METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE QUALITY OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE QUALITY OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

Pavel Bogomazov

student, Lomonosov Moscow State University,

Russia, Moscow

Relevance of the topic of scientific research. The most important task of our time is to learn how to convert the accumulated wealth into the quality of life of the population. Today we can see many examples of fairly rich countries with significant reserves of minerals, with a good level of economic development and large GDP, with an impressive accumulated human capital, but still the population in these countries is not satisfied with their life. Therefore, it is very important to study the factors affecting the quality of life of the population. So, what is the quality of the urban environment? According to Britannica, «quality of life is the degree to which an individual is healthy, comfortable, and able to participate in or enjoy life events». [7, electronic resource]. In other words, it is the ability of the urban environment to meet the objective needs and demands of city residents in accordance with the generally accepted norms of life at a given time. That is, there is a number of socio-economic indicators that can be used to judge the «attractiveness» of the city. For each indicator, statistical data are collected, various indices are calculated, and city ratings are compiled. There are more than 200 such indices in the world that affect all (or almost all) spheres of human life and activities: ecology and environmental problems, urban economy, accessibility of transport, health care, etc. But why do we need to analyze the quality of the urban environment? By assessing the quality of the urban environment, the authorities can plan the future development and improvement of the city to meet the needs of the population, monitor the state of the city.

Purpose of this research: to analyze megalopolises from different parts of the world, comparable in terms of population (on the basis of the proposed system of indicators for the analysis of the urban environment), and to compare the quality of the living environment in these megalopolises.

The object of the research is the largest megacities from different regions of the world, comparable in terms of population, namely: London, New York, Paris, Seoul, Shanghai, Tokyo, Singapore, Moscow; the subject of research is the quality of the urban environment (human habitat) in these megacities.

Basic points of the methodological basis for the study of the quality of the urban environment. In the modern world, the process of urbanization continues and, according to numerous forecasts, it can be concluded that in the near future the share of the world's urban population will be 60-65%. Large urban agglomerations and megalopolises play an increasing role in people's lives, so it is most important to analyze the quality of the urban environment in megalopolises. In this research work, 7 megacities were selected that are comparable in terms of population and income level: London, New York, Paris, Seoul, Shanghai, Tokyo, Singapore. Another aspect that confirms the importance and relevance of the development of methods for assessing the quality of urban life is that the correctness of the compiled methodology directly affects the effectiveness of decisions made in the field of urban planning and housing policy. And urban planning and housing policy, in turn, is aimed at creating a comfortable living environment that allows citizens to meet their housing needs and ensure a high quality of life in general. To formulate such a policy and make qualified decisions on urban development, the task of assessing the quality of the urban environment becomes critically important. This task is of «extra relevance» for large cities and megalopolises.

Here are examples of the most famous indices for assessing the quality of urban life: The Better Life Index – assesses the well-being of countries as a whole; the global index of living comfort (The Global Liveability Index); Quality of Living City Ranking; Quality of Life Index by City. These and many other indices take into account the following indicators: the well-being of citizens; population dynamics; city economy; transport and road infrastructure; natural and ecological situation; affordability of housing; development of social infrastructure; city safety.

It is important to describe in more detail about some of the attempts and methods of assessing the quality of urban life. Let's start with a description of the methodology for calculating the Quality of Life Index by City, widely known in the scientific community, which is annually presented by the Numbeo service (it is «the world’s largest cost of living database. Numbeo is also a crowd-sourced global database of quality of life informations including housing indicators, perceived crime rates, and quality of healthcare, among many other statistics» [9, electronic resource]). The index is an assessment of the overall quality of life using an empirical formula that takes into account: purchasing power index, pollution index, house price to income ratio, cost of living index, safety index, health care index, traffic commute time index, climate index.

