Statistics Explained

Urban-rural Europe - quality of life in cities


Data extracted: October 2022.

Planned article update: December 2024.

Highlights


In 2019, a relatively high share of the population living in the EU capital cities of Praha (Czechia), Amsterdam (the Netherlands; greater city) and Wien (Austria) was very satisfied with public transport, health care and education services.

A relatively high share of people living in Stockholm (Sweden; greater city), Dublin (Ireland; greater city) and Wien (Austria) was very satisfied in 2019 with the quality of air, noise levels, and the neighbourhood where they lived.

While some cities thrive, others decline: this may be explained, at least in part, by their attractiveness as places to live, work or study. The fortunes of a city are also impacted by key investment decisions from national, regional and local governments.

Source: Eurostat (urb_percep)

The quality of life can be defined as the general well-being of people living in society. It is a broad concept that encompasses a number of dimensions, both objective factors (material resources, health, work status, living conditions and so on) and the subjective perceptions that people have – in other words, how they feel and how they view their own lives. Cities may be simultaneously both the source of and solution to many of today’s economic, social and environmental challenges. On the one hand, they are motors of the European Union (EU) economy, providing hubs for wealth creation and attracting large numbers of people due to the wide range of opportunities they offer in economic, educational or social spheres. On the other, they face a range of social and environmental challenges, for example, affordable housing, poverty, crime, congestion and pollution.

This article forms part of Eurostat’s online publication Urban Europe. It seeks to offer a portrait of the quality of life in urban areas of the EU, identifying the benefits and challenges that people living in urban areas face.

Full article

Transport

There are a range of pull factors that may entice people to travel to cities: for example, economic factors that mean people commute from neighbouring regions, educational opportunities, or cultural and recreational aspects. Lengthy commutes to and from work may be associated with increased congestion, poor air quality, noise emissions and high levels of carbon dioxide emissions, as well as economic costs (for individuals, local authorities and enterprises). The share of people who use public transport to get to work is generally much higher in the EU’s largest cities, while in smaller cities, towns and suburbs the use of private motor vehicles tends to be the principal mode of transport for getting to work.

Through initiatives such as The New EU Urban Mobility Framework (COM(2021) 811 final), policymakers seek to improve the quality of life and strengthen the economy by promoting sustainable urban mobility and increased use of clean and energy-efficient vehicles, while reducing congestion, accidents and pollution.

Figure 1: Share of journeys to work by mode of transport, German cities, 2016
(%)
Source: Eurostat (urb_ctran) and (urb_cpop1)

Figure 1 shows the different modes of transport used by people to get to work for the 20 most populous German cities in 2016:

  • more than two fifths of all journeys to work in München, Berlin and Hamburg were on public transport;
  • more than two thirds of all journeys to work were made by car in the cities of Bochum, Essen and Duisburg – all three of these cities are located in the Ruhrgebiet, the largest metropolitan region in Germany;
  • more than one fifth of all journeys to work in Bremen and more than one third of all journeys to work in Münster were made by bicycle;
  • more than one tenth of all journeys to work in Wuppertal and Stuttgart were made by foot.
Figure 2: Share of journeys to work by mode of transport, French cities, 2019
(%)
Source: Eurostat (urb_ctran) and (urb_cpop1)

A similar analysis is presented in Figure 2, focusing on the 20 most populous French cities in 2019:

  • around half of all journeys to work in the French capital of Paris were made by public transport;
  • in the cities of Cannes-Antibes, Toulon, Reims, Orléans, Saint-Étienne and Lille more than two thirds of all journeys to work were made by car;
  • Strasbourg and Grenoble were the only French cities where a double-digit share of people used a bicycle for their journey to work;
  • more than one tenth of all journeys to work in Nancy, Saint-Étienne, Nice, Reims, Rennes, Rouen and Lyon were made by foot.

