Melbourne Bench Marking Live Ability

City Benchmarking and Liveability
City Comparison
Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability

September 2009
www.melbourne.vic.gov.au
City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................................... 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................... 1 1. 2 3. 4. 4.1 4.2 5. 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.3 5.3.1 5.4 5.4.1 5.5 5.5.1 5.6 5.6.1 5.7 5.7.1 5.7.2 5.7.3 5.8 5.8.1 5.9 5.9.1 6. 7. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 2 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................... 2 OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................................................. 2 QUALITY OF LIFE VS. COST OF LIVING STUDIES ................................................................................. 2 QUALITY OF LIVING/LIVING STANDARD ...........................................................................................................2 COST OF LIVING ..........................................................................................................................................2 CITY RANKING........................................................................................................................................... 3 QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEYS (STANDARD OF LIVING)..........................................................................................3 Economist Intelligence Unit quality of life............................................................................................3 Mercer worldwide quality of living .......................................................................................................4 Monocle quality of life .........................................................................................................................4 Recommendations for policy arising from liveability studies ..................................................................5 BankWest quality of life .........................................................................................................................6 Australian Unity Wellbeing Index ...........................................................................................................6 COST OF LIVING SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................7 Economist Intelligence Unit worldwide cost of living ...........................................................................7 Mercer worldwide cost of living ...........................................................................................................8 Interpretation and discussion of cost and quality of living studies..........................................................9 Mercer Australia/ New Zealand regional differentials..........................................................................9 Demographia international housing affordability ...............................................................................10 CITY BRANDS ...........................................................................................................................................12 Anholt Index.........................................................................................................................................12 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION .....................................................................................................................12 2thinknow a creativity index ..............................................................................................................12 CENTRES OF COMMERCE ...........................................................................................................................14 MasterCard Worldwide ........................................................................................................................14 ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY ............................................................................................................15 MasterCard Worldwide urbanization and environmental challenges ................................................15 TRAVEL DESTINATIONS ..............................................................................................................................16 Conde Nast Traveller Readers' Travel Awards.................................................................................16 Euromonitor - top destination cities......................................................................................................17 Thoughts about the usefulness of tourism city benchmarks ................................................................18 SPORTING CITIES ......................................................................................................................................18 Sports Business International - ultimate sports city .............................................................................18 UNIVERSITY CITIES....................................................................................................................................19 RMIT University global university cities ............................................................................................19 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 21 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Acknowledgements
This research report was written by Nick Casey.
Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009
Executive summary
In recent years a range of national and international studies has (and continues to) rank Melbourne differently. Melbournes rank, in these studies varies according to topic, methodology, or ranking organisation (specifically, philosophy/values of the organisation). When comparing city rankings, consideration of these issues helps in the interpretation of their results and usefulness. Below is a summary of Melbournes rank in key benchmarking surveys, change of rank by survey, summary of change from previous surveys, and conclusions about potential usefulness for further/future reporting for Council.
Rank Economist Intelligence Unit - Quality of Life Ranking, 2009 Mercer - Worldwide Quality of Living Survey, 2008 Monocle - Quality of Life Survey, 2009 BankWest Quality of Life Index 2008 Australian Unity - Personal Wellbeing of Australians Economist Intelligence Unit - Worldwide Cost of Living Survey, 2008 Mercer - Worldwide Cost of Living Survey, 2008 Mercer - Australia/ NZ Regional Differentials, 2006/2007 Demographia - International Housing Affordability, 2008 Anholt - City Brands Index, 2009 2thinknow - Global Innovation Review, 2009 MasterCard Worldwide - Worldwide Centres of Commerce, 2008 MasterCard Worldwide - Urbanization & Environmental Challenges Index, 2007 Conde Nast Traveller - Readers' Travel Awards, 2009 Euromonitor - Top Destination Cities 2007 Arksports/Sportsbusiness Ultimate Sports City, 2008 RMIT - Global University City Index, 2008 3 17 9 575 75 24 92 2 12 15 20 41 1 0 95 1 4 Regions compared 128 215 25 590 182 132 143 7 265 50 256 50 21 20 230 25 20 Change from previous period Down (17th to 18th place) N/A N/A Down (more affordable) Up (more affordable) N/A Rank up - number down Down Down Down N/A Not rated this year Rank down - number up Up Summary of rank/change Good Balanced Positive Poor Poor Positive Positive Good Good Negative Negative Negative Good Negative/Poor Balanced Good Positive Potential/ applicability
Potentially useful for Council Limited/qualified use for Council Little use for Council
Quality and reliability issues

