Measuring Quality of Life: How the Global Liveability Index Works

Decoding Desirability: An In-Depth Look at How the Global Liveability Index Measures Quality of Life

What makes a city a truly great place to live? Is it the abundance of green spaces, the efficiency of public transport, the vibrancy of its cultural scene, or the safety of its streets? For years, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has sought to answer this complex question through its annual Global Liveability Index. This influential report ranks 173 cities across the globe, providing a comprehensive benchmark for the quality of life they offer. The index, originally designed to help companies calculate hardship allowances for employees moving abroad, has become a global talking point, sparking debate and pride in equal measure. This article delves into the intricate workings of the index, exploring its methodology, the latest trends shaping urban life, and the critical conversations it inspires.

The Anatomy of Liveability: A Five-Category Framework

At the heart of the Global Liveability Index is a robust framework that assesses over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors across five broad categories. Each category is assigned a specific weighting, reflecting its perceived contribution to a city's overall quality of life.

The five categories are:

Stability (25%): This category examines the safety and security of a city. Key indicators include the prevalence of petty and violent crime, the threat of terrorism, military conflict, and civil unrest. A stable environment is considered a fundamental prerequisite for a high quality of life.
Healthcare (20%): The quality and accessibility of healthcare are crucial components of liveability. This category assesses the availability and quality of both private and public healthcare, the availability of over-the-counter drugs, and general healthcare indicators from sources like the World Bank.
Culture & Environment (25%): This broad category delves into a city's character and natural surroundings. Indicators include the climate, levels of corruption (with data from Transparency International), social and religious restrictions, and the level of censorship. It also evaluates the availability of sporting and cultural activities, consumer goods and services, and even the quality of food and drink options.
Education (10%): While having the lowest weighting, education is still a vital part of the liveability equation. The index considers the availability and quality of private education, as well as indicators related to the state of public schooling, sometimes drawing on data from the World Bank.
Infrastructure (20%): This category focuses on the essential services and structures that underpin daily life. It includes the quality of the road network, public transport, international and domestic travel links, the availability of good-quality housing, and the quality of energy, water, and telecommunications provision.

Each indicator within these categories is rated on a scale from acceptable, tolerable, and uncomfortable to undesirable or intolerable. These ratings are then converted into a numerical score, with 100 being ideal and 1 being intolerable. For qualitative variables, an "EIU rating" is awarded based on the judgment of in-house expert country analysts and a correspondent in each city. For quantitative variables, the rating is calculated based on the relative performance of a location using external data sources.

The 2025 Rankings: A New Leader and Shifting Tides

The 2025 Global Liveability Index saw a significant shift at the top, with Copenhagen, Denmark, unseating Vienna, Austria, as the world's most liveable city. Vienna had held the top spot for three consecutive years. Copenhagen's ascent was attributed to its perfect scores in stability, education, and infrastructure.

Vienna's slip to second place (a tie with Zurich, Switzerland) was primarily due to a dip in its stability score. This was influenced by terrorism scares in 2024 and early 2025, including a bomb threat that led to the cancellation of a major concert.

The 2025 report also highlighted broader global trends. While the average liveability score across all 173 cities remained relatively stable at 76.1 out of 100, there was a noticeable decline in the average stability score. This was attributed to rising geopolitical tensions, civil unrest, and housing crises in many parts of the world.

Several other cities experienced notable changes in their rankings:

Calgary, Canada: Experienced a significant drop from 5th place in 2024 to 18th in 2025, largely due to a decline in its healthcare and stability scores. This reflects growing strains on Canada's national health system.
UK Cities: London, Manchester, and Edinburgh all saw their rankings fall, a trend linked to rising civil unrest and political instability.
Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia: Was the most improved city, climbing 13 places thanks to significant gains in healthcare and education.

At the other end of the spectrum, Damascus, Syria, remained the least liveable city in the world, a position it has held for some time due to the ongoing impacts of civil war.

A Critical Lens: Debating the Definition of 'Liveable'

Despite its widespread use, the Global Liveability Index is not without its critics. A primary point of contention is its inherent "Western-centric" bias. The indicators and their weightings tend to favour cities in wealthier, more developed nations. For instance, factors like the availability of a wide range of consumer goods and certain types of cultural entertainment may not be universally prioritized.

Another significant critique is the index's focus on the expatriate experience. As it was originally designed to calculate hardship allowances, the index emphasizes factors that would be of most concern to a foreign professional, such as the "discomfort of climate to travellers," rather than the perspectives of long-term residents.

Furthermore, the index has been criticized for not including the cost of living as a factor. Many of the top-ranked cities are also among the most expensive in the world, a crucial consideration for the average person. This has led some to argue that the index measures a sanitized version of liveability that is detached from the financial realities faced by many urban dwellers.

The subjective nature of some indicators has also drawn scrutiny. While quantitative data is used where possible, the reliance on the judgment of a small number of analysts and correspondents for qualitative assessments can introduce an element of bias.

The Broader Landscape of Quality of Life

The EIU's index is one of several attempts to quantify and rank the quality of life in cities. Other notable indices include:

Mercer's Quality of Living Ranking: Similar to the EIU's index, Mercer's ranking is also primarily aimed at multinational companies to help them determine compensation for expatriate employees. It uses a broader set of 39 criteria.
Monocle's Quality of Life Survey: This survey from the lifestyle magazine Monocle takes a more qualitative approach, considering factors like the closing times of bars, the price of a good lunch, and a city's commitment to culture.

These different indices, with their varying methodologies and priorities, often produce different results, highlighting the fact that there is no single, universally agreed-upon definition of a "liveable" city.

Conclusion: A Valuable, if Imperfect, Tool

The Global Liveability Index, for all its critiques, remains a valuable tool for understanding the complex tapestry of urban life. It provides a consistent framework for comparing cities and tracking their progress over time. For city planners and governments, it can highlight areas in need of improvement, from strengthening infrastructure to enhancing public safety.

However, it is essential to view the index not as a definitive declaration of the "best" and "worst" places to live, but as one of many lenses through which we can assess our urban environments. The concept of liveability is deeply personal and culturally specific. What one person values in a city, another may not. As we continue to grapple with the challenges of rapid urbanization, climate change, and social inequality, a multifaceted and critical approach to measuring the quality of life will be more important than ever. The Global Liveability Index, in this context, serves as a crucial starting point for a much broader and more nuanced conversation about the future of our cities.