir

Istanbul

Moscow

London

StPetersburg

Berlin

MadridRoma

Paris

BucharestBudapestHamburgWarsaw

Vienne

Barcelona

MilanMunich PragueNaplesBrusselsCologneTurinMarseilleRiga

Athens

Salonika

Stockholm

Amsterdam

PalermoFrankfurtGlasgowVilniusLisbonHelsinkiOsloCopenhagenDublinLiverpoolAntwerpEdinburghManchesterLyonBolognaFirenzeNiceZürichCardiff

Venezia

BelfastNewcastleuponTyneStrasbourgGrazGeneve

Q8. If you would be completely free to choose, which European city would you like

to visit the most?Cities people would like most to visit

the Respondent’s cities

Desirability as visiting destination

s

VENICE

MADRID

AMSTERDAM

BERLIN

VIENNA

PRAGUE

BARCELONA

LONDON

PARISROME

ATHENS

© 2007 Gallup EuropeSlide 19

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