Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

A report by The Economist Intelligence Unit

Sponsored by:Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

About the report
The Safe Cities Index 2021 is a report fromThe Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsoredby NEC Corporation. The report is basedon the fourth iteration of the index, which
ranks 60 cities across 76 indicators covering
digital, health, infrastructure, personal andenvironmental security.
The index was devised and constructed by
Divya Sharma Nag, Shubhangi Pandey andPratima Singh. The report was written by
Paul Kielstra and edited by Naka Kondo. Findings
from the index were supplemented with wideranging research and in-depth interviews withexperts in the field. Our thanks are due tothe following people (listed alphabetically bysurname) for their time and insights:
Michele Acuto, Professor, Global Urban
Politics, Architecture, Building and Planning,
University of Melbourne

Kimihiro Hino, Associate Professor,
Department of Urban Engineering,
The University of Tokyo
Esteban Léon, Head, City Resilience Global
Programme, UN-Habitat
Tolullah Oni, Urban Health Physician and
Epidemiologist, University of Cambridge
Gerald Singham, Chairman, National Crime
Prevention Council, Singapore
Lauren Sorkin*, Acting Executive Director,
Gloal Resilient Cities Network
Lawrence Susskind, Ford Professor of Urban
and Environmental Planning, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
Adie Tomer, Fellow, Metropolitan
Infrastructure Initiative, Brookings Institution

Aziza Akhmouch, Head, Cities, Urban
Policies and Sustainable Development
Division, OECDJohn Tory, Mayor, City of Toronto

Nima Asgari, Director, Asia-Pacific
Observatory on Health Systems and Policies

Aurel von Richthofen*, Senior Researcher,
Cities Knowledge Graph, Singapore-ETH
CentreJuma Assiago, Co-ordinator, UN-Habitat
Safe Cities Programme
Tim Chapman, Director, infrastructure
design group, Arup
Gregory Falco, Assistant Professor,
Civil and Systems Engineering,Johns Hopkins University
Dr Jaideep Gupte, Fellow and Lead, Cities
Cluster, Institute of Development Studies, UK

Gino Van Begin, Secretary-General, ICLEI

Sameh Wahba, Global Director, Urban,
Disaster, Risk Management, Resilience andLand Global Practice, World Bank
Lars Weiss, Lord Mayor, City of Copenhagen
Alice Xu, Head, Connected Communities/
smart City Programme, City of Toronto
Fang Zhao, Professor, Innovation andStrategy, Staffordshire Business School* Interviewed as part of the index revision process© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

1

2

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Table of Contents
Executive summary

1

Introduction

4

The great accelerant

4

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Safe Cities Index 2021

7

Change and continuity in the Safe Cities Index results

11

New leaders in familiar company

11

Box: Q&A with a city leader: Copenhagen lord mayor Lars Weiss

13

Box: Q&A with a city leader: Toronto mayor John Tory

16

Less consistency at the top

14

Income and governmental transparency remain urban safety’s boon companions

18

The geography of urban safety

18

The covid-19 pandemic and the understanding of health security

23

The need to focus better on what works

24

Relearning the value of the big picture

25

Towards health system resilience for the whole population

26

Digital security: A red flag on the road to the development of smart cities

28

Risky digitalisation

28

Smart city security: A foundation too often not poured

30Integrating security into the concept of smart cities

31

Infrastructure security: At a crossroads

34

A blink with lasting repercussions

34

New security challenges in a new kind of city

35

No time to pause for reflection

36

Personal security: Individual safety as a collective endeavour

38

Income and personal security: a complex relationship

38

Necessary elements of security co-creation

39

Covid-19 and the criminal threat landscape

42

Environmental security: Policy progress has still not achieved its goals

43

Strong policies in most cities

44

The pandemic has driven environmental security up the agenda

44

The implementation challenge

45

Conclusion

48

Appendix50© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Executive summary
Covid-19 is the first global pandemic to strikehumanity since we became a predominantly
urban species. This has enhanced the disease’s
opportunities to spread, but also comes at atime when healthcare systems have a greater
capacity to respond.
In such circumstances, health is an obvious
place to begin a discussion of urban security
in 2021. Stopping there, though, would missmost of the picture. As Fang Zhao – professorof innovation and strategy at Staffordshire
Business School – puts it, “covid-19 haschanged the whole concept of urban safety.”
Digital security is now an even higher priority
as more work and commerce have moved
online; those responsible for infrastructure
safety have to adjust to dramatic changes intravel patterns and where residents consume
utilities; agencies responsible for personal
security need to address a large, lockdowndriven shift in crime patterns; and the prioritythat urban residents and officials assign toenvironmental security has risen markedly
as covid-19 serves as a stark warning of
unexpected crises.
Accordingly, it is an appropriate time for The
Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored byNEC, to bring out its fourth edition of the Safe
Cities Index. As before, the index covers 60
major cities worldwide and with 76 indicators
related to different aspects of urban safety.
These are grouped into five overall pillars:personal, health, infrastructure, digital, and –new this year – environmental security. Our
key findings this year include:

The top of the table changes dramatically– with Copenhagen first overall andToronto second – but the “first division”
remains largely the same. In each of thelast three iterations, Tokyo, Singapore andOsaka – always in that order – have been
our index leaders. This year Copenhagencomes first, with 82.4 points out of 100, andToronto follows close behind with 82.2. Thischange reflects not a tectonic shift but morea reordering among cities that have always
come close to the top. In all four editions of
our index, six cities – Amsterdam, Melbourne,Tokyo, Toronto, Singapore and Sydney – have
all figured among the leading ten, with only
a few points separating them. Copenhagen
likely would be in this group as well, but has
been included since only 2019, when it tied for8th place.
Income and transparency remain strongly
correlated with higher index scores... Asdiscussed in detail in our 2019 report, cities
with higher scores in the Human Development
Index (HDI) also do better in our Safe Cities
results. The statistical correlation is very high.
Here our experts warn that cause and effectare not straightforward. Income can help fundsafety-increasing investments, but economic
growth in turn depends on an environment
benefiting from every kind of security. The
likely relationship here is a virtuous circle.
More straightforward is the likely link between
transparency and security: the World Bank’sControl of Corruption scores and ours
also correlate tightly independent of HDI
results. Clean government is a fundamental
requirement for a city to be safe.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

1

2

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence...but the results suggests that different
global regions may have distinct strengths.
Among high income cities, overall scores differ
little by broad geographic region. Looking at
specific pillars, though, variations appear. In
particular, well-off Asia-Pacific cities do betteron average when it comes to health security,
European ones on personal security and North
American ones on digital security. The sample
size is too small to generalise about reasons.
Nevertheless, these differences suggest that thepriority given to various kinds of security may beaffected by distinct historical experiences at theregional, national or city level.
The experience of covid-19 shows theneed for a more holistic approach tohealth security and its closer integration
into urban resilience planning. It is still too
early to draw detailed conclusions on theimplications of covid-19 for health security.
The pandemic continues at the time of writing.
Even were it over, robust, internationallycomparable data on what has happened arestill rare. Nonetheless, the need to rethink
health system preparedness is already clear.
This must have several elements. The first is
to look at different kinds of diseases and thewider determinants of disease as an interrelated whole rather than considering them insilos. The second is to think of populations as awhole, which will especially involve providing
effective care for currently marginalised
groups. The third is to integrate healthemergency planning more fully into urban
resilience measures that, often, have focusedmore on dealing with natural disasters andenvironmental concerns.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Digital security at the city level is too
often insufficient for current needs
and insecurity will multiply as urban
areas increasingly pursue smart city
ambitions. The index data show that internet
connectivity is becoming ubiquitous, even in
our lower-middle-income cities, and could
be effectively universal within a decade.
Meanwhile, 59 of our 60 cities have started theprocess of becoming a smart city or expressed
the ambition. This makes current levels ofdigital security worrying. To cite two examples
from our figures, only around a quarter ofurban governments have public-private
digital security partnerships and a similarly
small number look at network security indetail in their smart city plans. Such data arerepresentative, not exceptional. Gregory
Falco – assistant professor of civil and systems
engineering at Johns Hopkins University– notes that “the digital security of cities
is generally pretty terrible.” Improvement
requires rethinking digital security on several
levels: cities must see it as an investment,
or at least an essential insurance policy,
rather than an unproductive cost; they must
understand that the nature of the technology
requires a city-wide approach rather than one
fragmented by departmental silos; and, finally,
digital security – and especially protectionof smart city networks – needs to involve
providing the level of safety that citizens
expect and demand. Indeed, smart cities need
to be built around what urban residents want,or they will fail.

