Livability

One of the first pieces of advice I received from personnel at the East-West Center in Honolulu was to save my dollars and not bother buying bottled water.

Anywhere in Hawaii, I was told, water from the tap was safe to drink.

The quality of drinking water is one of the surest indicators of the quality of life. I drink water straight from the tap in advanced economies without worrying about an attack of amoebiasis or other water-borne diseases. In Honolulu, it’s safe to drink water even from fountains in public parks.

In contrast, you drink water straight from the tap in Metro Manila at your own risk. Portable water filters have become ubiquitous in many households in Metro Manila and other parts of the country. Other households invest in regular purchases of bottled filtered water.

Expenditures for safe water, a basic human need, in an average-sized household can cost a small fortune.

I don’t know if access to safe water is specifically taken into consideration in studies on livability. It has to fall under environment or healthcare.

In the latest livability index prepared by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), Honolulu, described to me by Americans as their country’s Shangri-la, ranked 26th among 140 cities – the best ranking for any US city.

The ranking is good, considering Manila’s own, but still way behind the perennial top raters in the annual study, most of them cities in Canada and Australia, with a smattering from Western Europe.

This year Australia’s Melbourne dislodged Canada’s Vancouver from the top spot. Australian and Canadian cities have consistently ranked high in the index, their ratings boosted by high scores in education and healthcare.

The three other major categories in the index are infrastructure, culture and environment, and stability. The five categories cover 30 qualitative and quantitative factors, including criminality, corruption, quality of mass transport, and even the availability of sporting facilities.

Libya’s capital Tripoli, which was a notch ahead of Manila, at 106th, in the 2009 index, is now among the 10 worst, in the same league as Harare in Zimbabwe and Dhaka in Bangladesh, as a result of the continuing political turmoil.

Manila – or more accurately, Metro Manila – has languished in the 100s, although it has avoided landing in the bottom 10 of 140 cities. In Southeast Asia, Manila has lagged behind Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bandar Seri Begawan and Bangkok. This year Manila is ranked 105th in the EIU index, still behind Bangkok, which placed 102nd.

* * *

The assessments are made by EIU resident experts and analysts. The detailed report is sold to clients, often companies that use the index as a basis for pay scales and overseas assignments.

Some Asian analysts have pointed out that surveys of expatriates in this region have picked Asian cities (or city-state, in the case of Singapore) as the best places in the world to live and work.

This year two Japanese cities are in the top 20 in the EIU list: Osaka (12th) and Tokyo (18th). The two are way ahead of New York and London.

Asian analysts note discrepancies in rankings in similar studies, such as Mercer’s Quality of Living index. Last year, Mercer listed the 10 most livable cities as Vienna, Zurich, Geneva, Vancouver, Auckland, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Munich, Bern and Sydney. Having visited Switzerland, the latest last April, and also Auckland in New Zealand, I can agree with this ranking.

Perhaps assessments are influenced by the places where analysts of the rating agencies have spent more time.

Regardless of the discrepancies in ranking, there are no dramatic variations in assessments of Metro Manila. It’s a prime example of urban blight. There aren’t enough resources to go around, and not enough roads or living space to accommodate its ever-growing population.

Overcrowding tends to breed crime and aggravates pollution. In places with budget constraints, overcrowding lowers the quality of basic services, particularly public education and healthcare.

In Honolulu, as in many other prosperous cities, there is a lot of room to breathe, the streets and beaches (all free and open to the public) are clean and generally safe, parks are well maintained, and mass transport is efficient.

Probably because tourism is the main industry of Hawaii, and because of its high cultural diversity, Hawaiians tend to be very friendly. A recent poll showed that Hawaiians are the happiest Americans. One Oahu cartoon joked that this was probably because an ocean separated the state from the US mainland.

Being seen as paradise has its drawbacks. A Hawaiian told me that their state is not drawing much of the convention business because holding a conference in Hawaii sounds too much like fun rather than work, and companies don’t like their employees to enjoy a vacation on company time.

The state, I was told, is hoping to project a more serious, businesslike image when it serves as the venue for this year’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, with Hawaii native Barack Obama as the host.

The summit will showcase the best of Hawaii and perhaps improve its ranking in livability surveys.

Locals told me that Honolulu has its share of worsening problems. I’ve heard similar complaints in some of those cities that consistently rank high on the livability lists.

The difference is what people do to address the problems.

The livability index provides a detailed list of the strengths and weaknesses of the 140 cities covered. But even without the index, we know the areas we need to work on, to make our country a better place to live, to improve the quality of life of ordinary Filipinos. Better rankings on livability will then fall into place.