Bicycle networks provide an interconnected set of dedicated cycle paths/tracks, often with supplementary services such bicycle parking facilities and multimodal transport integration. Figure 3 presents information for selected EU Member States on the five cities with the longest bicycle networks in 2021. Excluding Dutch cities – where the latest data covers all roads and paths/tracks that permit the use of bicycles – there were five (other) cities that had bicycle networks that extended to more than 1 000 km, they were: Berlin, München and Hamburg (all in Germany), Helsinki and Espoo (both in Finland). In most Member States, capital cities generally had the longest bicycle networks, although there were some exceptions: Antwerpen (Belgium), Milano (Italy), Rotterdam (the Netherlands) and Košice (Slovakia).

Figure 3: Length of bicycle network (dedicated cycle paths and lanes), 2021
(kilometres)
Source: Eurostat (urb_ctran)

Figure 4 provides information on the share of employed people commuting into selected cities. It is important to note the information presented reflects administrative boundaries and that these do not necessarily reflect the functional and economic extent of cities or their surrounding, less densely populated, commuting zones.

In some of the larger EU Member States – data are presented for Germany and France – the highest shares of employed people commuting into cities in 2018 were generally recorded for smaller cities, while the lowest shares were often observed in some of the largest cities:

  • more than three quarters of employed people working in the city of Sindelfingen (southern Germany) and more than 7 out of 10 employed people working in the city of Vannes (north-west France; 2019 data) commuted into the city;
  • around one sixth (17.3 %) of employed people working in the German capital of Berlin commuted into the city, with a lower share observed in the French capital of Paris (13.8 %; 2019 data).

By contrast, in some of the smaller EU Member States, it was more common to find a relatively high share of employed people commuting into large(r) cities. This was the case, for example, in Finland and Sweden, as Helsinki and Göteborg were among those cities with some of the highest shares of commuters.

Figure 4: Share of employed people commuting into cities, selected countries, 2018
(%)
Source: Eurostat (urb_ctran) and (urb_clma)

Urban transport networks have shortcomings: for example, services may be overcrowded, run infrequently or only at certain times of the day, or fail to serve a particular location. As a result, some people make use of taxis as an alternative mode of transport. Taxis can, in some cases, be particularly important for certain groups in society, such as the elderly, as they make it possible for people without a car to remain active and mobile, thereby improving their quality of life.

The price of a taxi journey may reflect a range of different factors including the time and distance travelled, the price of fuel, the time of day, day of the week, various surcharges, as well as the cost of a license to operate. Figure 5 shows the cost of a 5 km taxi ride to a city centre during the day. In 2021, there were considerable differences in taxi prices both within and across EU Member States:

  • subject to data availability, the highest prices for a 5 km taxi ride were observed in Jyväskylä (Finland; 2018 data), Erfurt (Germany) and Arad (Romania);
  • the lowest prices were recorded in two Polish cities – Stargard and Bytom;
  • in Croatia, Hungary, Poland and Finland, the price of a 5 km taxi ride in the city with the highest taxi prices was more than twice as high as that recorded in the city with the lowest prices.
Figure 5: Cost of a 5 km taxi ride to the city centre during the day, 2021
(€)
Source: Eurostat (urb_ctran)

Perception survey indicators

Cities face a range of challenges that impact on the quality of life, including transport, health, education, cultural and sports facilities, safety and environmental concerns. The information presented in this section comes from a Report on the quality of life in European cities, 2020, which details the results of a perception survey conducted during 2019 across 83 European cities. Data from the survey can help to identify those cities that are managing particular challenges well, which, in turn, can help formulate priorities for Cohesion Policy investments and help support policy exchanges as part of the Urban Agenda for the EU.

Figure 6 presents information on the share of the population in capital cities in the EU that was very satisfied with public transport, health care or education services in 2019.