The key to effectively using benchmarks in this report is to consider the results (Melbournes rank) in context of the particular studys purpose and methodology - as well as partners or competitors. Most studies give only a limited view about a Citys relative performance and in some instances a studys suggestions about how a city can improve its performance are based on debatable interpretations of the studys findings. The most useful of the indices above are the Economist Intelligence Units indices and rankings for cost and quality of living, Anholts City Brands Index, RMITs University Cities and the Mastercard index for worldwide centres of commerce and index for urbanization and environmental challenges, mainly due to their relative reliability in terms of ability to provide consistently replicable results over time. Benchmarking studies often use small samples, subjective surveys and perceptions and hence are often the products of fashion, e.g. Conde Nast which is based on the views of its readership. Demographia and Euromonitor give useful rankings but do have limited value in policy development. Benchmarking studies are very popular with the media, particularly as some studies suggest or infer ways Council could improve the Melbournes rankings. Key issues that may be addressed City of Melbourne has a limited jurisdiction to respond to some benchmarking studies recommendations, such as Demographias recommended removal of land use regulation around Melbourne and Mastercards, that Melbourne compete with Sydneys financial centre. Key areas in which the City of Melbourne can potentially have an impact are: Tourism. The citys reputation is influenced by international awareness and perceptions of its attractiveness for events and visitors. City of Melbourne: has cooperative agreements with cities and regions in China such Guangzhou (one of the big tourist travel performers of the past year), Hainan, Nanjing, Fengxian District, Shanghai and Tianjin; designs tourism and destination plans and programs for Melbourne. The City of Melbourne could also consider participating in a Tourism Victoria campaign to raise awareness of the city as a great tourist destination; and could examine ways to encourage the development of a more varied mix of tourist accommodation options in the city, to meet tourists needs e.g. more B&B or guest house accommodation. Creativity and Knowledge. The city is perceived to be a centre for innovation and creativity and a good university city. City of Melbourne could leverage these things through: continuing to use the Office of Knowledge Capital to foster relationships between cities; and continuing to assist the social and economic inclusion of both domestic and international students.
1.
Introduction
As centres of administrative, business, cultural and major activities, cities are high on the agenda. Capital cities are major generators of wealth in each Australian state and territory. They are the engine rooms of economic growth and the cradles of national creativity and innovation responsible for 78% of economic growth over the last five years. Australias continued economic prosperity depends on its capital cities maintaining and enhancing their international standing and we need to invest in their security and sustainability if Australia is to become more competitive, innovative and productive. Our capital cities are centres of opportunity which attract business, labour, tourists, international students and investment from around the world. They are the face of Australia, projecting its character, and are the international gateways to our region.
Australian Capital Cities Partners in Prosperity Executive Summary Report, Council of Capital City Lord Mayors, 2007
Melbourne is frequently rated amongst the most liveable cities in the world, for example, rated by the Economist Intelligence Unit, three times, as one of the best cities in which to live. Melbournes rank, however, varies according to topic, methodology, or the philosophy/values of the organisation doing the ranking. To better understand ways in which cities, particularly Melbourne, are ranked the City Research Branch initiated the Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability project. This project helps Council learn from these studies and understand how to respond to changes in Melbournes ranking. The project has so far produced an inventory and short summary and critique of some relevant studies, methodologies and surveys developed worldwide.
Purpose
Explain and summarise city benchmarks comparing Melbourne over time and against other major cities. This report shall not refer to Country or once-off City ranking projects. City indexes that havent been updated since the last Benchmarking Report (February 2008) will be interpreted anew rather than updated.
3.
1. 2. 3. 4.
Objectives
identify the key studies which rank or benchmark a citys liveability or related aspects; determine how Melbourne was ranked in those studies by investigating the methodology and philosophy of each major city ranking project; critique the philosophy, purpose or methodology of each benchmarking project with the intent of making conclusions about their usefulness; and identify key issues that authorities should consider addressing to ensure Melbourne remains competitive.
4.
Quality of life vs. cost of living studies
Quality of living and cost of living studies allow direct comparisons between locations. Usually their purpose is to give a premium to employees in locations presenting different living conditions to those of the location of origin (hence theyre really a measure of living standard). Payment is based on the philosophy that expatriates have a right to live at the assignment site with the same standard of living and comfort as at home. Monocles quality of Living measure, however, attempts to evaluate less tangible aspects of life in a city, arguably making that measure more fit for purpose than EIU or Mercers measures.
4.1
Quality of living/living standard
Quality of Life measures political, social, economic and environmental factors, personal safety, health, education, transport and other public services within a geographical area (hence it is measuring a living standard) and presents findings as an Index and a ranking - higher scores denote higher Quality of Life.
4.2
Cost of living
Cost of Living is the cost of a representative basket of goods and services considered to provide a given standard of living within a geographical area. Presented as an Index, it uses a base, or reference city with a score of 100. A score of 110 indicates the cost of living in a given city is 10% higher compared to the base city. Example Quality of Life: a premium may be given to an employee who is relocated to a city that has extraordinarily difficult living conditions, excessive physical hardship or notably unhealthy conditions. Cost of Living: a premium may be given to an employee who is relocated to a city where the price of renting accommodation or the price of consumer goods is higher.
5.
5.1
5.1.1
City ranking
Quality of life surveys (standard of living)
Economist Intelligence Unit quality of life
Benchmark method and outcomes The Economist Intelligence Units (EIU) Quality of Life Ranking, part of the Worldwide Cost of Living Survey, assesses living conditions in 140 cities around the world bi-annually. This is achieved with a small sample of expatriates residing in each country. Quantitative and qualitative data is used to derive a Quality of Life Index which quantifies the perceived challenges to an individuals lifestyle in a given location and allows direct geographical comparison. The Index evaluates of over 30 indicators grouped in individually weighted categories: 1. 2. 3. stability (25%): prevalence of petty crime and violent crime, threat of military conflict, threat of civil unrest/conflict, threat of terrorism; healthcare (20%): availability of public and private healthcare, quality of public and private healthcare, availability of over-the-counter drugs, general healthcare indicators; culture and environment (25%): humidity/temperature rating, discomfort of climate to travellers, level of corruption, social/religious restrictions, level of censorship, recreation: sport, culture, food and drink, availability of consumer goods and services; education (10%): availability of private education, quality of private education provision, public education indicators; and infrastructure (20%): quality of road network, public transport, and international links, good quality housing, quality of energy and water provision, quality of telecommunications infrastructure.
4. 5.
Indicators are given a rating of between one and five, where one means there is no reduction in the quality of life and five means the quality of life is extremely challenging. Ratings are weighted to produce and Index, where 0% means the quality of life is exceptional and 100% is intolerable. An Index of 20% is where real problems are considered to begin and anything over 50% severely restricts lifestyle. Cities are then ranked according to their scores. The 2009 rankings placed Melbourne 3rd behind Vancouver and Vienna. In the past this has been ascribed (in Benchmarking and Liveability 2008: pg 7) to Australia's relative remoteness from Europe and North America meaning that it is slightly less likely to host acclaimed theatre and modern artists or a regular varied international sporting calendar. Figure 1: EIU: top 10 cities quality of life ranking 2009 City Ranking 2009 (%) 1 Vancouver 98 2 Vienna 97.9 3 Melbourne 97.5 4 Toronto 97.2 5 Perth 96.6 6 Calgary 96.6 7 Helsinki 96.2 8 Geneva 96.1 9 Sydney 96.1 10 Zrich 96.1 Interpretation and discussion The 2009 ranking for Melbourne seems unrealistic given that in 2008 Melbourne won the title, Ultimate Sports City, (Vancouver ranked 5th, see section 5.8) in a survey measuring the number and importance of international and annual major sport events hosted or awarded between 2004 and 2012 (for example, four annual international hallmark events: Formula One Grand Prix; Australian Open; Spring Racing Carnival; and International Comedy Festival all supported by City of Melbourne through its Event Partnership Program). In 2008 Melbourne also hosted major theatre and music events, for example an Andre Rieu concert and the musical production Wicked. See section 5.8 for a more comprehensive list of sporting events staged by Melbourne in recent times. It must be noted that the difference between the top two cities (Vancouver, followed by Melbourne), in the EIU liveability index is only fractional, and that a difference of just 0.5% in the Index between the top two cities represents no practical difference at all.
We may conclude (on the above findings) that the fact Melbourne recently hosted a varied mix of international events has, for some reason, not countered survey respondents perceptions of the tyranny of distance or penetrated their collective consciousness.
5.1.2
Mercer worldwide quality of living
Benchmark method and outcomes The Mercer Worldwide Quality of Living Survey evaluates and compares quality of living in 215 cities worldwide. The survey is an annual survey of a small sample of professionals working for major multinational companies, as well as other experts in the field. The Quality of Life Index is derived from survey responses and evaluation of 39 quantitative Quality of Life Determinants in 10 individually weighted categories: 1. political and social environment (23.5%): relationship with other countries, internal stability, crime, law enforcement, ease of entry and exit; 2. economic environment (4.0%): currency exchange regulations, banking services; 3. socio-cultural environment (6.4%): limitations on personal freedom, media and censorship; 4. medical and health considerations (19.0%): hospital services, medical supplies, infectious diseases, water potability, waste removal, sewage, air pollution, troublesome and destructive animals/insects; 5. schools and education (3.4%): standard and availability of schools; 6. public services and transportation (13.0%): electricity, water availability, telephone, mail, public transport, traffic congestion, airport; 7. recreation (9.0%): variety of restaurants, theatre/musical performance, cinemas, sports and leisure ; 8. consumer goods (10.7%): availability of food/daily consumption items, alcoholic beverages, cars; 9. housing (5.1%): housing, household appliances/furniture, maintenance and repair services; and 10. natural environment (5.9%): climate, record of natural disasters. Figure 2: Mercer: quality of living ranking and index, top 10 countries plus Melbourne 2009 Rank Index City 2009 2009 1 Vienna 108.6 2 Zurich 108 3 Geneva 107.9 4 Vancouver 107.4 4 Auckland 107.4 6 Dusseldorf 107.2 7 Munich 107 8 Frankfurt 106.8 9 Bern 106.5 10 Sydney 106.3 ~ 18 Melbourne 104.8 Melbourne is ranked 18th, in the 2009 survey. According Rob Knox, a principal at Mercer Human Resource Consulting, the reasons for Melbournes ranking this year are that Transport has a little bit of room to improve and air quality is an area Melbourne could continue to focus on (Herald Sun, 28 April, 2009 p 15). By comparison Sydney was ranked 10th this year because it has more international flights to more destinations and more foreign schools attractive to overseas executives. Summary and recommendations In 2009 Melbournes weaknesses are: 1. 2. transport , has a little bit of room to improve; and air quality.
It is interesting to note Mercer identified one of Sydneys main advantages over Melbourne as being better international air connections. This is an opposite aspect of what the previous EIU surveys reported as a weakness for Melbourne (reported in section 5.1.1 above). This does add some credence to previous EIU findings that Melbournes main weakness has been its relative remoteness.
5.1.3
Monocle quality of life
Benchmark method and outcomes To determine what makes a city liveable, Monocle Magazines - 2007 Quality of Life Survey looked at specific things that created a great urban environment. The survey uses quantitative data and subjective opinion (2007 was Monocles inaugural survey) to develop a list of the 20 most liveable cities.
Monocles 25 Quality of Life indicators include: international long-haul connections with a well-managed thoughtfully designed airport; low crime rates on murders and domestic burglaries; quality of education and health care; hours of sunshine and average temperature; availability of communications and connectivity; level of social tolerance, including positive climate for ethnic diversity, employment of women and gay rights; ease of getting a drink after 1am; cost and quality of public transport; strength and availability of local media; and access to nature, amount of green space, key environmental initiatives in urban planning.
In 2007 Monocle concluded Melbournes public transport system was struggling with trains overcrowded and trams running slowly. According to Monocle, in 2008 Copenhagen was the most liveable City. Melbourne ranked 9th most liveable City in 2008 (improving from 11th, in 2007s survey). In 2008 Melbourne is characterised as: vibrant, art-loving; having the sport and culture; having the best neighbourhoods in the southern hemisphere; and booming. The drawback is that the City sprawls. The weather is also an issue - pack an umbrella, according to Monocle. Figure 3: Monocle: quality of life in the worlds top 10 cities, 2008
City Copenhagen Munich Tokyo Zurich Helsinki Vienna Stockholm Vancouver Melbourne Paris Rank 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Interpretation and discussion