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Although our index data show littlechange in various infrastructure security
metrics, experts report that covid-19
has brought this field to a fundamental
inflection point. Change in infrastructure
can be slow, with decisions sometimes having
repercussions for centuries. Accordingly,
certain indicator results, such as those
covering power and rail networks, show
little change. This stability does not reflect
the current state of this field. Covid-19 hasbrought a level of uncertainty around thelikely demands on urban infrastructure– and therefore how to keep it secure –which Adie Tomer, leader of the Brookings
Institution’s Metropolitan Infrastructure
Initiative, describes as “nuts compared tojust two years ago.” It is unclear the extent towhich lockdown-associated developments
will diminish, or accelerate, when the
pandemic ends. Greater levels of working
from home, increased digitalisation ofcommerce, and growing resident demands
for more sustainable urban communities withservices within walking or cycling reach all
have extensive infrastructure implications.
Meanwhile, ongoing urbanisation, especiallyin Asia and Africa, mean that the next two
decades must be ones of rapid infrastructuredevelopment in order to meet the basic
needs of city residents. This will require a
shift to greener infrastructure and better
management of existing assets. Our index
results, though, show that in these areas the
majority of cities will have to raise their game.
Personal security is a matter of social
capital and co-creation. Our index figuresshow, as elsewhere, that personal security

pillar scores correlate closely with HDI
figures for cities. A closer look yields a lesspredictable result. A number of cities, inparticular Singapore, seem to combine lowlevels of inputs with excellent results in thisfield, in particular when it comes to judicial
system capacity and crime levels. While mostof the examples of this combination are in
Asia, they exist elsewhere too, as in Toronto
and Stockholm. One way that these various
cities can accomplish apparently doing morewith less, say our experts, is higher levels ofsocial capital and cohesion. The resultantsense of connectedness, shared values, andcommunity also allows greater co-creationof security with citizens. The latter not only
multiplies the efforts of city authorities
to improve personal security, but it also
helps define security in ways that are moremeaningful to residents.
Most cities have strong environmental
policies, but now must deliver results.
Unlike other pillars, low- and middle-income
cities often do well on environmental
security. Bogota, for example, comes
4th overall. One explanation is that goodenvironmental policies are widespread.
The increased interest in reaching carbon
neutrality that has accompanied the
pandemic will only strengthen the impetus
for still better plans. The challenge, though,remains implementation. Here, even higherincome cities are lagging noticeably behind
their ambitions. As in other areas, the key
to success will be to take an overarchingapproach to environmental issues rather thana fractured one, and for cities to work withresidents rather than seeking to direct them.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

3

4

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Introduction
The great accelerant

available to respond. Although it is still too
early to benefit from detailed studies, somethings are clear. In countries where thepandemic took hold, cities – if for no otherreason than better international transport
links and closer proximity between residents– in general saw case rates rise faster at firstthan surrounding rural areas. With that camegreater initial mortality rates.

Covid-19’s challenge to humanity issimultaneously old in kind and new inspecifics. Humans have faced widespreaddisease since ancient times, but the current
pandemic is the first to attack us as apredominantly urbanised species. The lastworldwide pandemic of a comparable scale– the Spanish flu – occurred at a time whenjust 14% of humans lived in cities. The mostrecent UN Population Division estimate
puts this figure at 57%. The least developed
countries today are more urbanised (35% of
their populations live in cities) than the mostdeveloped were in 1920 (30%).1

As a result, recalls Esteban Léon – head of
the City Resilience Global Programme at
UN-Habitat – initially, “some said compact
cities are not good for pandemics. But you
have to see it from another point of view. In
cities, hospitals and services are at a reachable
distance. You don’t have to walk miles to see a
doctor.” Unsurprisingly, when covid-19 started
spreading to rural areas, in many cases theThis shift matters greatly for the dangers
that today’s pandemic poses and the tools

Figure 1: COVID-19 deaths per county group (rural-urban), US
COVID-19 daily deaths per 100,000 population, US by county, 7-day rolling average
2.0
Completely rural or fewer than 2,500 urban population, not adjacent to a metro area
Completely rural or fewer than 2,500 urban population, adjacent to a metro area
Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, not adjacent to a metro area
Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, adjacent to a metro area
Urban population of 20,000 or more, not adjacent to a metro area
Urban population of 20,000 or more, adjacent to a metro area
Counties in metro areas of fewer than 250,000 population
Counties in metro areas of 250,000 to 1 million population
Counties in metro areas of 1 million population or more

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Jan
20

Feb
20

Mar
20

Apr
20

May
20

Jun
20

Jul
20

Aug
20

Sep
20

Oct
20

Nov
20

Dec
20

Jan
21

Feb
21

Source: Author’s elaboration based on data from: USDA, USA Facts

1 Data from: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Growth of the world’s urban and rural population, 1920-2000, 1969, https://
population.un.org/wup/Archive/Files/studies/United%20Nations%20(1969)%20-%20Growth%20of%20the%20World%27s%20Urban%20and%20
Rural%20Population,%201920-2000.pdf ; United Nations Population Division, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, 2018, https://
population.un.org/wup/© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

death rates were higher, especially where
there was no nearby city.2 The accompanying
chart shows this transition for the US.

been infrastructure security because remote
working has changed people’s conception of
the city as a centre or hub for workplaces.”

The preceding account, however, requires
more nuance. Beyond the proximity of healthservices, social determinants of health,including poverty, played an important role.
Here, being in a city is again potentiallyrelevant: 5% of urban populations worldwide
live in extreme poverty, compared with 11% in
rural areas.3 Meanwhile, Nima Asgari, directorof the Asia-Pacific Observatory on Health
Systems and Policies, explains that leadership,
governance, social cohesion and trust in
authority – all elements of general resilience–helped in addressing the pandemic more
effectively (as discussed in a later section).

This conceptual shift has, in turn, expanded
understanding of what a city should do topromote safety. Aziza Akhmouch – headof the OECD’s Cities, Urban Policies andSustainable Development Division – notesthat the pandemic again made clear “cities
don’t necessarily have that much to do withthe health box in the traditional sense of theterm, but have a lot of leverage to manage thedeterminants of health.”