  • Relatively high shares of the population were very satisfied with all three services in Praha (Czechia), Amsterdam (the Netherlands; greater city) and Wien (Austria).
  • Less than 10 % of the population in the Italian and Romanian capitals of Roma and Bucureşti were very satisfied with public transport in their city, a share that rose to 46.4 % in the German capital of Berlin and a peak of 70.0 % in Wien.
  • In Budapest (Hungary), Athina (Greece; greater city), Warszawa (Poland), Rīga (Latvia) and Bratislava (Slovakia), less than 10 % of the population was very satisfied with health care services, doctors and hospitals – this share rose to almost half of the population in Amsterdam (greater city) and Wien.
  • In Ljubljana (Slovenia), Dublin (Ireland; greater city), Lefkosia (Cyprus), Valletta (Malta; greater city) and Praha (Czechia), more than one third of the population was very satisfied with schools and other educational facilities.
Figure 6: Satisfaction with public transport, health care services and schools in capital cities, 2019
(% share of population very satisfied)
Source: Eurostat (urb_percep)


Figure 7: Satisfaction with public transport, selected perception survey cities, 2019
(% share of population very satisfied)
Source: Eurostat (urb_percep)

Urban transport can cause a range of issues, including congestion, noise, pollution and emissions. Modern transport networks are based on providing efficient services with a shift towards more sustainable transport modes. Figure 7 shows the 10 cities in the EU with the highest/lowest shares of people very satisfied with public transport in 2019. A peak of 70.0 % was observed in the Austrian capital city of Wien, while there were three other cities – Rostock, Dresden (both Germany) and Rotterdam (the Netherlands; greater city) – where more than half of the population was very satisfied with the public transport in their city. At the other end of the range, less than 10 % of the population was very satisfied in the Romanian capital of Bucureşti, as well as in Palermo, Napoli (greater city) and Roma (all in Italy).

Figure 8 shows a similar analysis, concerning the share of people who were very satisfied with health care services, doctors and hospitals. In 2019, there were six cities where more than half of the population was very satisfied with these services: Groningen in the Netherlands (60.5 %), Graz in Austria (58.9 %), Antwerpen in Belgium (58.5 %), as well as three cities in Germany – München, Freiburg im Breisgau and Würzburg – where the share of very satisfied people ranged from 53.0–57.7 %.

By contrast, there were nine cities where less than 1 in 10 persons was very satisfied with the health care services, doctors and hospitals of their city:

  • other than the Baltic capital of Rīga (Latvia), they were all located in eastern or southern EU Member States;
  • five of the nine were capital cities – Bratislava (Slovakia), Rīga, Warszawa (Poland), Athina (Greece; greater city) and Budapest (Hungary);
  • the others comprised Bialystok (Poland), Miskolc (Hungary) and two cities from southern Italy – Palermo and Napoli (greater city) – the latter recorded the lowest share, at 4.8 %.
Figure 8: Satisfaction with health care services, doctors and hospitals, selected perception survey cities, 2019
(% share of population very satisfied)
Source: Eurostat (urb_percep)

Leisure and recreation are important aspects that contribute to the quality of life. These spaces can also have an economic value, insofar as their close proximity can be a consideration when buying or renting a property. They are also likely to promote urban tourism as cultural programmes or exhibitions can attract large and diverse audiences.

Figure 9 presents information on the share of the population in capital cities in the EU that was very satisfied with cultural facilities, sports facilities or public spaces (these include markets, squares and pedestrian areas) in 2019.

  • Relatively high shares of the population were very satisfied with all three of these facilities in Ljubljana (Slovenia), Amsterdam (the Netherlands; greater city), København (Denmark; greater city) and Wien (Austria).
  • There were seven capital cities where more than half of the population was very satisfied with the cultural facilities provided – this share peaked at 75.7 % in Wien.
  • In Athina (Greece; greater city), Bratislava (Slovakia) and Bucureşti (Romania), less than 10.0 % of the population was very satisfied with sports facilities – Helsinki (Finland; greater city) was the only capital to record a share of more than one third (37.3 %).
  • In Athina, Roma (Italy) and Bucureşti, less than 10.0 % of the population was very satisfied with the public spaces in their city – by contrast, almost two fifths of the population was very satisfied in Wien, Ljubljana (Slovenia) and København.
Figure 9: Satisfaction with cultural facilities, sports facilities and public spaces in capital cities, 2019
(% share of population very satisfied)
Source: Eurostat (urb_percep)