nd While Copenhagen ranked first, due to its airport and bike paths, Munich ranked 2 due to its airport rail link. Monocle magazine considers Melbourne should addresss public transport needs (similar conclusion as in 2007) with a city-to-airport rail link such as Munichs. The magazine also noted the City has a problem with alcoholrelated violence a growing issue of community concern in Melbourne.
5.1.4
Recommendations for policy arising from liveability studies
Melbourne improved its ranking in Monocles Quality of Life Index during 2008, however opportunities, identified by Monocle, include addressing transport (also a concern previously, in 2007) and alcohol related violence in the City. Monocle concurred with Mercers 2008 survey finding that transport links to the airport are one of Melbournes main weaknesses; one which should be resolved with an airport rail link, according to Monocle. The small area of jurisdiction and limited legislative power restricts what Council can do on transport (which is a State and Federal Government responsibility) and addressing alcohol related violence. Setting aside the State Governments Transport Strategy, to reduce road traffic congestion in and around the municipality, City of Melbourne supports other transport modes through the following: Moving People and Freight, Transport Strategy 2006-2020; Bicycle Plan 20072011; Carlton Parking and Access Strategy; Wheels & Heels; TravelSMART; and Councils Traffic Engineering Unit which helps traffic management improvements through traffic signals changes. The previous edition of this report suggested there are no current policy responses to cars that hover around the city, contributing to traffic congestion and so this remains an opportunity for Council. A carbon tax regime may change current travel behaviours, helping resolve transport and congestion issues in Melbourne, but this is beyond Councils authority, and City of Melbournes Working Population Profile points out it would penalise low income households living on the City fringe.
City of Melbourne is addressing alcohol-related violence with a variety of measures, including policies such as the 24 Hour City strategy.
5.1.5
BankWest quality of life
Benchmark method and outcomes The BankWest Quality of Life Index ranks the performance, across 10 criteria, of 590 Australian Local Government Areas (LGAs). The indicators were: employment levels; crime (against property) rate; internet access; health; 16 year olds attending secondary school; earnings; home ownership rate; house size; proportion of empty homes; and community involvement (volunteerism). The Index was designed by BankWest, primarily for the Banks purposes targeting of products, etc. The year 2008 is the inaugural year of the indicator and BankWest envisages future editions of the Index. To do this they are likely to develop and/or change their range of data used from predominantly 2006 Census statistics to data sets that may be updated on a more regular basis. Interpretation and discussion
th City of Melbournes overall ranking for quality of life, was 574 out of 590 Local Government Areas (LGAs).
Analysis of the methodology and outcomes of the Index raises the following concerns: 1. philosophy. Selection of indicators for inclusion in the index appears based on implicit value judgements, for example, the home ownership rate indicator scored LGAs according to the percentage of households that are owner occupiers and reflects value judgements about the merits of home ownership over other tenures generally value judgements reflect the intent; 2. relevance. The relevance of some indicators is questioned. For example it is not made clear what relevance the proportion of empty private homes has to quality of life; 3. incomplete list of indicators. The index does not address other issues that may arguably be related to quality of life, such as retention in education beyond 16 years of age, proximity to public transport, entertainment, services (e.g. libraries), public and private open space; 4. balance. Three out of ten indicators directly relate to housing (i.e. home ownership rate, type of house and empty homes). This could be argued to produce an index skewed in favour of certain types of housing or tenure and should be addressed; 5. clarity of indicators. It is unclear what the good health indicator refers to. Investigation suggests good health is defined by the authors of the index as lower incidences of risk factors such as alcohol consumption or smoking, obesity and lack of physical activity only; and 6. analytical issues. The use of 2006 Census data on proportion of empty homes is inappropriate. The data includes dwellings vacant because they are between rental tenants and also because they are newly built but not yet occupied. The crime indicator (property crime per head of population) doesnt reflect the reality that City of Melbournes resident population is one tenth the size of its total daytime city user population (incl. workers and visitors) and most criminal offences in the City are committed by visitors from other LGAs.
5.1.6
Australian Unity Wellbeing Index
Benchmark method and outcomes As well as looking at personal and national wellbeing, each survey explores a unique topic and its impact on wellbeing. This provides a timely insight into a variety of issues that are influencing peoples satisfaction with their lives. Over the years, issues such as personal debt, caring at home, health and body weight and job security have been explored. This however, does have implications for consistent reporting and publicly available information. Each report uses the data gathered differently, reporting aspects of the accumulated data set to differently, to describe the wellbeing of Australians. The latest report (2008) reveals the personal wellbeing averages of the population in Statistical Sub Divisions, of which there are 180. It also explores the relationship of various demographic characteristics, as determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, to these wellbeing averages. The theoretical framework underlying this survey, in particular its interpretation is the theory of Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis which theorises a person has a natural level of personal wellbeing. The theory asserts that the normal level of personal wellbeing in a population is, on average, around 76 points on a 0-100 scale (although for individuals it is as low as 60 or as high as 90 points. Satisfaction is expressed as a percentage, where 0% is completely dissatisfied and 100% is completely satisfied. A survey score of 76.5% on personal wellbeing means Australians, on average, feel 76.5% satisfied with their life. Elements of the Personal Wellbeing Index are satisfaction with: health; personal relationships; safety;

standard of living; achievements in life; community connection; and future security.
The City of Melbourne is within the inner Melbourne Statistical Sub Division, which also includes City of Port Phillip, City of Yarra, and a part of City of Stonnington. On average the population of this area has a below normal level of personal wellbeing, according to the Personal Wellbeing Index. Personal wellbeing was 74.68%.
The main conclusions of the study were that wellbeing generally falls in cities with more than 40,000 inhabitants.
The report concluded the happiest regions usually have an above-average proportion of elderly people
who are consistently shown to be more contented than the young. Rural people were generally happier because they felt more connected to their community and had a greater sense of belonging, according to the studys authors. Residents of high-rise buildings, on the other hand, often did not know the people in the flat next door. In some respects these findings accord with the Bankwest benchmark project, which made relatively positive value judgements about separate housing, as opposed to apartments. The Australian Unity survey also shows lower rates of wellbeing in communities where more than 40% of residents were born overseas. This was considered reflective of anxiety about "strangers" felt by Australian-born respondents in the area (who were more likely to be interviewed for the survey). An issue of concern in regards to this survey is that, while rigorous in terms of its theoretical framework and analysis, it specifically sought responses from only English speaking respondents (potential bias).
5.2
5.2.1
Cost of living surveys

Economist Intelligence Unit worldwide cost of living
Benchmark method and outcomes The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) conducts the Worldwide Cost of Living Survey enabling managers and executives to compare the cost of living in 132 cities and calculate fair compensation for relocating employees. This report analyses the latest available outcomes. The survey gathers data (in each city) on the cost of 167 products or services - food, toiletries, clothing, domestic help, transport and utility bills, etc. More than 50,000 individual prices are collected. This is achieved with a small sample of expatriates residing in each country. A Cost of Living Index is calculated from the price data to express the difference in the cost of living between any two cities. Each city report lists local prices for 167 products and services, in 13 sub-categories: 1. shopping basket; 2. alcoholic beverages; 3. household supplies; 4. personal care; 5. tobacco; 6. utilities; 7. clothing; 8. domestic help; 9. recreation & entertainment; 10. transportation; 11. housing rents; 12. international schools, health & sports; and 13. business trip costs. Price data is used to calculate Cost of Living Indices that express differences in the living costs between locations. New York is the base, with an index of 100, and each destination city is indexed and ranked against it. There are two main reasons why a citys cost of living Index will change over time: exchange-rates and consumer price movement. To make comparisons all calculations are converted into US dollars - which exacerbates changes due to currency movements.
th Melbourne was the 24 most expensive City in the world the City has become slightly less expensive in the past year.
Figure 4: EIU: cost of living index and ranking of top ten cities, plus Melbourne, 2008
Rank 2007 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 9 9 Oslo Paris Copenhagen London Tokyo Osaka Kobe Reykjavik Zurich Frankfurt Helsinki 24 Melbourne Australia 103 City Country Norway France Denmark UK Japan Japan Iceland Switzerland Germany Finland Index 132 130 126 125 124 118 118 118 116 116
5.2.2
Mercer worldwide cost of living
Benchmark method and outcomes Bi-annually, Mercer conducts a Cost of Living survey that is generally similar to the EIUs. It is designed to collect prices for approximately 200 products and services in 143 cities around the world. This report analyses the latest available outcomes from March, 2008. The prices of various goods and services are collected and categorised into the following ten groups: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. food at home; alcohol and tobacco; household supplies; health and personal care; clothing and footwear; domestic services and utilities; food away from home; transportation; and sports and leisure.
The price data is used to calculate the Cost of Living Index to express the differences in the cost of living. New York is used as the base city with and an index value of 100 and each destination city is indexed against this number which formulates an overall ranking.
th Melbournes rank in 2008 was 36 .
Figure 5: Mercer: cost of living in cities, top 10 countries, plus Melbourne 2008
Rank March 2008
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 36
COL Index City

MOSCOW TOKYO LONDON OSLO SEOUL HONG KONG COPENHAGEN GENEVA ZURICH MILAN
March 2008
142.4 127.0 125.0 118.3 117.7 117.6 117.2 115.8 112.7 111.3 94.2
MELBOURNE
5.2.3
Interpretation and discussion of cost and quality of living studies
According to Mercer, Melbournes place on its list seems to have been determined as much by the increasing relative expense of other Asia Pacific cities (as cities such as Tokyo decline) in the region as by a slight decrease in the cost of living. These cities include Seoul, Singapore and even Nouma. Europe also dominated the rankings this year because of the strength of European currencies and rising prices across that region. At the same time prices in Japan have been almost static. Currency movements have an impact on the outcomes, so the strength of the Australian dollar partly explains changes in the Mercer cost of living Index for Melbourne. The Australian dollar, however, has lost some of its value in the second half of 2008, which will relieve some future cost pressures. It is important to keep the above results in perspective. Australian cities are and will continue to remain internationally competitive from a cost point of view. The EIU findings contradict the Mercer findings which reported in early 2008 that Melbourne is a more expensive city in which to live (although that may change in the short-term as Melbourne may become slightly more affordable as a result of economic turmoil in 2008). The differences between the Mercer and EIU cost of living studies fall into two main categories; methodological, i.e. the way the indexes are calculated (the EIU gives an informative discussion of how the outcomes of a cost of living study can vary depending on the way the indices are calculated. See http://eiuhelp.enumerate.com/) and conceptual difference that are finer grained. Mercers survey includes fewer sub categories than EIUs (which has 13 compared to Mercers 9 sub categories, e.g. EIU includes cost of utilities and Mercer doesnt). At the finer level the differences between methodologies are many for example, EIU and Mercer collect costs for slightly different types of clothing and footwear for inclusion in their surveys respective clothing sub categories.
Summary and recommendations