Covid-19, then, was not a narrow assault on
health systems, but one that tested safetyrelated attributes, including urban ones, moregenerally. As Michele Acuto, professor of
global urban politics, architecture, building
and planning at the University of Melbourne,
notes, during the pandemic, “one key thingthat urban policymakers first realised is that,
although this is a health crisis, the response
has to deal with a whole lot of other things,
such as access to green space and the qualityof urban infrastructure. Basic systems haveto be up to scratch and often weren’t.” Astime has gone on, explains Ms Zhao, “covid-19
has changed the whole concept of urban
safety. People realise the importance ofthings like environmental security, air quality
and reducing pollutants. Another thing has

As the pandemic has changed thinking on thenature of urban security, it has also scrambled
the risks facing cities. Lockdowns in various
countries were consistent with a drop inreported street crime, even as the volume ofcyber-crime rose. Meanwhile, reports Adie
Tomer, Fellow of the Brookings Institution’s
Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative, theextent to which changes in how different
types of infrastructure are now being used,
and the attendant uncertainty of how best tosecure those assets, “is nuts compared to justtwo years ago.”
However undeniably broad and deep the
immediate security challenges arising in thewake of covid-19, an inevitable question iswhether they are lasting or will fade alongwith case and fatality numbers. Although
presumably some of the disease’s wider
impacts will diminish, experts repeatedly told
us that many changes would last. One obvious

2 OECD, The territorial impact of COVID-19: Managing the crisis across levels of government, November 2020, https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/
policy-responses/theterritorial-impact-of-covid-19-managing-the-crisis-across-levels-ofgovernment-d3e314e1/
3 World Poverty Clock, https://worldpoverty.io/headline, accessed May 8th 2021
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

5

6

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

reason is that cities now remember thatfurther novel diseases can always arise. More
important, the pandemic has, as Ms Zhao
puts it, “accelerated positive change as well
as exposed and exacerbated the dark side” ina host of fields, including social inequality. Ms
Akhmouch adds that covid-19 and attendant© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

lockdowns “have not revealed a lot of newthings in terms of structural problems
which cities are facing, but have acted as anaccelerator, or magnifying glass, while also
making some transitions more acceptable,urgent, or even possible than they were just a
few years ago.”Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Accordingly, it is now imperative to look at
the broad field of urban security as cities work
to bring the pandemic finally to heel and torebuild from, and in light of, the experience.

The Economist Intelligence
Unit’s Safe Cities Index 2021
To understand the state of security inleading urban centres worldwide, The
Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored byNEC, maintains a regularly updated andrevised index. This publication accompanies
the release of the Safe Cities Index 2021,
its fourth edition, which covers 60 majorurban areas.
Any such index includes an implicit conceptionof urban safety. Ours is intentionally broad,including personal, infrastructure, health,
digital and – starting this year – environmental
security. As Ms Akhmouch notes, the EIU
approach goes beyond the “traditional urban
safety box.” In doing so, it is consistent withchanges in thinking brought about by covid-19,
as well as the wider lens which others areapplying to this field. For example, the OECD
has been driving to go beyond GDP to look at
the multi-dimensionality of well-being. At the
local level, it finds urban safety, inclusivity, andsustainability as ever more closely connected.
Meanwhile, Juma Assiago, Co-ordinator of
UN-Habitat’s Safe Cities Programme, reportsthat its upcoming new set of indicators forurban safety will include an assessment of thecultural context of cities – including elements
such as social cohesion – and the resultant

capacity of authorities and residents to cocreate safety.
Urban safety is not just multi-faceted. As
Sameh Wahba, global director of the WorldBank’s Urban, Disaster Risk Management
and Resilience Practice, reports, anotheremerging issue in this field is “the intersection
and interconnectedness of different risks.” To
cite one of innumerable examples, Kimihiro
Hino, associate professor in the The Universityof Tokyo’s department of urban engineering,
explains that “the built environment is one of
the most important health determinants. Its
improvement is a population-wide disease
prevention measure that affects many
citizens.” He adds that residents of Tokyo
on average walk more than those in othermajor cities because its layout supports andencourages it.
Just as the challenges of city security areintertwined, so must strategies to address
them take account of these complex interrelationships. “Many years ago,” recalls John
Tory, mayor of Toronto, urban safety “wasseen just as policing and pedestrians or traffic
safety. Now it is those things but also otherdots need to be connected: the more you aremarginalised and struggling, for example, themore likely you are to have threats to yourhealth or problems with using infrastructure.”
It is no surprise that interviewees commonlyused the word “holistic” to describe the needfor approaches that overcome traditionalsilos both within and across different kinds ofurban security. As Mr Tory explains, “a holistic© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

7

8

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

SCI2021 Pillars and indicators
1. Digital security
Inputs1.1.1) Privacy policy
1.1.2) Citizen awareness of digital
threats
1.1.3) Secure smart cities
1.1.4) Cybersecurity preparedness
1.1.5) Public-private partnerships
Outputs
1.2.1) Percentage with internet access1.2.2) Secure internet servers
1.2.3) Risk of attacks
1.2.4) IT infrastructure risk
1.2.5) Percentage of computers
infectedfrom online attacks

2. Health security
Inputs
2.1.1) Universal healthcare coverage
2.1.2 a) Availability of publichealthcare
2.1.2 b) Availability of private
healthcare
2.1.2 c) Availability of OTC drugs
2.1.3 a) Quality of private healthcare
provision
2.1.3 b) Quality of public healthcare
provision
2.1.4 a) No. of beds per 1,000
2.1.4 b) No. of doctors per 1,000
2.1.5) Access to safe and quality food
2.1.6) Policy on substance abuse /drug use
2.1.7) Pandemic preparedness
2.1.8) Mental healthOutputs
2.2.1) Emergency services in the city
2.2.2) Life expectancy years© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

2.2.3) Infant mortality
2.2.4) Cancer mortality
2.2.5) Lifestyle related disease burden
2.2.6) Mental health burden
2.2.7) Covid-19 mortality

4.1.3
4.1.3
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.4

3. Infrastructure security

4.1.4

Inputs
3.1.1) Enforcement of transport safety
3.1.2) Pedestrian friendliness3.1.3) Disaster management / business
continuity plan
3.1.4) Water infrastructure
3.1.5) Hazard monitoring
Outputs
3.2.1) Road traffic deaths
3.2.2) Deaths from climate-related
disasters
3.2.3 a) Transport infrastructure:
Air transport facilities
3.2.3 b) Transport infrastructure:
Road network
3.2.3 c) Transport infrastructure:
Rail network
3.2.4) Power network
3.2.5) Institutional capacity and accessto resources
3.2.6) Catastrophe insurance
3.2.7) Disaster-risk informed
development
3.2.8 a) Percentage living in slums
3.2.8 b) Percentage of homelesspopulation

4. Personal security
Inputs
4.1.1) Use of data-driven techniques
for crime
4.1.2) Gun regulation and enforcement

4.1.5)
4.1.6
4.1.6a) Threat of terrorismb) Threat of military conflictc) Threat of civil unresta) Police personnel per capitab) Prosecution personnel per
capitac) Professional judges ormagistratepersonnel per capita
Expenditure on social securitya) Laws on domestic violenceb) Laws on sexual harassment

Outputs
4.2.1 a) Prevalence of petty crime
4.2.1 b) Prevalence of violent crime
4.2.2) Organised crime
4.2.3) Severity of terrorist attacks
4.2.4) Deaths from substance use
disorders
4.2.5) Level of corruption
4.2.6) Enforceability of contracts
4.2.7 a) Income inequality levels
4.2.7 b) Share of population invulnerable employment
4.2.8 a) Female homicide rates
4.2.8 b) Prevalence of domestic
violence

5. Environmental security
Inputs
5.1.1) Sustainability masterplan
5.1.2) Incentives for renewable energy
5.1.3) Green economy initiatives
5.1.4) Waste management
Outputs
5.2.1) Sustainable energy
5.2.2) Rate of water stress5.2.3) Air quality levels
5.2.4) Urban forest cover
5.2.5) Waste generation