Thus, we can conclude that the largest megacities in the world are by no means the best places to live. The first lines of the Numbeo rating are occupied by 3 cities from Australia: Adelaide, Canberra and Brisbane; Wellington from New Zealand; several US cities: Raleigh (North Carolina), Madison (Wisconsin), Columbia (South Carolina) and Austin (Texas); Zurich from Switzerland; The Hague from the Netherlands. Large megalopolises from Table 1 were not even included in the top 100 "best" cities, and in fact they concentrated a huge part of the world's population. Therefore, attention in this work will be paid specifically to the quality of life in megacities.

It is very interesting to get acquainted with scientific works that, in one way or another, tell us how to assess the quality of urban life. In 2015, Gorina and Burdyak conducted a study based on the HSE program of fundamental research «A look at the quality of life of the population through the prism of the urban environment». The core of this work was a subjective approach to assessing the quality of life in the city, given that this is part of the quality (standard) of life of the population. A survey of the population was carried out in Moscow; the opinion of citizens about how favorable the urban environment of the capital is for life is analyzed. The authors believe that the urban environment is formed by a complex of characteristics (physical and social): place of direct residence, area of residence, urban infrastructure (education, health care, housing and communal services, transport links). The authors used an environmental approach, which puts in the center of attention of residents, their subjective perception of the urban environment, assessments and opinions. In conclusion, the authors conclude that «the study showed that the population of the capital as a whole has a positive perception of the urban environment, a high degree of adherence and a relatively low level of conflict in relation to it» [6, p. 13].

Principles of the formation of a system of indicators for assessing the urban environment. In the economic literature, there is no unambiguous definition of the category «quality of urban life» (this statistically capacious object of research can be characterized in different ways), which raises the question of those indicators that are necessary for an adequate statistical evaluation of the quality of life. Researchers often believe that the central element in determining the quality of life is the set of goods and services that a person living in a metropolis can have. That is, household income is assessed, which determine the ability to purchase goods, services and various assets. However, this method cannot be called universal, because it mainly reflects the quantitative aspect, and we are interested in the qualitative characteristics of life in a metropolis. To do this, it is necessary to use indicators that provide a broad understanding of the quality of the environment – the so-called indicators of social statistics. These usually include demographic characteristics, the quality and variety of food consumed, the state of the environment, indicators of health, education and culture, the comfort of housing, the level of literacy of the population.

Thus, it is important to select such indicators that can fully reflect the real situation of the quality of the urban environment in a metropolis and at the same time are published by statistical government services, international services and journals or are contained in international databases and statistical yearbooks. Moreover, the search for statistical data is far from a trivial task. Therefore, I have created the system of indicators that can help us evaluate the quality of urban environment – following groups of indicators were selected (table 1).

Table 1.

Groups of indicators for assessing the quality of the urban environment in megacities

Comparative statistical analysis of megacities. For each of the listed indicators, data were collected – average values for 2015-2017 and 2018-2020. These data can be analyzed and compared with each other in different ways and, accordingly, conclusions can be drawn on different aspects of the quality of life in megacities. However, such an abstract analysis, although it is very interesting from a scientific point of view, but due to a certain non-systematic nature of this approach, it is very difficult to present this information in the article. Therefore, here I will focus on the first four highlighted groups. The information presented below is freely available on the websites of statistical services around the world. However, I will once again mention the uniqueness of the information provided: the point is that the same indicators can be «hidden» under different names in different countries.

City geography and population placement. The largest area of the territory is in Shanghai, it is 6341 square kilometers. Moscow ranks second in terms of the area of the city – 2561.5 square meters. Seoul has the smallest area – only 605.3 square kilometers. In terms of population, Shanghai is the leader (23.39 million people on average for 2015-2017 and 24.15 on average for 2018-2020 against 13.74 and 13.97 for Tokyo, the closest «competitor» in terms of population). But due to its large area, Shanghai has the lowest population density – almost 3,689 people per square kilometer. Moscow ranks third in terms of population (after Tokyo) and overtakes Shanghai in terms of population density: almost 4,814 people per square kilometer of Moscow. The highest population density in Seoul is more than 16603 people per square kilometer, which is due to the small area of the capital of the Republic of Korea (excluding the suburbs). It is also important to note that in Shanghai the population density growth was 3.25%, this is the highest value (for comparison: in Moscow, 2.84%). The minimum value was noted in Paris (only 0.31%).