Figure 10: Satisfaction with cultural facilities, selected perception survey cities, 2019
(% share of population very satisfied)
Source: Eurostat (urb_percep)

The final analysis in this section looks in more detail at satisfaction with cultural facilities; these include concert halls, theatres, museums and libraries. Figure 10 shows the share of the population who were very satisfied with these facilities in 2019. The highest share was in the Austrian capital of Wien (75.7 %), while there were four other cities – Dresden (Germany), Aalborg (Denmark), Graz (Austria) and München (Germany) – where more than three fifths of the population was very satisfied with the cultural facilities on offer in their city.

At the other end of the ranking, there were six cities where less than 15.0 % of the population was very satisfied with the cultural facilities in their city: Rostock (Germany), Irakleio (Greece), Palermo (Italy), Sofia (Bulgaria), Lefkosia (Cyprus) and Braga (Portugal).

Tourism

In keeping with many aspects of urban development, tourism is a paradox, insofar as an increasing number of tourists in some cities can result in congestion/saturation which may damage the atmosphere and local culture that made them attractive in the first place; Venezia (Italy) and Barcelona (Spain) are two examples. Furthermore, while tourism has the potential to generate income which may be used to redevelop/regenerate urban areas, an influx of tourists can potentially lower the quality of life for local inhabitants, for example, through higher levels of pollution and congestion, new retail formats replacing traditional commerce, increased prices, increased noise or contractions in the availability of residential accommodation.

Figure 11: Nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments in selected cities, 2021
(million)
Source: Eurostat (tour_occ_ninc)

There was a considerable downturn in tourism activity in 2020 and 2021 as a result of the COVID-19 crisis and its associated measures. In total, 1.83 billion nights were spent in EU tourist accommodation establishments in 2021, which was approximately 1.0 billion fewer than the pre-pandemic high recorded in 2019. Cities were particularly impacted by the crisis, as the number of nights spent remained 46.3 % lower in 2021 than it had been in 2019 (for comparison, the number of nights spent was down 33.8 % and 28.6 %, respectively, for towns and suburbs and for rural areas); fresher monthly data suggests that tourists are starting to make their way back to some of the EU’s largest cities. Note that the latest information on the number of nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments by degree of urbanisation is presented in Figure 15 of an article on the quality of life in rural areas.

Statistics on nights spent in cities at tourist accommodation establishments include overnights stays for private or professional purposes; they exclude trips where people stay with family and/or friends. The rapid expansion in short-term rentals via online platforms (such as Airbnb, Booking, Expedia Group and Tripadvisor) is of particular relevance for some city destinations. However, official statistics may under-report this growing market, given small establishments (for example, those with fewer than 10 bed places) offering holiday and other short-stay accommodation may be excluded from business or tourism registers. While Eurostat publishes since 2021 data on short-stay accommodation offered via online collaborative economy platforms, this data is not included in the current analysis. Taking these caveats into account, Figure 11 shows the 20 EU cities with the highest number of nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments in 2021.

  • The French capital of Paris was, by far, the most popular city destination in the EU with 40.1 million nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments.
  • Berlin (Germany), Madrid and Barcelona (both Spain) were the only other cities to record over 10.0 million nights.
  • Along with Paris, Berlin and Madrid, seven other capital cities featured among the 20 cities with the highest number of nights spent.
  • The list also included several popular coastal destinations: Barcelona, Benidorm, Valencia and Palma de Mallorca in Spain and Rimini and Venezia in Italy.
  • The list was completed by four large cities: Frankfurt am Main, Hamburg and München in Germany and Milano in Italy.
Figure 12: Nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments in selected cities by country of residence, 2021
(million)
Source: Eurostat (tour_occ_ninc)

A more detailed analysis of the nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments is presented for 2021 in Figure 12, which adds an analysis by country of residence.