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

concept of safety is something governments
need to understand and implement.”
Professor Acuto agrees: “it doesn’t matter
what the challenge is, it is the intersectionof sectors that gives strength and capacity
to respond.”
Finally, our concept of urban safety is ahumane one. It would be easy to construct a
different kind of index. Jaideep Gupte, Fellow
and Lead of the cities cluster at the Institute ofDevelopment Studies, UK, notes, for example,“you may have perceived good outcomes froma policy, but the processes to get there need to
be inclusive.” This explains, for example, why
we have dropped a measure on recidivism
rates from the index in 2021: it was impossible
to get robust data that differentiated between
effective rehabilitation and draconian overincarceration, which reduce re-offending indrastically different ways.
Accordingly, our index scores draw on 76
indicators, some of which in turn aggregate
multiple data points. The judicial system
capacity indicator, for example, looks ateach of the number of police, prosecutors
and judges or magistrates per capita. The
indicators also balance breadth and detail,covering areas diverse as kinds of climate
hazards monitored and internet access.
Inevitably, we need to balance the possible
and the ideal, so some indicators are proxies
to reflect likely performance for an area
where more detailed measurements are notavailable. For example, the number of doctors
and hospital beds per capita are important
metrics, and should give a good idea of healthsystem investment, but do not reflect levelsof medical training or access to cutting-edge
medical equipment within a city.
As noted previously, the indicators fall into
five broad pillars: personal, infrastructure,
health, digital and environmental security.
Within each of these, the relevant indicators
are grouped into inputs of safety – normallypolicies or resources dedicated to some
aspect of security – and outputs, which are asdiverse as air pollution levels and crime rates.
Put simplistically, outputs measure how
safe a city currently is, while the inputs
indicate which cities are doing the rightthings to enhance safety. Both are essential
to understanding the security situation. Not
only will policies likely enhance safety-related
outcomes in the future, but they may also beessential to preserving them in the present.
An appendix discusses this year’s index
in greater detail, including some of thedifferences with previous versions. One change
from 2019, however, is worth highlighting.
For 2021, we have added an extra pillar:
environmental security. This field was present
to an extent in the past. Indeed, the discussionof resilience in our 2019 report included
substantial consideration of environmental
issues. In the development of this year’s
index, however, it became abundantly clearthat the environmental indicators previously
spread across other pillars had impacts on
every element of security and deserved
independent consideration.
This specific consideration of the environmentis, again, consistent with international thinking.
Mr Léon explains that “every time you© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

9

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Figure2: Sum of input vs sum of output scores
100
FittedActual80
Overall output scores

10

60

40

20

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Overall input scoresmainstream something it disappears because
it has no owners. Environmental issues
should be a standalone.” Gino Van Begin,secretary-general of Local Governments for
Sustainability, also believes that “it is good thatenvironmental security is a pillar in the index.
Cities progressively over the years have cometo understand that the more environmental
security they have, the more health security
and other kinds of security they have.”
Although any work may have weaknesses,
we have confidence in the index’s accuracy.
The combined input and output scores fromthe five pillars have a statistically significant
correlation, as do the inputs and outputs foreach individual pillar.
More instructive is the statisticallysignificant link between almost all of© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

the input scores and the output scores inevery other pillar. The only two exceptions
are a low correlation between both digitaland health inputs on the one hand andenvironmental security outputs on theother. These close connections between
our measures of almost every kind ofeffort and each type of result have twoplausible explanations. One is that cities
focusing on any form of security tend towork on every type. The other is that thedata illustrate the inter-related nature of
all kinds of security discussed above:
investments in infrastructure and policingthat create public spaces where citizens
feel safe, for example, can improve healthoutcomes. Urban safety has multiple, diverse
elements, but they are ultimately too closelyintertwined to ignore any.

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Change and continuity in the Safe Cities
Index results
New leaders in familiar company
In some ways, the results of this year’s index
differ dramatically from those of the previous
three iterations. In the past, the top three spots
have been held, in the same order each year,
by Tokyo, Singapore and Osaka. This time,
Copenhagen comes first, with an overall scoreof 82.4 points out of 100, followed in a nearlydead heat by Toronto at 82.2. Singapore andTokyo remain in the top five – third and fifth
respectively – with Sydney coming in fourth.
A closer look, though, shows that this change
represents more jostling within a crowded fieldof front-runners than a substantial reordering.
The cities doing best in our index each year
have always had similar overall results. In
2015, our initial effort, fewer than eight points
out of 100 separated first and tenth place. In

each subsequent iteration, that difference has
dropped to under five points. Meanwhile, inevery year, six cities – Amsterdam, Melbourne,Tokyo, Toronto, Singapore and Sydney – have
all finished in the top ten. Copenhagen likely
would have as well, but has been included
since only 2019.
The headline changes in which cities come first
this time may simply reflect differences in how
we measure and weight the elements of urban
safety within the index. To cite one example,
Toronto and Copenhagen do noticeably betterin the new environmental security pillar than
do any of the top-three cities from earlier
years. Copenhagen is definitely a worthy
overall leader and Toronto a well-deserving
runner-up, but as much because of long-term
success in making residents secure as from any
particular improvements in the last two years.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

11

12

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

The SCI2021 results
The complete scores are as follows:

Figure 3: SCI2021
All data are normalised to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 = best health
Overall score
Copenhagen
1
Toronto2
Singapore3
4 SydneyTokyo
5
Amsterdam
6
Wellington
7=8 Hong Kong
=8 Melbourne
10 Stockholm=11 Barcelona=11 New York
13 Frankfurt
14 Washington, DC=15 London=15 San Francisco
17 Osaka
18 Los Angeles
19 Zurich
20 Chicago
21 Madrid
22 Dallas
23 Paris
24 Taipei
25 Seoul
26 Brussels
27 Milan
28 Lisbon
29 Rome30 Shanghai
31 Abu Dhabi
32 Kuala Lumpur
AVERAGE
33 Santiago
34 Buenos Aires
35 Dubai
36 Beijing
37 Istanbul
38 Moscow
39 Rio de Janeiro
40 Sao Paulo
41 Bogota
42 Mexico City
43 Bangkok
44 Quito
45 Ho Chi Minh City
46 Jakarta
47 Johannesburg
48 New Delhi
49 Riyadh
50 Mumbai
51 Manila
52 Baku
53 Kuwait City
54 Dhaka
55 Casablanca
56 Lagos
57 Cairo
58 Caracas
59 Karachi
60 Yangon

1 Digital Security
82.4
82.2
80.7
80.1
80.0
79.3
79.0
78.6
78.6
78.0
77.8
77.8
77.7
77.4
77.2
77.2
76.7
76.5
76.3
75.0
74.7
74.5
74.3
74.0
73.8
73.6
71.3
70.1
69.4
67.9
66.9
66.6
66.1
65.3
64.9
64.6
63.8
62.9
62.5
61.8
61.7
60.8
60.3
60.2
58.8
58.5
56.4
56.2
56.1
55.1
54.4
52.5
49.8
49.4
48.9
48.2
45.0
43.7
40.5
39.7
39.5

1
Sydney2
Singapore3
Copenhagen=4 Los Angeles=4 San Francisco
6
New York
7
Amsterdam
8
Melbourne
9
Wellington=10 Chicago=10 Frankfurt
12 London
13 Dallas
14 Toronto
15 Zurich=16 Barcelona=16 Madrid
18 Stockholm
19 Washington, DC
20 Tokyo
21 Hong Kong
22 Paris
23 Brussels=24 Abu Dhabi=24 Dubai
26 Milan
27 Osaka
28 Lisbon
29 Santiago
30 Taipei
31 Seoul
AVERAGE
32 Rome33 Buenos Aires
34 Moscow
35 Kuala Lumpur
36 Istanbul=37 Mexico City
=37 Shanghai=39 Rio de Janeiro=39 Sao Paulo
41 Casablanca=42 Johannesburg=42 Riyadh
44 Bangkok
45 Beijing
46 Bogota
47 Baku
48 New Delhi
49 Manila
50 Lagos
51 Ho Chi Minh City
52 Quito
53 Mumbai=54 Cairo=54 Kuwait City
56 Dhaka
57 Karachi
58 Jakarta
59 Caracas
60 Yangon