The reader should bear in mind that in surveys such as those conducted by EIU and Mercer, the difference in scores between some of the top cities are so small as to present no tangible difference at all and therefore Melbournes rank, in them, should be viewed by the City of Melbourne as indicative. Policy responses based on this surveys outcomes should be weighed carefully with the outcomes of other surveys summarised in sections 5.7.1 and 5.7.2. The EIU and Mercer provide a relatively objective benchmarking exercise for both cost of living and quality of living. Overall, they are long running, reliable over time and reasonably sound. The main criticism of this methodology is the relatively small sample size taken in each city. It is acknowledged that other (political and media) entities regard both these liveability indexes well (See section 4) and there is clearly a need to maintain a watching brief on both of them. The purpose of the Mercer and EIU quality of life indexes is to help employers make decisions about payment of expatriate employees. Arguably, the liveability index presented by Mercer, a Human resources firm (EIU probably has a little more distance from that function), is relatively less fit for [our] purpose, as a measure of city liveability than the EIU index. City of Melbourne may therefore consider the EIU index for comparing Melbournes in cost and quality for living against international competitor cities. Monocle admits in its publication that its method is a mix of scientific metrics and more subjective feelings, for example about the ambience of a city. Its Quality of Life Survey, however, appears on the surface to be relatively fit for purpose because of this. While probably not appropriate for use on its own, theres a case for using it for information on specific aspects of liveability not covered by a survey such as that produced by the EIU. The Australian Unity Personal Wellbeing Study is, for the most part a rigorous study of the wellbeing of the Australian population. The main methodological concern is it effectively excluded non-English speaking persons from its sample (introducing a potential bias). While generally valid, the surveys reliability/trend over time is problematic. The cost to Council of consistently reporting specific findings of the survey is likely to be an unjustifiable cost. Finally, City of Melbourne is concerned the BankWest Quality of Life index unrealistically presents the City in a negative light. There are several flaws (above) in the BankWest Index and it is not fit for purpose as a comparative quality of life indicator, when taken at face value. It is recommended the City of Melbourne not report this indicator again, until its quality is improved.
5.2.4
Mercer Australia/ New Zealand regional differentials
Benchmark method and outcomes Mercers Australia and New Zealand Regional Differentials 2006/2007 measures cost of living in Australian State and Territory Capital Cities to provide a tool for decision-makers involved in staff transfer policies, realignment of salary levels, salary reviews, company/divisional relocations, and mergers/restructuring. The report also analysed cost of living and rental accommodation cost differentials in the capital cities. A salary differential is an index providing comparison of one group of salaries against another.
Statistics are drawn from data covering over 200 positions in support staff, middle management and senior management from over 600 companies and 30 industries. While Victorian salaries have seen a decline in its relative salary position: in 2005 Victorian wages were in line with the NGM (national general market) median and in 2007, 1% below the national general market. The state of NSW has the highest paying salaries at 3% above the median. Western Australia is now the second highest paying state, behind NSW. Salaries in Western Australia are now 2% above the median and only 1% below the base salary in NSW. Figure 6: Mercer: Salary and cost of living differentials Australian states and territories and capital cities
State salary differential vs National general market median % from NGM base salary (2006) % from NGM base salary (2005) Cost of living differentials (vs Sydney) Score NSW 3 3 Sydney Base city WA 2 0 Perth -6 VIC QLD SA -1 -3 -4 0 -5 -6 Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide -3 -8 -10
Darwin -10
Canberra -13
Interpretation and discussion It appears the resources boom and resulting skills shortage have had a direct impact on wages in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia (although as the figure above reveals Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and Brisbane still have lower costs of living than Sydney or Melbourne). The findings about housing differentials were that both Perth and Brisbane rents have been catching up to Sydneys in the past four years, indicating the resources boom is driving accommodation costs higher. It is interesting to note that while Demographia (see section 5.2.4, below) considered home purchasing in Melbourne to be unaffordable (but improving in 2008), Mercer considers Melbournes rentals (relative to Sydney) to have become more affordable between 2006 and 2007. Summary and recommendations Due to its small area of jurisdiction and limited legislative power, the City of Melbourne is restricted in what it can do to counter the risk that key talent from Melbourne may be drawn to the resource states, with higher and lower costs of living. As a local response, however, to the impact of skill drain, Council helped found Office of Knowledge Capital (OKC) whose mission is to collaborate to develop and promote Melbourne as Australia's Knowledge Capital. (See Section 5.9 for detail). International relations are a potential resource for technical, cultural and social skills that help Melbourne to remain competitive and are integral to the perception of Melbourne as a contemporary centre for business, education and cultural exchanges. They include: the Business Partner City Network, established in 1988 to promote business interaction in the Asia Pacific; six sister city relationships; Melbournes Tianjin Office, to help Victorian companies do business in Chinas fourth largest city; and the Small Business Grants Program (established in 1997 and the only program of its kind in Australia).
5.2.5
Demographia international housing affordability
Benchmark method and outcomes Demographia is a United States based market research company which regularly reviews housing markets in 227 major markets of six nations, including Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and United States. The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey employs the median house price to median household income multiple (median multiple) to rate housing affordability. Median house prices are divided by the median annual household income in a particular market which in turn gives the multiple of average income required to purchase a home. Affordability is recorded as follows: Severely Unaffordable Seriously Unaffordable Moderately Unaffordable 5.1 & Over 4.1 to 5.0 3.1 to 4.0
Affordable 3.0 or less In 2009, Melbourne was rated 12th most unaffordable housing market out of 265 city regions with affordability measured at 7.3 to 7.1 times annual income required to purchase a house.
10
Figure 7: Demographia: most unaffordable housing markets (and Australian sub-markets), 2008
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 9 10 10 12 12 Country Australia United States Australia Canada Australia United States United States Canada United States Australia United States Australia Australia City Sunshine Coast, QLD Honolulu, HI Gold Coast QLD-NSW Vancouver, BC Sydney, NSW San Francisco - CA San Jose - CA Victoria, BC San Luis Obispo, CA Bundaberg, QLD Los Angeles, CA Adelaide, SA Melbourne, VIC Median Multiple 9.6 9.1 8.7 8.4 8.3 8 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1
Interpretation and discussion Demographia studies are based on the premise that urban planning places unnatural restrictions on the supply of land for development, thus putting pressure on housing affordability. Demographias philosophy equates to a perspective that planning for growth in many guises, constitutes an artificial restriction on the supply of residential land which drives housing affordability down. This philosophy should be borne uppermost in mind when analysing Demographias housing affordability benchmarks (City of Melbourne plays an advocacy role for sustainable residential development and as a local authority has planning regulation responsibilities). It has potential to introduce a value judgement (subjectivity) that colours Demographias interpretation of the survey outcome. According to this study, Median Multiple is more than double the ceiling level (the common affordability standard of three-times average income) and house prices would have to drop dramatically, or incomes rise substantially, to meet that level. Across inner, middle and bay side areas of Metropolitan Melbourne, prices for both houses and other dwellings (flats, units and townhouses) are rising rapidly. People who can no longer afford to buy a home are staying in rental accommodation. This has resulted in a shortage of rental properties, and an increase in rents across almost all Melbourne suburbs. Demographias index, however, does not inform us about the costs associated with renting a home in Australia (most households in the City of Melbourne rent; 2008 Melbourne City Suburbs Economic and Demographic Profile Resource Material, pg 20), nor does it inform the analyst about the impact of interest rate flunctuations. Mercers report on salaries and cost of living differentials (which found rents rising in Perth and Brisbane a function of the resources boom) does, however. The median-multiple methodology, applied across a metropolitan market, is subject to a skew introduced by sales of relatively high priced properties alongside more affordable ones. Demographias (pg 15) interpretation stresses prescriptive land use regulation on the urban fringe as the primary cause of unaffordable housing markets but dismisses other causes (migration and population growth,
average size of households, taxation and interest rates, residential investment, and financial deregulation).
Summary and recommendations Home owning and purchasing has become less affordable in the past few years in Melbourne and the trends identified by Demographias survey across a small number of international markets are real, despite the reservations already mentioned. Analyses using the median multiple enhanced by reference to Mercers salaries and cost of living differentials (where available) would likely continue to be informative to Council. The problem in Demographias analysis is its interpretation of its survey findings (that planning regulation is the main cause of unaffordable housing) which should not be relied upon by Council and which in turn make Demographias recommendations to remove land regulation unrealistic. In any case, removing the Urban Growth Boundary and planning regulations from metropolitan Melbourne is beyond the City of Melbournes jurisdiction. Council also has a number of other measures in place to improve the availability and access of affordable, secure, appropriate and accessible housing across the municipality, including: Social and Affordable Housing Framework 2006-2009; Homelessness Framework 2007-2009; Melbourne Affordable Housing, a non-profit developer/owner/manager of affordable, long term rental housing to which the City of Melbourne regularly donates funds; and the City of Melbourne recently transferred the Drill Hall in Victoria St, Melbourne.
11
5.3
5.3.1
City brands
Anholt Index
Benchmark method and outcomes In 2009 the Melbourne brand was rated 15th best by the Anholt Index (according to Tourism Victoria). The survey is conducted in 20 major developed and developing countries and this year 10,068 online interviews were conducted with adults aged 18 or over. The city brands index ranks 50 cities based on the following dimensions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. presence how familiar people are with each city and how much of a contribution they believe that each city has made to the world in the last 30 years; place physical and climatic attributes of each city; prerequisites basic amenities such as affordable accommodation and the standard of schools, hospitals etc; people the friendliness and safety of each city; pulse the variety of activities available in each city; and potential what economic opportunities each city offers.