City economy. Consider the gross regional product, calculated at purchasing power parity. Singapore has the lowest indicator – 478.6 billion dollars on average for 2015-2017 and 484.6 for 2018-2020. Moscow ranks second from the bottom in the GRP rating by PPP with 649.3 and 697.4 billion dollars, respectively. The maximum value of GRP by PPP for Tokyo is 2197.1 and 2211.4 billion dollars. However, if we consider the gross regional product (PPP) per capita, then the situation changes: the first place goes to New York (204.3 and 205.1 billion dollars), the second – Tokyo with 159.9 and 158.3 billion dollars, the third – Paris with 146.7 and 147.9 billion dollars. At the bottom of the list were Shanghai and Moscow (in 2018-2020, Shanghai overtook Moscow). Note that the fastest growth in GRP based on PPP is in Shanghai: the growth was almost 50% (49.56%, to be exact). London is behind Shanghai by more than two times – the GRP has grown by almost 20%. We also note Seoul, which has been actively developing in recent years (growth of 17.03%). In the rest of the megacities, there were no strong changes, a slight increase (Moscow, New York, Paris) or a slight decline (Singapore, Tokyo).

As for small business, in almost all the considered megalopolises its share fluctuates around 50-60 percent. The exception is Moscow, where the share of small business was 26% on average in 2015-2017 and 24% in 2018-2020. It can be concluded that small business plays an important role in all countries with strong economies (in particular, in megacities with strong urban economies).

Another important aspect for analyzing the quality of life from an economic point of view is the unemployment rate in cities. The lower it is, the more stable and comfortable the life of the residents is. It is clear that the most favorable situation is in Singapore, Moscow and Tokyo, where unemployment does not exceed 3-3.5% on average. On the contrary, Paris is an example of high unemployment, which is largely associated with migration.

Demographic characteristics of the population. Let's move on to analyzing demographic indicators. First of all, you need to pay attention to the relationship between birth and death rates. Theoretically, we understand that the higher the birth rate and the lower the mortality rate, the higher the quality of life of the population. In this aspect, the most favorable situation for the future metropolis is in London (13.5 births versus 5.2 deaths per 1,000 people) and Seoul (8.6 births versus 4.1 deaths per 1,000 people). In Tokyo, due to the long-standing process of «aging of the nation», the death rate exceeds the birth rate, this may become a serious problem in the near future for Tokyo. However, it is Tokyo that has the lowest infant mortality rate (1.8 on average for 2015-2020). Also Seoul (2.2 on average for 2015-2017 and 1.9 on average for 2018-2020) and Singapore (2.1 on average for 2015-2020) boast very low infant mortality.

If we compare megacities in terms of life expectancy, then the undisputed leaders will be Tokyo and London. Moreover, the average life expectancy for the period 2015-2017 Tokyo (84.2 years) overtook London (81.4 years), and for the period 2018-2020 the opposite situation – in Tokyo, life expectancy was 86.1 years, and in London – as much as 87.5 years old. In Paris, life expectancy is consistently high (82.2 and 82.9). It is interesting to pay attention to the sharp jump of the indicator in question in Shanghai: 83.6 in 2018-2020 against 78.4 in 2015-2017.

Above, nothing was specifically said about Moscow and New York, because these megacities are very similar in demographic indicators: a relatively high birth rate is accompanied by a relatively high mortality rate (about 10-11 births and deaths per 1000 people); relatively high infant mortality (4-4.5 deaths of children per 1000 children under one year of age) and relatively not very high life expectancy (78-80 years).

As for migration (foreign), the most attractive cities for migrants are Paris (5.8 and 4.4 migrants per 1000 population), Singapore (4 and 4.3 migrants per 1000 population) and New York (3.5 and 3 migrants per 1000 population).