2 Health Security
83.2
82.8
82.2
82.0
82.0
81.6
79.3
78.3
77.3
76.7
76.7
76.6
76.5
75.0
74.8
72.9
72.9
72.6
72.1
71.0
70.1
69.4
68.5
66.8
66.8
65.1
64.8
64.3
64.2
63.2
62.1
61.7
60.1
60.0
59.4
59.1
58.7
57.2
57.2
53.8
53.8
53.7
53.1
53.1
52.7
52.2
51.6
48.9
47.5
47.4
46.4
46.2
45.7
45.4
43.6
43.6
39.0
38.5
38.0
37.4
28.1

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Tokyo
1
Singapore
2
Hong Kong
3
4 Melbourne
Osaka
5
Seoul
6
Toronto7
London8
Barcelona
9
10 Sydney
11 San Francisco
12 Abu Dhabi
13 Dubai
14 New York
=15 Chicago=15 Los Angeles
17 Dallas
18 Washington, DC=19 Beijing=19 Shanghai
21 Taipei
22 Bangkok
23 Amsterdam
24 Frankfurt
25 Istanbul
26 Copenhagen
27 Kuwait City
=28 Moscow=28 Paris=28 Riyadh
31 Brussels
32 Buenos Aires
33 Madrid
AVERAGE
34 Zurich=35 Santiago=35 Stockholm
37 Rome38 Kuala Lumpur
39 Ho Chi Minh City
40 New Delhi
41 Wellington
42 Milan
43 Johannesburg
44 Mumbai
45 Bogota
46 Jakarta
47 Quito
48 Sao Paulo
49 Lisbon
50 Mexico City
51 Casablanca
52 Dhaka
53 Rio de Janeiro
54 Manila
55 Karachi
56 Baku
57 Cairo
58 Yangon
59 Lagos
60 Caracas

3 Infrastucture Security
87.7
84.1
84.0
81.9
81.8
81.1
80.0
78.8
78.1
77.7
77.3
76.5
75.5
75.2
74.8
74.8
74.6
74.0
73.6
73.6
73.5
73.1
72.5
72.3
71.9
70.0
69.7
68.6
68.6
68.6
67.8
67.4
67.0
66.7
66.6
66.5
66.5
65.2
64.0
63.9
63.6
63.4
61.3
61.0
60.8
59.0
58.9
58.3
57.7
57.5
57.4
51.4
50.9
50.7
49.9
48.4
47.3
45.6
44.6
43.7
39.0

Hong Kong
1
Singapore2
Copenhagen
3
4 Toronto
Tokyo
5
Stockholm
6
Osaka
7
Washington, DC
8=9 Chicago=9 Sydney
11 New York
=12 Wellington=12 Zurich
14 Frankfurt=15 Madrid=15 Melbourne
17 Barcelona
18 San Francisco
19 Amsterdam
20 Seoul=21 Dallas=21 Los Angeles
23 London
24 Paris
25 Taipei
26 Brussels
27 Shanghai
28 Lisbon
29 Abu Dhabi
30 Milan
31 Beijing
32 Dubai
33 Rome34 Moscow
35 Istanbul
AVERAGE
36 Santiago
37 Kuala Lumpur
38 Sao Paulo
39 Bangkok
40 Jakarta
41 Rio de Janeiro
42 Buenos Aires
43 Mexico City
44 New Delhi
45 Ho Chi Minh City
46 Quito
47 Baku
48 Mumbai
49 Bogota
50 Riyadh
51 Kuwait City
52 Manila
53 Casablanca
54 Johannesburg
55 Dhaka
56 Cairo
57 Karachi
58 Yangon
59 Caracas
60 Lagos

93.4
92.1
89.0
88.6
87.7
87.3
86.6
86.5
84.5
84.5
84.4
84.2
84.2
84.1
84.0
84.0
83.7
83.6
83.5
83.0
82.9
82.9
82.7
82.6
82.4
82.3
80.3
77.4
77.3
76.6
76.5
76.0
74.5
74.2
72.1
71.5
70.8
69.0
66.5
65.7
63.7
62.9
62.6
62.1
59.8
59.5
59.1
58.6
57.3
57.0
55.2
53.4
52.9
52.2
49.8
49.6
47.2
43.0
40.5
38.0
32.4

4 Personal Security
1
Copenhagen
2
Amsterdam
3
Frankfurt
4 Stockholm
5Brussels
6
Paris
Wellington
7
Toronto8
Lisbon9
10 Madrid
11 Sydney
12 Barcelona
13 Singapore
14 London
15 Zurich
16 Tokyo
17 Osaka
18 Melbourne
19 Taipei
20 Santiago
21 Hong Kong
22 Seoul
23 Rome24 Milan=25 Abu Dhabi=25 Dubai
27 New York
28 Washington, DC
29 Los Angeles=30 Chicago=30 San Francisco
AVERAGE
32 Dallas
33 Kuala Lumpur
34 Beijing
35 Shanghai
36 Rio de Janeiro
37 Kuwait City
38 Ho Chi Minh City
39 Buenos Aires
40 Sao Paulo
41 New Delhi
42 Mexico City
43 Riyadh
44 Johannesburg=45 Bogota=45 Quito
47 Moscow
48 Istanbul
49 Casablanca
50 Mumbai
51 Cairo
52 Jakarta
53 Baku
54 Dhaka=55 Bangkok=55 Manila
57 Caracas
58 Yangon
59 Lagos
60 Karachi

5 Environmental Security
86.4
80.5
80.3
79.7
79.2
79.0
78.3
77.2
76.9
76.6
76.3
75.8
74.5
74.4
73.4
73.3
73.2
73.0
70.9
70.7
70.4
69.9
69.4
68.7
67.0
67.0
66.9
66.8
66.6
64.9
64.9
62.3
61.4
60.1
59.5
59.0
58.4
58.0
56.5
55.9
53.9
52.8
52.5
51.8
51.7
50.9
50.9
49.9
48.8
48.5
48.2
48.1
47.6
47.3
46.6
46.4
46.4
46.1
39.2
33.7
33.3

1
Wellington
2
Toronto3
Washington, DC
4 Bogota
5
Milan
6
Copenhagen
7
Stockholm
8
Rio de Janeiro
9
Zurich10 Kuala Lumpur=11 Amsterdam=11 New York
13 Tokyo
14 Taipei
15 Quito
16 Sydney
17 Buenos Aires
18 Barcelona
19 San Francisco
20 Rome21 Dallas
22 Osaka
23 Sao Paulo
24 Los Angeles
25 Melbourne
26 Frankfurt
27 Hong Kong
28 Lisbon
29 Chicago
30 Jakarta
31 London
32 Madrid
33 Seoul
34 Mexico City
35 Paris
36 Brussels
37 Singapore
38 Shanghai
39 Lagos
AVERAGE
40 Ho Chi Minh City
41 Manila
42 Johannesburg
43 Bangkok
44 Istanbul
45 Moscow
46 Mumbai
47 Dhaka
48 Beijing
49 New Delhi
50 Santiago=51 Abu Dhabi=51 Baku=51 Riyadh
54 Yangon
55 Caracas
56 Dubai
57 Karachi
58 Casablanca
59 Cairo
60 Kuwait City

91.7
90.3
87.6
85.5
84.9
84.5
83.7
83.3
82.3
81.0
80.9
80.9
80.6
80.3
80.1
79.0
78.8
78.4
78.3
78.0
77.2
77.0
76.7
76.3
76.1
74.9
74.8
74.3
74.0
73.8
73.7
73.1
72.9
72.1
71.7
70.4
69.9
69.3
68.8
68.5
66.4
65.9
65.6
62.9
62.8
60.5
60.1
58.2
57.0
56.8
54.3
46.7
46.7
46.7
45.3
41.9
37.7
35.4
35.1
33.8
22.0