th Although ranked 15 best brand in the world, overall, within the survey itself Melbournes reputation as a friendly and welcoming destination is reflected in the People index where it is ranked 3rd in the world because of its welcoming and friendly people.
Melbourne also made 5th in the list of happiest cities. "People know it's in Australia, and that it's full of Australians," according to Simon Anholt. "Therefore, it must be fun" (Forbes.com) Figure 8: Anholt City Brands Index - Top Cities, 2009
City Brands Index 1 Paris 2 Sydney 3 London 4 Rome 5 New York 6 Barcelona 7 San Francisco 8 Los Angeles 9 Vienna 10 Madrid
~
15 Melbourne
It is important to remember the purpose of the survey is to record people's perceptions of cities, whether they are realistic or not. It attempts to measure the brand image and reputations of cities. The underlying premise is that there are already many surveys and publications in existence which evaluate the reality of visiting or living in places, but that what is missing is what people believe about those places even if they havent directly experienced them. Summary and recommendations These rankings are based on scores that are averages of averages, and simply illustrate a summary of responses to the Anholt survey. Another concern regarding the application of the index is the mix of objective data and surveys of respondents, which can introduce a degree of subjectivity to the ranking process, thus opening it to the variation of attitudes based on fashion and exposure/awareness. Outcomes should be read as indicative only. Overall, however this is a purposeful survey and is highly regarded. It is worthwhile considering this survey for further use as a comparative measure of the citys international brand relative to other cities.
5.4
5.4.1
Creativity and innovation

2thinknow a creativity index
Benchmark method and outcomes The 2002 State of the Regions Report Creativity Index, used Richard Floridas concept that successful cities will have three economic development determinants: technology, talent and tolerance. Similarly, 2thinknow a relatively new company who consult on specific actions for established and emerging cities, and are a
12
recent entrant to the benchmarking market, try to point out conditions conducive for innovation and allocating capital, knowledge and intellectuals in the global economy. It covers more than 250 cities. Overall innovation based on a total score of 30, based on 162 indicators comprising three categories: 1. 2. 3. inspiration - Can you get ideas? (Culture, art, food, high culture, design, people, open-ness); implementation - Once you have ideas can you implement them in your city? (Infrastructure, business environment, capital, ethics, ease of operation); and market access - is there enough of a market accessible from your city to make it worthwhile to innovative? i.e. is there an incentive for innovation? (ease of market access for innovation, size, affluence & importance of markets, trading partners, relative regional advantage).
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 City Boston Vienna Amsterdam Paris San Francisco London Hamburg New York Tokyo Lyon Score 28 28 27 27 27 27 27 27 26 26 25
Figure 9: 2thinknow - Top 20 innovative Cities, 2009
~
Melbourne

th In 2009 Melbourne was ranked 20 most innovative City, with an index score of 25/30, suggesting Melbourne presents a good destination for some type of innovation.
The 2thinkow methodology uses an index scoring a long and comprehensive list of criteria, weighted on a subjective basis. It invites the administrations of the cities included in its index to score their own cities. They are also asked to supply/input sources and data in support of those scores. Where there isnt a reliable source participants are asked to estimate. Where city administrations dont participate, the company uses its own estimates and opinions and data from a variety of publicly available sources: Governments statistics and NGOs; rankings or analysis from Industry Associations, Professions and other Surveys such as MasterCard (see below); academic research and media analysis; and travel journalism.
These results tend towards Conservative (i.e. lower) scores. Conceivably, participation in this survey by city administrations could lift their cities scores (although this doesnt necessarily mean outputs are always open to bias).
Summary and recommendations City of Melbournes limited jurisdiction and legislative power restricts what it can do to about capital and finance or infrastructure, to a coordinating or driving role establishing networks that can respond. In May, 2007, the Office of Knowledge Capital (OKC a partnership of City of Melbourne and eight metropolitan universities and the Committee for Melbourne [an independent member network of Melbourne citizens and leaders aimed at encouraging a competitive business culture and enhancing Melbourne's liveability]) released the report, Melbourne Australias Knowledge Capital. The OKCs objectives are to:
develop and promote Melbourne to achieve recognition as Australia's Knowledge Capital and a Global University City (more about that in Section 5.9 University Cities); facilitate collaboration between the OKC, governments, businesses and other communities; and link with similar 'knowledge cities' to enable mutually beneficial interactions.
The OKC provides capacity and coordination for networks of partnerships as well as promotional activities to establish Melbourne as a knowledge city - Universities are a key part of this. 2thinknow uses a mix of data and subjective opinion in its methodology and should be considered subjective and indicative only. It is a small and recent start up. It may be worthwhile maintaining a watching brief over this index until it gains wider currency.
13
5.5
5.5.1
Centres of commerce
MasterCard Worldwide
Benchmark method and outcomes The MasterCard Worldwide - Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index aims to rank the world's top 50 cities in terms of their performance as centres of commerce in the global economy (2007 was the inaugural year). The Index consists of seven individually weighted categories (which in turn consist of 41 of indicators, each comprised of over 100 sub-indicators): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. legal and political framework: degree to which legal and political frameworks enable the emergence of a global centre of commerce; economic stability: degree to which a centre of commerce is handicapped by an unstable economic environment, currency, or unpredictable inflation; ease of doing business: availability of quality, cost-competitive trade logistics; level of interconnectedness; and ability to attract and retain talent due to a high quality of living; financial flow: measurement of the city's actual output or financial achievement; business centre: degree to which the city intermediates the flow of goods, services, people, finances and information, etc; knowledge creation and information flow: degree to which information flows freely and knowledge is generated; and liveability (added to the list, in 2008).
th In 2007, Melbourne ranked 34 out of the top 50 cities in the world in terms of performance as a centre of commerce in the global economy, but slipped to 41 in 2008.
Figure 10: MasterCard Worldwide: centres of commerce top 10 plus Melbourne, 2008
Ranking 2008 Aggregate Score Legal & Political Framework 85.17 88.28 83.6 90.32 88.28 82.16 78.19 85.75 79.35 84.96 82.9 Economic Stability Ease of Doing Business 79.42 75.91 71.28 82.82 73.81 80.37 66.17 66.68 61.5 68.78 71.34 Financial Flow Business Center Knowledge creation and information Flow 62.35 59.02 52.06 39.45 46.31 36.62 51.65 30.41 51.31 39.11 33.35
City
Liveability
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 41
London New York Tokyo Singapore Chicago Hong Kong Paris Frankfurt Seoul Amsterdam Melbourne
79.17 72.77 66.6 66.16 65.24 63.94 63.87 62.34 61.83 60.06 49.93
89.66 87.44 86.4 89.74 87.44 81.85 91.58 89.88 84.63 90.47 84.97
84.7 67.85 48.95 42.15 52.51 39.61 41.85 52.88 52.76 34.44 7.7
67.44 54.6 58.15 62.58 40.52 72.25 57.73 46.73 47.33 48 22.35
91 90.88 92.69 84.94 90.81 82.25 92.63 93.38 76.38 91.63 91.63
Interpretation and discussion It is notable that Melbournes liveability score (treated by Mastercard as integral to commerce and economics) was not ranked among the top 20 cities (lower than either EIU or Mercers rankings), although it was Melbournes greatest strength highest score. High liveability scores reflect a high level of environmental awareness in cities, as well as the provision of high-quality and accessible basic public services and health care. Financial flow refers to the number of financial services networks, number of equity and bond transactions, number of derivatives and commodities contracts traded, presence and intensity of global banking, insurance companies and securities companies. Melbournes score was lowest in this indicator, because it does not contain the Australian Stock Exchange, Reserve Bank of Australia and Futures Exchange (all based in Sydney). Other low scores were received for Melbournes business centre and innovation and information flows. The Mastercard index favoured large national capitals and/or major international financial centres. In any case Melbourne as a business centre doesnt attempt to compete with Sydney for financial flowing through Sydneys Australian Stock Exchange, Reserve Bank of Australia or Futures Exchange; rather it focuses on its comparative strength - funds management and superannuation (the Business Melbourne website cites, approximately 120 fund managers operating in Melbourne, funds management is the primary growth sector for Melbourne) and in future it is here that Melbourne may improve its profile as a financial centre.
14
Summary and recommendations The only concern with the objectivity of this index is related to its use of relatively subjective survey data, which could open it to the variation of attitudes based on fashion and exposure/awareness. It is not certain this means the results of the survey should be treated with caution, so City of Melbourne could continue to observe this as a reasonably reliable benchmarking project. In regard to policy responses, once again, City of Melbournes limited jurisdiction and legislative power restricts what Council can do to address the issues and influence outcomes in future rankings, Councils leading role is exemplified two initiatives with which Council is involved. It supported the Melbourne Financial Services Poll since 1998 - based on the premise that Melbournes financial services sector has unique competitive advantages that should be identified and shared. The next survey/report will identify trends and changes. City of Melbourne promotes outcomes of the survey widely to international and national partners, via its website. City of Melbourne also promoted its advantages as an investment and finance location by sponsoring the Responsible Investment Association Australasia Conference in 2008 and the Melbourne Financial Services Symposium in 2009. City of Melbourne could also actively promote, to business and the State Government, the clustering of funds management businesses in the CBD and or Docklands. The City of Melbournes (as discussed above) role in establishing the Office Knowledge Capital (OKC) means Melbourne now has a network of key tertiary, advocacy (Committee for Melbourne) and Local Government and business stakeholders that may successfully develop and promote Melbourne as a knowledge/innovation centre.
5.6
5.6.1
Environment and sustainability