Financial affordability of city life. Let's talk about how the index of the affordability of life in a metropolis was obtained. To calculate it, you need to know two values: the average monthly cash income of a person – they simply reflect the actual average cash income of people living in megalopolises in the reporting period – and the necessary monthly cash expenses for a comfortable life of a person. A comfortable life is understood as the ability to afford the same consumer basket in different metropolitan areas. This system was developed by the Numbeo service, which takes the Cost of Living Indices as its starting point, which includes a certain set of goods and services that, according to the creators of the service, are necessary for a good life per month. Then the index of the affordability of life will show how many percent is the income from spending on a comfortable standard of living in different metropolitan areas. So, the most accessible were New York, Singapore and London. In Moscow and Shanghai, the situation is the opposite, although this index of the availability of life is very conditional, since it takes into account only two values.

Conclusion. The public has long been concerned about the quality of life of people. In our time, questions about the urban environment are especially relevant, because the comfort of the urban environment is the most important condition for the quality of life. A huge proportion of people constantly live, work and study in the largest «centers» of the planet – megalopolises, therefore it is so important to develop ideas about the comfort of the urban environment, to assess its impact on the development of megalopolises. Assessment of the current level of comfort in the urban environment will help to: avoid strategic mistakes in improving structures that are not significant for the population; to form an idea of the trajectory of the metropolis; adjust the priorities of future changes. Comparing megacities and using other people's experience can become an important tool for the gradual introduction of new infrastructure and urban planning policy in general.

A number of the most relevant areas of improving the quality of the urban environment can be identified: development of investment programs taking into account the needs of different social groups (taking into account the wishes and opinions of citizens); implementation of urban planning policy taking into account environmental factors (introduction of the most advanced technologies); rational use of resources and many others. When implementing «reforms» that affect the urban environment, it is very important to take into account the following feature: negative aspects of life are usually inextricable, for example, low-income households are more likely to live in areas with poor infrastructure. The processes of humanization of the urban environment (improving the quality of life of all categories of citizens) do not eliminate the risks of a natural, man-made, social and other nature. Therefore, coordination of efforts of scientists, initiatives of the public, actions of authorities and authorized organizations is required. This is the only way to achieve a real improvement in the quality of the living environment in megacities.

It should be noted that the breadth of concepts such as «quality of life» and «urban environment» creates certain difficulties for their study, therefore, in this area, researchers often conduct surveys of citizens. On the other hand, due to the variety of approaches to the study of the quality of urban life, scientific work in this area is relevant and new. In the process of writing this article, using the statistical services of different countries, international databases and many other sources, a large amount of statistically valuable data was collected on the most important megacities of the planet. The above analysis of this information is just one of the options for how, on the basis of the data array, it is possible to identify indicators for assessing the quality of the urban environment and draw certain conclusions. This means that this analysis can be continued to obtain new results.

References:

1. Benmarhnia T., Deguen S., Kaufman J.S. A Systematic Review, Meta–Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis. Epidemiology. 2015. № 26(6). С. 781-793.
2. Ostro B., Rauch S., Green R., Malig B., Basu R. The Effects of Temperature and Use of Air Conditioning on Hospitalizations // Am J Epidemiol. 2010. № 172(9). P. 1053-1061.
3. Stiglitz J.E., Sen A.K. & Fitoussi J.P. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. 2009. 291 p.
4. Babintsev V., Garmashev A., Ushamirskaya G. Strategy for sustainable development of the region and improving the quality of life of the population // Standards and quality. 2003 No. 2. P. 42–45
5. Bobkov V.N., Denisov N.A., Malikov N.S. Assessment of the quality of life of the population based on the system of social standards // Living standards of the population of the regions of Russia. 2009. No. 6. P. 27–33.
6. Gorina E.A., Burdyak A.Ya. A look at the quality of life of the population through the prism of the urban environment // Sociology of the city. 2015. No. 2. P. 11–31.
7. Jenkinson, Crispin. «Quality of life». Encyclopedia Britannica, 6 May. 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/quality-of-life. Accessed 23 October 2021.
8. Knoema, Professional Data Discovery and Data Management Tools // Data Atlas, https://knoema.ru/atlas.
9. Online Database Numbeo, Cost of Living. // under license: Academic Use, https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/.