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Box: Q&A with a city leader:
Copenhagen lord mayor Lars Weiss
The Economist Intelligence Unit: This year Copenhagen had the highest score in
our Safe Cities Index after finishing strongly in 2019 as well. What would you say
are the key factors making your city safe?
Everyone should feel safe in Copenhagen, whether child or senior, male or female,
LGBTI+ or part of any other minority. That is why we work continuously to improvesafety for our citizens.
One key factor that makes Copenhagen such a safe city is its low crime rate, currently
at its lowest level in more than a decade. We focus greatly on early intervention withpreventive initiatives. Many of these are led through locally based cooperation between
schools, youth clubs, social services and the police – the so-called SSP [schools, social
services, police] system.
Copenhagen is also characterised by great social cohesion and a relatively narrow wealthgap. It is a mixed city where both the cleaning assistant and the CEO meet each otherat the local supermarket and have their kids in the same school. This is one of the very
cornerstones of Danish culture, and it contributes greatly to the high levels of trust andsafety that we benefit from.
The Economist Intelligence Unit: What key urban safety challenges remain andwhere would you like to see further improvement?
Although the crime rate is dropping year by year, we still have some challenges fromrepeat youth offenders. It is extremely important that we continue to focus on gangsuppression and intervention. It is crucial to make sure that vulnerable children andyoung people receive the right preventive support as early as possible, so that they never
become involved in crime.
Another area that needs our focus is infrastructure, especially for bicycles. Almost half of
us ride our bikes to school or work. Therefore, one of my key priorities is to continue tocreate even better and safer infrastructure for cyclists. Particularly our youngest citizens
should always feel safe riding their bikes or walking to school.
The Economist Intelligence Unit: How is Copenhagen addressing issues related tothe environment and security?
We aim to be the world’s first carbon-neutral capital city – by 2025. That requires a dual

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

13

14

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

approach in our case. We have a responsibility both to mitigate the effects of climate change
and to reduce carbon emissions while also adapting our city to future climate changes.
On mitigation, we are putting extensive effort into reducing energy consumption,
investing in green energy, and encouraging green mobility, thereby developing our city
in a sustainable way. Furthermore, Copenhagen is taking climate adaptation measuresthat both improve environmental security and contribute to liveability in the capital. We
have created new parks and green urban spaces to collect water. The once industrial
and polluted harbour has now become a unique urban space and a popular place forswimming, partly because we modernised the sewage system diverting local rainwater.
The Economist Intelligence Unit: Where has Copenhagen been able to use smart
city tools and approaches to improve different aspects of safety?
Although not a part of our formal smart city programme, data also play a key role inour yearly survey on safety. The use of data contributes to a deeper and more complex
understanding of safety in the city, which is paramount for initiating specific actions toimprove safety.
Data have also played a crucial role in our effort to prevent the spread of covid-19.
Detailed monitoring of cases has enabled us to target our preventive actions in those
local areas of the city with outbreaks of different variants of covid-19. Next, we will
be conducting an experiment screening wastewater for covid-19 infection in order tomonitor its spread in different areas without the need for citizens to be tested.
Overall Score
100
80
60

5) Environmental security

1) Digital security

40
20
0
Copenhagen4) Personal security

2) Health security

3) Infrastructure security© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

The Economist Intelligence Unit: Following up on that last point, what other tools
related to urban resilience has Copenhagen used to address the challenges ofpandemic and lockdown?
On the prevention level, we have carried out extensive communication campaigns
on social media and in public spaces in many different languages. We have also
communicated more directly to specific groups through different organisations and key
figures, including youth organisations as well as spokespersons for ethnic minorities.
Bringing communication closer to citizens has made it more effective.
We have, from an early stage of the pandemic, worked proactively to prevent the spreadof coronavirus while also helping businesses and citizens through the lockdown. For
instance, we earmarked considerable money for extra activities as children return toschool, and for initiatives boosting the mental health of senior citizens. Also, a wide rangeof activities have been initiated to give restaurants, hotels, and shops a much needed
economic boost.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

15

16

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Box: Q&A with a city leader:Toronto mayor John ToryThe Economist Intelligence Unit: Toronto came a very close second overall inthe 2021 Safe Cities Index. It has also finished in the top seven – out of 60 cities– in the three previous versions. What would you say are the key factors making
Toronto safe?
It starts with mutual respect and a shared fundamental set of values around that within
the city, including things like a strong pushback against racism or prejudice of any kind.
I think if you start there, everyone is more likely to want to create an environment thatis safe in a broader context.
Second, and related to that, are a series of support systems that are in place. For example,
we have a strong public education system that gives opportunity to anybody who wants
it a chance to have a post-secondary education. We also have, more closely related tosafety, different kinds of supports for people who are struggling.
Third, there is an increasing whole-of-city approach to safety. One thing we learned during
the pandemic is that you can do your most effective job, by far, if everybody is involvedin safety – in particular grassroots community organisations. That way, you don’t leaveanybody out to be marginalised and get into unsafe circumstances in their own lives orto create unsafe circumstances for others.
We are not anywhere near perfection on this, but we are making strides to build up support
systems and make sure civil society is involved in creating a holistic concept of safety.
The Economist Intelligence Unit: On the other hand, what key areas are challenges
for Toronto in terms of urban safety?
We still have to work at connecting all the dots in safety, broadly defined. One example
is our new low-income transit pass. The challenge is to roll it out to as broad a groupas we need to in as quick a time as possible. What has that got to do with safety? It has
to do with the ability to seek out opportunity using transit. It allows people to accesssupport in different parts of the city, and affects their general ability to get around inan equitable manner.
Also, in Canada we have three levels of government and the challenge is to get all ofthem on the same page as well as fully engaging civil society – and not assuming that the
government has the answers to all these problems.
We also need to take a broader view of safety because you want to create anenvironment where people can be safe, prosperous and healthy. Everything we are doing© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherenceis heading in the direction of a holistic concept of safety, but it takes time, because it takes
investment and reforms.
The Economist Intelligence Unit: In Canada, many elements of the responseto the covid-19 pandemic are the responsibility of the provincial or national
governments. Where has the City of Toronto been able to contribute mosteffectively in addressing these challenges?
Our ability to get things done comes from the fact we are local. Relative to other levelsof government in Canada, we have no power and real ability to raise money, and yet, inevery case – especially with something like covid-19 – who do they turn to in order to dosomething like knock on a door with a vaccine or get somebody tested? You are going tocall the local government and local community organisations which the local government
has a closer relationship with almost by definition.
Dealing with the pandemic has proven the importance of the city’s role and its ability
to get things done. It has been shown that if you want to get to people, including
marginalised groups in a targeted and effective way, then you have to turn to cities.
Overall Score
100805) Environmental security

601) Digital security

40
20
0
Toronto4) Personal security

2) Health security

3) Infrastructure security© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

17

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherenceLess consistency at the top
Another noteworthy change in our resultsfrom previous years is how leaders and thoseat the bottom of the table perform acrossevery pillar. In 2019, the three leaders – Tokyo,
Singapore and Osaka – finished among the
top eight cities for each pillar, with the partial
exception of Osaka, which was 11th in digital
security. This time, every one of the leading
cities overall has a more pronounced relative
weak spot. Copenhagen, for example, comes
26th for health security, but finishes in the top
six for every other category. Similarly, Toronto
finishes no worse than eighth everywhere
except digital security, where it comes 14th.
This pattern of mostly strong results with one
area of weakness repeats itself across all of the
top ten cities.

By constrast, those cities earning the lowest
overall scores have, as in 2019, tended to
struggle with every kind of security. Thatsaid, some signs exist of a shift mirroring thatseen among the leaders. Lagos, for example,
although in 56th place overall, scores slightly
above average in environmental security,
while 55th-place Casablanca comes 41st indigital security.