MasterCard Worldwide urbanization and environmental challenges
Benchmark method and outcomes In 2007, in addition to its commerce index, MasterCard Worldwide launched an index of Urbanization and Environmental Challenges. The report was published in early 2008. The report used data from 21 key centres of commerce in the Asia/Pacific, Middle East and Africa regions (as identified in last year's MasterCard Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index) and reviewed their relative vulnerability and protection from key environmental challenges such as air pollution, infectious disease and natural disasters. It identified the impact environmental factors are already having on them and what challenges further urbanization presents in the future. The overall assessment process is based on the consideration of three individually weighted categories: 1. environmental indicators under government control (70%): water potability and availability, sewage system, waste removal, air quality, and infectious diseases this indicator is subjective and responses reflect the impacts of these every day things on general health and wellbeing; environmental indicators affected by climate change that are not directly under government control (20%): rise of sea level, water scarcity due to drought, severe storms, and fires; and unpredictable environmental risks (10%): earthquakes, storms, volcanic eruptions, etc.
2. 3.
The three dimensions were then weighted (above) based on the perception that the most important dimension by far is the quality of the day-to-day environment, since that is the daily experience of the city resident or visitor and its indicators have the most significant impact on health and welfare. Next in importance is the dimension of risks from climate change, since the trends are to some extent predictable and known to be getting more severe. The least important dimension was considered to be the element of unpredictable risk. Melbourne was the top ranking city in the Asia/Pacific, the Middle East and Africa with an overall score of 2.03. Melbournes worst score was in the dimension impacts of environmental indicators affected by climate change that are not directly under government control (one of the worst scores, at 6.2 see below). This did not translate into a worse overall score because of the weighting given to indicators under government control. Interpretation and discussion Melbournes result as the top ranking city in the Asia/Pacific, the Middle East and Africa highlights how appropriate government policies and actions can make a difference in creating a high urban quality of life; the potential impact of climate change and other less predictable exogenous impacts notwithstanding. The index concluded that Melbourne is less likely, than Sydney, to be impacted by climate change. Sydney is more likely to face the risk associated with rising water levels, resulting in permanent flooding of suburban areas. The relatively affluent cities can provide improvements in environmental quality (eg Singapore, Tokyo, Melbourne and Sydney). Poorer cities at a lower level of development suffer from a lack of basic infrastructure services such as clean drinking water and sanitation. As they industrialize and income levels increase, basic services can improve, but new environmental problems can emerge, such as traffic congestion, air pollution and toxic wastes.
15
The difference between Melbourne and Mumbai (overall, ranked lowest) can also be explained by Melbourne's smaller population and growth rate, in addition to positive wealth and income levels and generally healthy economic condition. The reliance of the first indicator (environmental indicators under government control), however, on perceptions by survey respondents, of their immediate surrounds is subjective and given the heavy weight applied should be treated with caution. The weighting scheme to enhance the importance of respondents subjective assessment of everyday environmental health issues under government control (i.e. water potability and availability, sewage system, waste removal, air quality, and infectious diseases) does not recognise, and arguably, does not highlight climate change, or its impacts. Figure 11: MasterCard Worldwide: environmental ranking of centres of commerce, 2007
Rank City Overall Environmental indicators under government control (normalised 1=best) 1 Melbourne 2 Johannesburg 3 Singapore 4 Dubai 5 Sydney 6 Tel Aviv 7 Tokyo 8 Seoul 9 Kuala Lumpur 10 Riyadh 11 HongKong 12 Chengdu 13 Shanghai 14 Bangkok 15 Beijing 16 Cairo 17 Shenzhen 18 Beirut 19 Jakarta 20 New Delhi 21 Mumbai 2.03 2.37 2.4 2.7 3.02 3.08 3.27 3.29 3.54 4.35 4.93 5.25 5.54 5.79 5.82 5.95 6.07 6.29 7.1 7.24 7.78 1 2.7 1.7 2.2 1.8 3.6 1.7 3.8 4.6 5.2 5.3 6.7 6 5.3 7.4 7.1 6.9 8.2 7.8 9.7 10 Environmental indicators affected by climate change (normalized 1= low risk) 6.2 1.9 5.4 5 8.4 2.2 5.4 2.4 1 3.1 4.8 1.3 6.2 10 1.9 4.4 4.8 2.2 6.7 1.6 3.2 Unpredictable environmental risks (normalized 1= low risk) 1 1 1.3 1.4 1 1 10 1.6 1.4 1 2.9 3.3 1.2 1 2.9 1.4 2.9 1 3.4 1.4 1.4
Summary and recommendations The use of weighting in this index is questionable, but overall the index could be considered a reasonably reliable candidate for the city of Melbourne to heed and compare the citys performance internationally. Within its own limited jurisdiction Melbourne City Council can do some things to maintain and or improve the local environment, for example: 1. the Open Space Strategy to provide sufficient open space for City users; and 2. the Municipal Public Health Plan 2009 - 2013, which is being developed in 2008/09 and will be integrated with the City of Melbournes Corporate Plan.
5.7
5.7.1
Travel destinations
Conde Nast Traveller Readers' Travel Awards
Benchmark method and outcomes Conde Nast Traveller magazine has given the Readers Travel Awards annually since 1997. The results of the awards are based on a questionnaire asking (around 30,000) readers to choose the best the travel world has to offer across a number of categories. The questionnaire was a self select form, sent to readers in the United Kingdom and made available on the website. In the Overseas Cities category, which determines readers favourite travel cities outside the UK, respondents were asked to rate a city with marks out of five for the following ten categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. aesthetics/architecture; culture; cleanliness; user-friendliness; range of accommodation; food/ restaurants; people/hospitality; nightlife/entertainment;
16
9. safety; and 10. value for money. Votes were calculated as an average on each criterion, providing the overall satisfaction index. After being ranked 12th, in the previous two years (with a score of 85.6, in 2006) Melbourne did not receive a ranking in 2007. Sydney did receive a rank in 2007s survey (number one). Interpretation and discussion Sydney scored highly in terms of food/restaurants (97.56), cleanliness (94.78) and user-friendliness (93.68). Some of these results are surprising, given of Melbournes reputation, as a culinary capital of Australia and in spite of a popular negative perceptions of Sydneys transport system. Tourists consider Sydneys identifiable landmarks as important to its credentials as a tourist destination of choice in 2007. It is also worth noting that Melbourne does not possess an internationally recognisable landmark, such as the Sydney Harbour. Conde Nasts interpretation of the findings highlights the welcoming, laid-back, vibrant attitude perceived by readers and the physical attractiveness (a greater mix of identifiable landmarks, aesthetics) of the City, Sydney is the cosmopolitan capital of New South Wales. Sydney was described as cosmopolitan and at the forefront of cutting-edge design, with chic hotels and excellent restaurants - excellent food. Melbourne prides itself on its liveability and its many subtle layers, but this can come at the cost of excitement in a tourist destination. Summary and recommendations The results of Conde Nast Travellers tourism awards suggest the City of Melbourne has an international image problem it doesnt seem to have an image with (mainly U.K.) tourists. Past EIU quality of life surveys found Melbourne had a level of remoteness that prevented it from hosting a good event calendar (see section 5.1.1) and Mercers 2009 quality of living survey found Sydneys international airport links to be superior to Melbournes. It seems reasonable to suppose therefore that Melbourne suffers somewhat from the tyranny of distance. Considering how to respond to that issue may be worthwhile. There may be a need to do more than advertising and promotions. Providing a better experience for visitors to the City (better accommodation and more and better transport options for visitors after they arrive) may demonstrate the tyranny of distance is overcome and raise awareness of the City of Melbourne as a travel destination. To maintain continued growth in Melbournes tourism industry, Melbourne needs to ensure the provision of high quality visitor services. The City of Melbourne has taken a leadership role by designing the following: a five-year plan for welcoming and engaging tourists when they arrive - Tourism Plan 2007-2012: Managing Melbourne as a tourist destination; Talk Destination, which focuses on the future of Melbourne as a destination for all kinds of visitors. Through Talk Destination, the Future Melbourne project is exploring options and possible futures; and
the Value of Tourism Report, which aims to help city businesses to understand more about who visits Melbourne, and how to maximise the opportunities tourism presents. City of Melbourne may consider using the planning regulations to provide incentives for developers to build a more varied greater mix of tourist accommodation options in the City, to meet tourists needs e.g. more Bed and Breakfast or Guest House accommodation.
5.7.2
Euromonitor - top destination cities
Benchmark method and outcomes Euromonitor International is an independent provider of business intelligence on industries, countries and consumers. It releases an annual City Destinations Ranking, covering over 230 of the world's leading and most dynamic cities in terms of international tourist arrivals. The methodology used is a relatively objective one, collating tourist arrival data, by city, from sources could be a problem. Sources include: World Tourism Organisation; European cities tourism; national statistics; national tourist boards; local tourism & convention bureaux; trade press (local and national newspapers, business travel news) and Euromonitor Internationals own data. London ranked on top of Euromonitor International's Top City Destinations in 2007, but Asian cities led by Hong Kong, Bangkok and Singapore also scored highly in 2007. Melbourne was the 95th largest tourist destination in the world (out of 230 surveyed) in 2007 (See Euromonitor online). While this rank seems mediocre, Melbourne still attracted approximately 954,000 international visitors in 2007. Interpretation and discussion According to Euromonitor the economic turbulence of 2008 will not only impact the next Top City Destination Ranking but could reshape the city tourism market in the years to come. The increase in fuel prices has harmed
17
the low cost carrier model and as financial crisis becomes a global recession, Euromonitor considers the outlook for city tourism will worsen as travellers reduce spending and business meeting and incentives travel declines. Euromonitors most recent data on tourist arrivals for 2008 suggests city tourism was one of the first sectors affected by global recession, as consumers cut their spending on travel. Most European hotel chains reported fewer bed night figures during the first half of the year in key European cities. Although only a small proportion of potential holidaymakers cancelled their annual holidays, they reduced the length of their holidays abroad. Their opinion was that as global recession affects the tourist industry worldwide, Melbourne may experience a decline in its 2008 destination city ranking and number of international visitors. The global recession and cost of fuel in the future may dictate how large the decline in international visitor numbers will be and long it lasts. Interpretation and discussion The City of Melbourne has cooperative agreements with Guangzhou, for Biotech (one of the big tourist travel performers mentioned above), Nanjing (Friendship Agreement), and Fengxian District as well as with Shanghai and Tianjin through the Business Partner City Network. Furthermore, City of Melbourne and Racing Victoria hope to profile Melbournes event capabilities and racing industry to Hainan Province, a growing domestic Chinese tourist destination which is also the site of the annual Boao Forum (Boao Forum is an Asian Economic Forum). City of Melbourne should maintain its current long-term involvement with these Chinese cities.
5.7.3
Thoughts about the usefulness of tourism city benchmarks
The Conde Nast questionnaire, being a self select form, sent to readers in the United Kingdom primarily, introduces a bias to the survey on which Conde Nasts rank is based. Therefore the results of this rank should be considered with caution, and it should be remembered that the results may disproportionately reflect the views and latest fashion of readers from the United Kingdom. It is probably still worthwhile maintaining a watching brief on this survey. Euromonitors ranking is, for the most part an objective secondary data collation exercise. It is, however, limited to a single dimension of data and would be more informative if put in context with other information sources about traveller preferences and behaviour, including but not limited to Conde Nasts survey.
5.8
5.8.1
Sporting cities
Sports Business International - ultimate sports city
Benchmark method and outcomes Melbourne has been named the ultimate sports City. This means the survey considers Melbourne, the best location in the world to hold a sports event. The survey conducted by SportBusiness International in 2008, initially profiled 25 cities and selected, according to numbers and the importance, international and annual major sport events hosted or awarded between the period 2004-2012. Over 100 interviews were undertaken with government departments, city officials, event organisers, federations and industry specialists during the process of the analysis. Evaluation criteria included number of annual sports events held, major events held/won up until 2010, facilities, transport, accommodation, government support, weather, legacy, public sports interest and quality of life. Figure 12: Sports Business International: ultimate sports city, 2008
City Melbourne Berlin Sydney London Vancouver Rank 2008 1 2 3 4 5
Interpretation and discussion The naming of Melbourne as ultimate sports city two years running is in contrast to the EIU, which concluded that Melbourne was relatively remote and less likely, than a city such as Vancouver, to host a large number of important international and annual major sport events. In contrast, SportBusiness recognised that Melbourne hosted or was awarded, between 2004 and 2012, four annual major sporting events: the Formula One Grand Prix; Australian Open; Spring Racing Carnival; and a round of the MotoGP (most or all supported by City of Melbourne through its Event Partnership Program). Furthermore, the City successfully hosted the 2006 Commonwealth Games, and in recent years secured World Championships in Gymnastics, Cycling, Lifesaving and Swimming (2007). Other important factors in deciding Melbournes status as ultimate sports city were the quality facilities and government support. The fact that Melbournes weather is mild was also a factor.
18
Summary and recommendations The results of this index should be considered with caution. It relies heavily on subjective analysis of policy, weather, culture, etc.
5.9
5.9.1
University cities
RMIT University global university cities
Benchmark method and outcomes The inaugural 2007 Global University City Index produced by RMIT University is believed to be the world's first index ranking university cities a broader measure than quality of Universities, only. Ranking of University quality alone wouldnt tell us much about the City in which it is located. Drawing on internationally recognised data, the Index seeks to define and measure the qualities which make up a great university city. These include liveability, scale and the quality of its universities, investment in research and education infrastructure, and the mobility and connectedness of its population (therefore the index functions as a message about how important Universities are in conjunction with business and industry, highlighting the connection between the scale of the city and the clusters of knowledge in that city. The cities that were ranked in this study were home to knowledge workers and research clusters that made them a significant driving force of their local knowledge economy. The Global University City Index is based on five individually weighted factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. size of city is an absolute threshold. Cities with a population less than 2 million are excluded; city liveability and amenity (30%); the number of global universities and their degree of internationalisation (30%); educational inputs and performance (20%); and research inputs and performance (20%).
In the 2008, the strength of Melbournes as a university city was highlighted with Melbourne ranking 4th. Figure 13: RMIT University: global university city index top 5 cities, 2008
City London Boston Tokyo Melbourne Sydney Rank 2008 1 2 3 4 5
Interpretation and discussion The Global University City Index highlights those cities where there is confluence between their size, liveability and connectedness (internationally for example in Melbournes case, reputation and attraction to international students, overall student numbers), the number of excellent universities within their bounds and sustained investment in education and research. Cities such as Melbourne are home to knowledge workers and research clusters that make them a significant driving force of the local knowledge economy. This benchmark is about the size and liveability of the City as a whole, rather than a measure of individual Universities (this also excludes some small but prestigious university towns), explaining why Melbourne is perceived as a poor place for tertiary education in one index (City Brands Index), but still a good University City (RMIT Global University Cities Index). Benchmarking focuses on what the researcher, market, corporation or community feel is important for them to measure. The point is to benchmark against like organisations/markets, cities. Summary and recommendations This index could almost be considered a liveability index for students and is therefore interesting to a city with a large education sector, such as Melbourne. Council does not have much control over tertiary education specifically, however, because the focus of the Global University City Index is about the liveability, scale and the quality of universities cities university institutions, investment in research and education infrastructure, and the mobility and connectedness of its population. There are some things, however, the City of Melbourne can do within its area of jurisdiction (within its municipal boundary) to improve or maintain Melbournes standing as a University City: Office of Knowledge Capital (OKC) could support facilitation of relationships and opportunities between cities, industries and academics to maximise graduate and research outputs and help ensure international students get access to services and supports that promote their health and welfare. Further, opportunities could be provided to international students to actively participate and contribute to the citys social and cultural life of;
19
if international student numbers decline sufficiently it will adversely affect university revenue and Melbournes position as a knowledge capital. The City of Melbourne Student Profile identified the City has potential international competitive advantages teaching engineering; creative arts; agriculture/environmental science; architecture/building, management and commerce, which OKC could help the education sector leverage; ensuring global connectivity social, economic, educational. According to the City of Melbourne Student Profile, Malaysia was the most common birthplace of the Citys resident higher education international students and so Melbourne could investigate expanding its current relationship with Kuala Lumpur to encompass broader cultural, educational and sporting exchanges; and maintaining a focus on the liveability of cities: the convergence of factors which make them hubs for a globally mobile knowledge workforce.
20
6.
Conclusions
Several of the benchmarking studies summarised in our Benchmarking and liveability report concluded that: 1. the City offers a high standard of living (it is liveable). Even studies (mentioned above) about cost of living, the environment, Universities and creativity concurred; 2. on costs of living there were disparate conclusions on the current status of the City. There are, however expectations that Melbourne will increasingly enjoy internationally competitive costs of living in 2009s economic climate; 3. benchmarks were favourable towards Melbournes creative and innovative potential (e.g. Global University Cities Index); 4. Melbourne is comparatively a very good city for innovation Cities; 5. Melbourne enjoys a packed international sporting calendar, although the perception is that the city suffers from the tyranny of distance (Economist Intelligence Unit and Sporting Cities); and 6. Melbournes leading status in the urbanization and environment ranking is due to the quality of the water and air a possible endorsement of successive State government water and environment policies to date. On the other hand benchmarking studies raised some limitations of Melbournes: 1. the Australian Unity personal subjective wellbeing survey considers City of Melbourne, specifically, is not liveable due to the particular demographics of the City itself. According to Australian Unity personal wellbeing falls in Large cities such as metro Melbourne, because of a decrease in community connectedness (this seems to echo to some degree the BankWest Quality of Life Index which appeared to suggest that higher density residential areas are less liveable); 2. a couple of quality of life benchmarking studies remarked on the limitations of Melbournes transport and urban sprawl. One (Monocle) cited Copenhagen and Munich as model for Melbourne to follow; 3. there were some mixed results on housing affordability, but the balance of views was that home purchasing in Melbourne is unaffordable but improving; 4. Melbourne seems to suffer somewhat from the tyranny of distance (Economist Intelligence Unit); 5. international benchmarks included in this study were generally relatively negative about the standard of school education in Melbourne; 6. Melbournes financial flow could do with improvement, according to Mastercard; and 7. Victorias continuing drought is a problem. International benchmarking and liveability studies consistently deliver disparate results upon assessing Melbourne. According to studies considered in this report, Melbournes rank varies according to subject, survey methodologies, and organisations who undertake the surveys. Consideration of the following assists interpretation of city comparisons: 1. subjectivity (Monocles Quality of Life survey mixes objective and subjective measures successfully); 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. objectivity (Economist Intelligence Unit, Mercer quality and cost of living surveys as good, positive examples); fit for purpose/appropriateness of using the index for a purpose other than that for which it was created, for example standard of living/liveability (Mercer cost of living); commercial conflict of interest (Conde Nast); data quality (BankWest); quality of interpretation of outcomes (Demographia); and whats realistic? The difference between Vancouver, Vienna and Melbourne, in the EIU and Mercer liveability indexes is very small and effectively all three offer the same quality of life.
Despite the critiques above we still have to acknowledge many political and media entities regard these benchmarking projects highly. Some projects recommended, with the qualifications already mentioned, for continued observation are: the cost and quality of living surveys by EIU; Monocle quality of life; Mercer regional differentials Demographia international housing affordability; Anholt City Brand Index; 2Thinknow innovation cities; MasterCard Worldwide Centres of Finance; MasterCard Worldwide urbanization and environmental challenges; Euromonitor; and global university cities. Council can do things to improve its standing in future benchmarking studies, for example youth violence. We can also infer things to consider addressing, such as tourism and partner city relationships or the social inclusion of international students.
21
7.

