#buzzdata

The fourth indicator in our look at city indexes is that of cultural assets. In the Spatially Adjusted Livability Index presented by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Johannesburg only scored 4 out of 5 in this category (1 being the best, 5 being the worst). Why?

In constructing this indicator, the Survey utilised data from the UNESCO World Heritage Map. For each of the 70 cities evaluated, the Survey counted the number of World Heritage sites in or within the vicinity of the city. The best score was obtained by cities with a large number of world-class cultural sites; the worst given to cities with no such sites. 

Is Joburg therefore a culturally-bankrupt city?

Certainly, if one were to count the number of UNESCO World Heritage sites within a close 'vicinity', there would only be three such sites - Maropeng, Mapungubwe, and the Vredefort Dome. Only one of these sites (Maropeng) are remotely close to the city.

But this is where city indexes fall down, because they tend to mask the nuances of a city behind collated numbers. Besides, what makes a city culturally-rich? Does an intricate history help? Does the fact a city played a substantial part in the development of a democratic state? Do a multiplicity of world cultures help? Do the number of fossils help, or the fact that the city exists near a site where the world's oldest fossilised dinosaur eggs have been found?

Continuing our look at the Spatially Adjusted Liveability Index (see indicator #1 - green space and indicator #2 - sprawl), today we look at indicator #3 - natural assets. Here, Johannesburg scored 2.7 out of 5 (1 being the best, 5 being the worst). 

The test here utilised Google Earth satellite imagery and information from Open Street Maps to assign points to cities based on the natural features available within a radius of 100km from the city centre (including sea, river, lake and mountain over 500m). The test then collated information relating to surface areas of protected areas in a 75km radius around the city centre.

This score is perhaps somewhat unfair in light of the fact that Johannesburg has to be one of the largest cities not founded on either the ocean or a river. The existence of Joburg owes its being to gold, and emerged from a ever-growing mining camp into a modern metropolis. 

Nevertheless, Joburg is lucky to be within a two-hour drive of some of South Africa's most spectacular scenery, and we suppose that both the Hartbeespoort Dam, as well as the Vaal Dam (both artificial) contribute to Joburg being livable. They certainly provide a welcome escape when Joburg is being rather UNlivable!

What is liveability? Why is Joburg more pleasant to live in compared to Lusaka, or Phnom Penh? Why is it less pleasant to live in than Munich or Moscow or Atlanta? And why is one person's standard of living more important - or 'correct' - than another person who may, for instance, come from a completely different background and have completely different values than someone else?

I ask these questions after reading a winning competition entry commissioned by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and BuzzData, which involved users combining data from the Worldwide Cost of Living and Livability Surveys with their own sources to provide a ranking of their own.

The winner, Filippo Lovato, ranked 70 cities according to a 'spatial adjustments' ranking. Seven indicators give rise to the ranking:

Green space;

Sprawl:

Natural assets;

Cultural assets; 

Connectivity:

Isolation;

Pollution.

Methods of collecting the data included making qualitative judgments based on web resources such as google maps, to utilising indicators listed in global secondary databases.

Johannesburg was ranked 40 out of 70 cities surveyed. Over the next few days we will look at how Joburg achieved this ranking, whether or not these rankings should even matter, and how Joburg should attempt to improve in these indicators, if necessary.