Income and governmental
transparency remain urban safety’s
boon companions
As discussed in detail in our last report,
average income and urban safety go together.
Of the 60 cities covered in our study thisyear, the top 29 are in high-income countries.
Looking in greater detail, statistically highly

Figure 4: HDI and corruption control vs Overall index score100
FittedActual80
Overall Safe Cities Score

18

60

40

20

0
0

20

40

60

Combined HDI and Control of Corruption Scores© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

80

100

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

significant correlations exist between HDIscores and overall index results, as well as
between HDI and the output, input andcombined scores for each individual pillar. If
anything, as reported in 2019, the link between
income and inputs is slightly more pronounced
than that between income and outputs.
This outcome elicits no surprise. Ms Akhmouchspeaks for many of our expert interviewees
when she says “I’ve been working on cities
for a decade. Each time you talk to a local
government, the main challenges flagged relate
to money and power.” Some initiatives require
substantial investment and running costs.
That said, the provision of a safe urban
environment is not simply a matter of greater
income allowing cities to buy security. Instead,income and different elements of safety createa virtuous circle. For example, as Mr Tomer
notes regarding infrastructure, “in general, youwill not find a developed economy without ahealthy water system.” Similarly, Ms Zhao says
one lesson of the recent pandemic has beenthat “health safety comes first; the economy
will follow. Safety and the economy are notbinary; they can be developed side by side andurban governments play a key role.”
Indeed, Ms Akhmouch warns that, in thearea of environmental security in particular,
governments must improve areas they can atpresent rather than delaying until obtaining abigger budget: “we can’t afford the traditional
path of ‘grow now and green later.’ The costof inaction is actually too high to accept thestatus quo.”

Cause and effect is clearer when it comesto governmental transparency. As in thepast, this year statistically highly significant
correlations exist between the World Bank’sControl of Corruption figures and our cities’
overall scores. These statistical links also
exist for aggregate scores for total inputs andoutputs across the index, as well as for thethe output, input and combined scores foreach individual pillar. These tight connections
exist independently of the income-related
correlations discussed above.
As noted in 2019, any number of links exist
between transparency and different elementsof urban safety. Transparency is importanton its own and also a good proxy measure ofeffective governance. The latter is anotherattribute emphasised by interviewees
when discussing what cities need to deliver
different elements of safety. The higher
statistical impact that corruption control has
on our index scores in middle-income cities
compared with high-income ones points to
how transparency can help deliver safety wellbefore financial resources to invest in securityrelated assets become available. To enterthe virtuous circle toward higher levels ofsafety and income, transparent and effective
governance is an essential step.

The geography of urban safety
No single region has a monopoly on goodresults in our index. Looking at the top 15 in
the overall scores – or 16, as London and San
Francisco tie for 15th – six are from AsiaPacific, six from Europe, and four are from© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

19

20

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Figure 5: The average pillar scores for cities in high-income countries
Overall

DigitalHealthInfrastructure

Personal

Environmental

Asia-Pacific

77.9

72.5

79.5

86.4

73.3

78.0

Europe

75.5

72.0

68.6

82.5

76.9

77.8

Middle East

59.0

57.6

72.6

65.5

61.0

38.3

North America

77.2

78.0

75.8

84.8

67.0

80.7

North America. Similarly, the average scoresfor high-income cities in these three regions
are similar, between 75.5 and 77.9. 4
The average pillar scores for cities inhigh-income countries, however, reveals
slightly more variation. Infrastructure andenvironmental security results are broadly
similar. North American cities, though, havenoticeably better results for digital security,
Asia-Pacific ones for health, and those inEurope for personal security.
It is dangerous to generalise too muchover differences between regions that aremuch smaller than those in the scores of,say, high-income and low-income cities.
These variations, though, are a reminderthat differences in attitudes and experience
may lead to distinct patterns of investment
in search of safety enhancement or in
acceptance of security levels in different partsof the world. These divergent views can have
unexpected impacts on different kinds of
security. Gregory Falco, assistant professor ofcivil and systems engineering at Johns Hopkins
University, notes that, for example, in his
experience it is more challenging to get city

authorities in Iceland to give digital security
a high priority than it is their peers in Saudi
Arabia. This comes down to the fact that thelatter live in a region where other forms ofinsecurity – such as international violence –are a more pressing consideration in general.
Insofar as these differences fall under thelabel of “culture”, it is important to heed thewarning of Mr Gupte that “culture is not static.
It can be seen as a process of evolution anddialogue memorialised in many ways. Our
understanding of ‘safety’ or ‘security’ may varyand should be attentive to culture, but it isimportant to continually ask ‘safety for whom’to ensure our security regimes do not leavepeople behind.”Regional differences in these processes ofcultural evolution may help explain some ofthe differences in the index results. North
America’s high scores in digital security makesense if the region’s earlier experience withthe decades-old IT revolution created a more
embedded sensitivity to the need for digital
safety. On the other hand, lower personal
security scores may also reflect a different
attitude toward what is normal.

4 Only high-income cities are used in this discussion of geography to improve comparability between regions© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Such generalisations are inevitably
speculative. Lower average scores for lowincome Middle Eastern cities are easier toexplain. Among the index cities in this group,
those in this region have the lowest HDIscores. They have also grown wealthy more
recently than the cities in other regions. Overtime, their scores may improve, although thevery low environmental security results in theregion may prove a longer-lasting challenge for
cities built in or beside deserts.
With this overview as context, we now
look more deeply into the individual pillars
beginning, inevitably in the current global
situation, with health.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

21

22

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

The covid-19 pandemic and theunderstanding of health security
The need to focus better on what works
Rank City
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
=15
=15
17
18
=19
=19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
=28
=28
=28
31
32
33
34
=35
=35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Score
0
87.7
Tokyo
84.1
Singapore
84.0
Hong Kong
81.9
Melbourne
81.8
Osaka
81.1
Seoul
80.0
Toronto78.8
London78.1
Barcelona
77.7
Sydney77.3
San Francisco
76.5
Abu Dhabi
75.5
Dubai
75.2
New York
74.8
Chicago
74.8
Los Angeles
74.6
DallasWashington, DC 74.0
73.6
Beijing
73.6
Shanghai
73.5
Taipei73.1
Bangkok
72.5
Amsterdam
72.3
Frankfurt
71.9
Istanbul
70.0
Copenhagen
69.7
Kuwait City
68.6
Moscow
68.6
Paris
68.6
Riyadh
67.8
Brussels
67.4
Buenos Aires
67.0
Madrid66.7
AVERAGE
66.6
Zurich66.5
Santiago
66.5
Stockholm
65.2
Rome
64.0
Kuala Lumpur
Ho Chi Minh City 63.9
63.6
New Delhi
63.4
Wellington
61.3
Milan
61.0
Johannesburg
60.8
Mumbai
59.0
Bogota58.9
Jakarta
58.3
Quito
57.7
Sao Paulo
57.5
Lisbon57.4
Mexico City
51.4
Casablanca
50.9
Dhaka
50.7
Rio de Janeiro
49.9
Manila48.4
Karachi
47.3
Baku
45.6
Cairo
44.6
Yangon
43.7
Lagos
39.0
Caracas

20

40

60

80

100

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

23

24

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Tolullah Oni – an urban health physician andepidemiologist at the University of Cambridge– believes that, insofar as covid-19 was asurprise, it was “unsurprising” in many ways.
On any number of levels, she has a point.
Since 2000 Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, andsince 2017 CEPI – the Coalition for Epidemic
Preparedness Innovation – have been warning
about Disease X, an unknown virus that could
have extensive global health, societal andeconomic repercussions. Covid-19 certainly
fits that description, and is unlikely to be thelast such contagion. Similarly, Dr Oni notes,
a wide variety of factors have been known
to influence health outcomes for decades.
These include the classic social determinantsof health – including income, education,
environment and work patterns, among
others – as well as variations in health system
investment within countries, and levels ofsocietal trust and cohesion. That they play amajor role in shaping variations in the impactof the pandemic both between and withincountries was entirely predictable.
And yet, the impact of the pandemic was asurprise, or at least important elements of it
were. Many health systems, including wellresourced ones with advanced infrastructureand equipment, have been nearly
overwhelmed. The pandemic caught evenstudents of public health unawares.
A case in point comes from The Economist
Intelligent Unit’s own work, which necessitatesa nostra culpa. In 2019, along with the Johns
Hopkins School of Public Health and others,
we published the Global Health Security