References
2thinknow, [on-line], Global Innovation Review Annual, 2007, (08/12/08), http://www.2thinknow.com/Resources/Innovation-Cities/Innovation-City-Rankings.htm; Anholt, S, [on-line], Simon Anholt's Placeblog,[09/12/08], http://www.simonanholt.blogspot.com/; Australian Centre on Quality of Life, 2008, Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 19, Report 19.0: The Wellbeing of Australians, Deakin University, Melbourne; Australian Centre on Quality of Life, 2008, Australian Unity Wellbeing Index, Report 19.1, Part B: Appended Tables. The Wellbeing of Australians Differences between statistical sub-divisions, towns and cities, Deakin University, Melbourne; BankWest, 2008, Quality of Life Index, 2008, BankWest, Sydney; Brown Terry, [on-line], Herald-Sun, Melbourne loses out to Sydney in liveability list, (28/04/09), http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25397472-661,00.html; City Mayors, [on-line], City Ranking, (10/12/08), http://www.citymayors.com/sections/rankings_content.html; City Research, 2008, City of Melbourne 2006 Student Demographic Profile, City of Melbourne, Melbourne; City Research, 2008, City of Melbourne 2006 Working Population Profile, City of Melbourne, Melbourne;
City Research, 2008, 2008 Melbourne City Suburbs Economic and Demographic Profile Resource Material, City of Melbourne, Melbourne;
Conde Nast Traveller Magazine, [on-line] Overseas Cities, 2001-2007, (28/10/08), www.cntraveller.com/ReadersAwards/2007/Cities; Council of Capital City Lord Mayors (2007), Australian Capital Cities Partners in Prosperity Executive Summary Report, 2007; Demographia, 2008, [on-line], Wendell Cox Consultancy, (09/12/08),www.demographia.com/; Demographia, 2008, Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey 2008, (06/11/08), www.demographia.com/; Economist Intelligence Unit, [on-line], Economist Intelligence Unit global liveability rankings, 20022009, (28/10/08), http://eiuhelp.enumerate.com/; Economist Intelligence Unit, [on-line], Worldwide Cost of Living Surveys, 2005-2007, (27/05/08), http://www.audiovideo.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11319024; Euromonitor, 2008, [on-line], 2007 Top City Destinations Rankings, Euromonitor International, (18/02/09), http://www.euromonitor.com/Trend_Watch_Euromonitor_Internationals_Top_City_Destinations_R anking; Euromonitor, 2007, [on-line], 2006 Top 150 City Destinations Rankings, Euromonitor International, (18/02/09), http://www.euromonitor.com/Top_150_City_Destinations_London_Leads_the_Way; Forbes.com, [on-line], In Pictures: The World's Happiest Cities, (2/09/09), http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/02/worlds-happiest-cities-lifestylecities_slide_6.html?thisspeed=25000; MasterCard Worldwide, [on-line], Insights - Urbanization and Environmental Challenges in Asia/ Pacific, Middle East and Africa Ranking of Worldwide Centres of Commerce, 1Q 2008, (09/12/08), http://www.mastercard.com/au/general/en/aboutus/press/080303.html; MasterCard Worldwide, [on-line], Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index 2008, (28/10/08), http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/insights/pdfs/2008/MCWW_WCoC-Report_2008.pdf;
22