  • Paris was the most popular city destination for both domestic (28.2 million nights spent) and international/foreign tourists (11.9 million nights spent).
  • Unsurprisingly, the most popular city destinations for domestic tourists were concentrated in some of the largest EU Member States, with five cities from France, four from Germany and three from each of Spain and Italy within the list of the 20 most popular destinations for domestic tourists.
  • Cities in the southern EU Member States featured more prominently among the leading city destinations for foreign tourists.

Environment

Green and public spaces as well as cultural and sports facilities can offset the stresses of modern life, having a direct impact on people’s physical and mental health (for example, making them happier and/or improving their communal sense of identity/belonging). Green infrastructure in urban areas consists of vegetated green areas, such as parks, trees and small woodland areas, grasslands, and also private gardens. Green spaces have environmental benefits, providing a habitat for flora and fauna, facilitating climate change adaptation/mitigation, supporting the conservation of biodiversity, providing a range of ecosystem services (such as lowering urban temperatures, reducing the risk of floods, providing cleaner air), and supporting recreational services that may improve physical and mental health.

Figure 13 shows information, for each country, on the functional urban area (a city and its commuting zone combined) with the highest proportion of green infrastructure. In 2018, green infrastructure accounted for more than 90.0 % of the total area in: Cáceres (Spain), Rijeka (Croatia) and Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria); the share was only slightly lower in Savona (Italy).

Figure 13: Green infrastructure, selected functional urban areas, 2018
(% share of total area)
Source: European Commission, European Environment Agency (EEA) – green infrastructure

Built-up areas are often constructed with heat-absorbing, impermeable materials. This means that rainwater in cities runs off quickly and is not retained for evaporative cooling, while façades absorb both direct sunlight and radiation reflected from other building surfaces. This results in urban heat islands, whereby the temperature in cities is often several degrees higher than in surrounding areas. Aside from the well-documented impact of trees and green vegetation on carbon sequestration, these green resources also play a vital role in cooling down cities.

Trees provide a range of other benefits for the quality of life in cities. Their importance is recognised in the EU’s biodiversity strategy 2030, which requires cities in the EU with more than 20 000 inhabitants to develop greening plans that outline measures to create biodiverse and accessible green spaces (including the planting of trees); the EU’s forest strategy includes a roadmap for planting 3 billion new trees by 2030.

Figure 14 presents information for the cities and commuting zones in each country with the highest proportion of urban tree cover (the area covered by tree crowns, as viewed from above). In 2018, urban tree cover accounted for more than four fifths of the total area in the cities of: Savona (Italy), Baia Mare (Romania) and Umeå (Sweden). By contrast, urban tree cover accounted for less than 10 % of the total area in Lemesos (Cyprus) and Valletta (Malta). The total area covered by trees was generally – although not always – higher in commuting zones than it was in cities. Across the EU, a peak of 88.2 % was observed in the commuting zone of Jaén (Spain), while shares of more than four fifths were also recorded for the commuting zones of Savona (Italy), Umeå (Sweden) and Rijeka (Croatia).

Figure 14: Urban tree cover, selected cities and commuting zones, 2018
(% share of total area)
Source: European Commission, European Environment Agency (EEA) – urban green infrastructure dashboard

A complementary analysis for green urban areas is presented in Figure 15. It shows information for the share of the urban population having access to green urban areas by foot (defined here as living within 400 metres of a public green area or forest). Excluding the relatively arid islands of Cyprus and Malta, all of the remaining EU Member States had at least one urban centre where more than 70.0 % of the total population was within 400 metres of a green urban area. Much higher shares were recorded in several of the Member States, with more than 95.0 % of the population in Messina (Italy), Nice (France), Lelystad (the Netherlands), Göteborg (Sweden), Tapiola (Finland), Elche/Elx (Spain) and Poruba (Czechia) having access to green urban areas by foot.