Mercer (Australia), 2008, Australia and New Zealand Regional Differentials, 2006/2007, Mercer (Australia), Sydney; Mercer, [on-line], Worldwide Cost of Living survey 2008 City ranking (24/07/08), http://www.mercer.com/costoflivingpr; Mercer, [on-line], Australian Mercer's 2008 Cost of Living survey highlights, (24/07/08), http://www.mercer.com/costofliving; Mercer, [on-line], Australian Quality of Living Global City Rankings 2009 Mercer Survey 2009, (28/04/09), http://www.mercer.com.au/; Mercer, Worldwide Cost of Living Survey, 2001-2007, available: www.imercer.com/default.aspx?page=home&contentId=2529&newRegionId=2; Monocle Magazine, The worlds top 25 most liveable cities - 2008, Monocle, Issue 15, Volume 2, Jul/Aug 2008, pg 18-28; RMIT University, [on-line], Global University City Index Presentation, 2008, (09/12/08), http://mams.rmit.edu.au/ddglvp4xqmgy.pdf; RMIT University, [on-line], Launch of Committee for Melbourne Higher Education Taskforce White Paper and Global University Cities Index, Aug 2007, (09/12/08), http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=lc8c7ugp2fby; SportBusiness International, [on-line], Melbourne Retains Title as Ultimate Sports City, (09/12/08), http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/166531/melbourne-retains-title-as-ultimate-sports-city; SportBusiness International, [on-line], Melbourne Ultimate Sports Cities, (09/12/08), http://www.sportbusiness.com/reports/166633/ultimate-sports-cities-2008; SportBusiness International, [on-line], Melbourne is Declared Ultimate Sports City, (09/12/08), http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/160757/melbourne-is-declared-ultimate-sports-city; and Tourism Victoria, [on-line], Brand Victoria Update July 2009, (22/07/09), http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=408.
CoM Ref. Docs: #4127535-v15 Date prepared: 16/2/2010 2:18 PM Date printed: 16/2/2010
23

Melbourne Bench Marking Live Ability

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Melbourne Bench Marking Live Ability

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

City Benchmarking and Liveability

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

Quality and reliability issues

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

Quality of life vs. cost of living studies

Quality of living/living standard

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

Mercer worldwide quality of living

Monocle quality of life

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

Interpretation and discussion

Recommendations for policy arising from liveability studies

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

BankWest quality of life

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

standard of living; achievements in life; community connection; and future security.

Cost of living surveys

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

Mercer worldwide cost of living

COL Index City

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

Interpretation and discussion of cost and quality of living studies

Summary and recommendations

Mercer Australia/ New Zealand regional differentials

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

Demographia international housing affordability

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

Interpretation and discussion

Creativity and innovation

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

Figure 9: 2thinknow - Top 20 innovative Cities, 2009

Interpretation and discussion

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

Environment and sustainability

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

Euromonitor - top destination cities

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)

Melbourne Benchmarking and Liveability 2009

Thoughts about the usefulness of tourism city benchmarks

City of Melbourne (Doc# 4127535 v15)