Figure 15: People with access to green urban areas by foot, selected urban centres, 2018
(% share of total population)
Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy

This section on the environment concludes with additional data from the perception survey on the quality of life in European cities. Figure 16 provides an analysis of the proportion of people in capital cities in the EU who were very satisfied in 2019 with the quality of air, the noise level or the neighbourhood where they lived.

  • Relatively high shares of the population were very satisfied with all three of these in Stockholm (Sweden; greater city), Dublin (Ireland; greater city) and Wien (Austria).
  • Generally, there were relatively few people living in capital cities that were very satisfied with the quality of air – in nine of the capital cities in the EU this share was below 10 %, with the lowest proportions recorded in Sofia (Bulgaria) and Bucureşti (Romania).
  • Noise was also an issue in many capital cities – there were six capitals in the EU where less than 10.0 % of the population was very satisfied with the noise level in their city, the lowest shares being recorded in Lisboa (Portugal; greater city) and Bucureşti.
  • A far higher share of people were very satisfied with the local neighbourhood where they lived:
    • in 11 of the capital cities in the EU, more than half of the population was very satisfied, with a peak of 66.8 % in Stockholm (greater city);
    • Athina (Greece; greater city) was the only capital where less than 20.0 % of the population was very satisfied.

Figure 17 shows the 10 cities in the EU with the highest/lowest shares of people very satisfied with the local neighbourhood in which they lived. As well as the greater city of Stockholm (mentioned above), there were three other cities – Graz (Austria), Rostock (Germany) and Aalborg (Denmark) – where more than two thirds of the population was very satisfied in 2019. Most of the cities with relatively high shares were either in northern or western EU Member States.

At the other end of the range, the cities with relatively low shares were generally located in either southern or eastern EU Member States. As well as the greater city of Athina (mentioned above), there were four other cities in the EU where less than one quarter of the population was very satisfied with the local neighbourhood in which they lived: the Romanian capital of Bucureşti, as well as Napoli (greater city), Palermo and Roma (all in Italy).

Note that the latest information by degree of urbanisation for the share of people living in a household considering they suffer from noise and the share of people experiencing pollution, grime or other environmental problems in their local area is presented in Figures 17 and 18 of an article on the quality of life in rural areas.

Figure 16: Satisfaction with the quality of air, noise level and local neighbourhood in capital cities, 2019
(% share of population very satisfied)
Source: Eurostat (urb_percep)


Figure 17: Satisfaction with the local neighbourhood where you live, selected perception survey cities, 2019
(% share of population very satisfied)
Source: Eurostat (urb_percep)

Source data for tables and graphs

Context

The Urban Agenda was launched in May 2016 with the Pact of Amsterdam. It promotes cooperation between EU Member States, the European Commission, cities and other stakeholders to stimulate growth, while identifying and tackling a range of socioeconomic challenges. The Urban Agenda has 14 priority themes: air quality; the circular economy; climate adaptation; culture and cultural heritage; digital transition; energy transition; housing; inclusion of migrants and refugees; innovative and responsible public procurement; jobs and skills in the local economy; sustainable use of land and nature-based solutions; urban mobility; urban poverty; security in public spaces.

In November 2020, the New Leipzig Charter on the transformative power of cities for the common good was adopted, it provides a framework for integrated urban development following Sustainable Development Goal 11 (which aims to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable), the Paris Agreement, the European Green Deal and the Urban Agenda. The Charter provides a policy framework to implement these international and EU agreements on an urban scale, through the transformative power of cities – identifying the role played by ‘Just cities’, ‘Green cities’ and ‘Productive cities’ – so that resilient urban areas can deal with social, economic and ecological challenges, while providing a high quality of life for everyone.

Direct access to

Other articles
Tables
Database
Dedicated section
Publications
Methodology
Visualisations




Cities and greater cities (urb_cgc)
Functional urban areas (urb_luz)
Perception survey results (urb_percep)
Retrieved from "https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Urban-rural_Europe_-_quality_of_life_in_cities&oldid=619840"
  • Page
  • ISSN 2443-8219