5 https://www.ghsindex.org/© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Index (GHSI).5 The disconnect between its
scoring and the severity of the pandemic indifferent countries became obvious early on.
The covid-19 mortality data as of March 2021,
used in the Safe Cities Index as an indicator,
continue to show no correlation with the
GHSI scores. The disconnect led to press
debate that would be unhelpful to rehashin detail here. Indexes such as the GHSI
inevitably look at the degree of capacity rather
than predict how it will be used; however,major revisions to what gets measured aresometimes necessary. The more substantial
worry about the lack of correlation between
GHSI prognosis and pandemic outcome isthat it was far from exceptional. Dr Asgari saysthat “most people got their scores and indexes
wrong as well.”
Understanding of health security therefore
needs to be revisited in light of the pandemic.
That said, talking in any detail about lessons
from it can still be an act of hubris. At the timeof writing, it remains substantial. Moreover,certain countries that early on received praisefor rapid action – including Japan, Thailand
and India – later faced significant challenges
from surges in case numbers.
Meanwhile, such existing data may not be
reliable. Some health systems simply lack thecapacity to test for, let alone report, casesand deaths accurately. In some instances, forvarious reasons, governments may obscure
the true toll. Finally, as Dr Asgari explains,individual countries can differ over basic
metrics such as how to define a covid-19
death. Even when comparing two reasonableSafe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

approaches, the numerical variation can beprofound. In August 2020, the English NHSchanged its definition of a covid-19 death froma person who died after ever having a covid-19
diagnosis to having received the diagnosis only
within the preceding 28 days before dying.
This cut the reported toll by 13%.6

Relearning the value of the big picture
So, amid a shifting and obscured pandemic
landscape, detailed conclusions remain
dangerous to draw. Nevertheless, covid-19 has
already taught, or more accurately reminded,
the world of two things directly relevant tourban health security.
The first is the need for a holistic
understanding of the challenges of urban
health. This begins with appreciating theinter-connectedness of all illnesses. The“epidemiological transition” is an influential
concept in understanding disease burden. Invery general and simplified terms, it posits
that, with socio-economic development, theimpacts of communicable disease lessen
and those of non-communicable disease(NCDs) become greater. This concept canhelp with understanding important elementsof healthcare needs – such as for developing
countries to adjust their health systems to
respond to growing NCD levels alongsidedealing with communicable ones.7

Such adjustments would be welcome, but thedanger of thinking in terms of a “transition”
is the ultimately false dichotomy that itsuggests between different types of disease.
Dr Oni points to any number of well-known
connections between communicablediseases and NCDs – such as those between
tuberculosis and diabetes or various infections
and cancer. Now, various studies have foundthat obesity – long linked with NCDs such as
cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes– is a significant mortality risk factor for
covid-19, a communicable disease.8,9Another area where covid-19 has provided
a clear reminder of the need for a more
holistic approach is in the way health systems
perceive the population that they are serving.
Dr Asgari notes, for example, that the biggest
outbreaks in Singapore were among foreign
and migrant workers. Meanwhile, amid
Thailand’s May 2021 surge, on some days overhalf of the cases were found in Bangkok’s
over-crowded prisons.10 “One take home pointfrom covid-19,” Dr Asgari explains, “is thatyou cannot ignore marginalised populations
on public health issues. That is not new.
For decades, we’ve been talking about theneed to control tuberculosis in refugee
camps.” Protecting the most vulnerable from
communicable disease is not just ethicalin itself; it protects the health security of
everyone in the population.

6 Carl Heneghan and Jason Oke, “Public Health England has changed its definition of deaths: here’s what it means”, August 12th 2020, Centre forEvidence-Based Medicine blog, https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/public-health-england-death-data-revised/
7 For a more detailed discussion of the concept, see Ailiana Santosa et al, “The development and experience of epidemiological transition theory overfour decades: a systematic review”, Global Health Action, 2014, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038769/
8 Yanan Chu et al, “Obesity is associated with increased severity of disease in COVID-19 pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis”,
European Journal of Medical Research, 2020, https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-020-00464-9
9 World Obesity Federation, COVID-19 and Obesity: The 2021 Atlas, 2021, http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wof-files/2722_WOF_-_COVID-19_
and_Obesity-The_2021_Atlas_WEB.pdf
10 “Thai prisons holding democracy activists drive record Covid figures”, Guardian, May 13th 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/13/
thai-prisons-holding-democracy-activists-drive-record-covid-figures© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

25

26

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Similarly, even where universal healthcoverage is available, it needs to address theconcerns of different communities withincities. Dr Oni points out that a significant issue
surrounding vaccine hesitancy in London,and indeed the UK, has been mistrust of thismedical intervention among members ofminority ethnic communities. Dr Oni believes
that some people in communities that feel
alienated from lower levels of provision“are saying, ‘if you haven’t cared about myhealth in the past, why are you interested
now?’ To address vaccine hesitancy, it isimportance to build trust in a sustained way
beyond the emergency.”

Toward health system resilience forthe whole population
This focus on the interaction between societal
issues and health points to the largest likely
shift that the pandemic experience will bringto urban health security. And that is “about
health system resilience, how to manage
and recover from shocks to the healthinfrastructure. That is where the focus ofchange will be” states Dr Asgari.
This development will in turn integrate
discussions of health crises more closely into
broader plans for urban resilience – a linkthat has been missing. Dr Asgari believes
that previously “the conversation aroundurban resilience has always been about
sudden shocks, such as disasters, floods
and so on, probably because people neverthought the health system would collapse
as a consequence of continuous demand© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

from outbreaks.” Mr Acuto agrees. “Covid-19
teaches that there is always a blind spot,
even when there is a lot of activity,” he says,
adding that among the many, very valuablecity programmes and partnerships onresilience, “only a handful [are] focused onhealth responses and fewer still looked athealth security.”
Examples from Asian countries with early
success in limiting the pandemic show that,
often, the general tools of resilience helped
as much as health system capacity. Amongthese are Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan,
which until April 2021 have all had reasonablesuccess in containing the pandemic within
their borders. It is no coincidence that they
were also all affected by SARS, MERS or both.
In such places, notes Dr Asgari, “legislation– which took into account the need for
multi-sectoral decisions – was in place androbust enough, and societal memory was
fresh enough, that policymakers, technicians
and populations could remember what could
happen and ramp up quickly.”
Behind such formal capacity needs to besofter elements of resilience, in particularsocial cohesion and citizens’ relationshipwith the authorities. “A big part of theconversation”, explains Dr Asgari, “is thelevel of trust in government by the local
population and how much officials listen.” Dr
Oni adds that one attribute found in more
successful pandemic responses has been“clear communication and involvement ofcommunities and regular people in tailoring
the response.”Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

The way information technology has helped
deal with the pandemic shows that evendigital tools work best within a context ofresilience rather than providing solutions
on their own. As early as January 27th 2020,
for example, the Taiwanese government,
within 24-hours, fully integrated data fromits national patient health insurance system
and national immigration database to help
track possible cases that had arrived frommainland China. This kind of innovative andpotentially valuable move could occur soquickly because Taiwan already had a multistep plan for dealing with pandemics. Its
roll-out began with activation of a central
epidemic command centre on January
20th. A National Security Council meeting
involving the Ministries of Health and Welfare,Transportation, Economics, Labour, Education,
and Environmental Protection Administration
convened the following day. The use ofvarious IT tools was simply one more part of apreviously mapped out programme.11
Social capital and cohesion are also a
fundamental requirement for IT tools to beeffective in pandemic response. Track andtrace efforts are an important example. As
discussed in the section on digital security,
privacy concerns have affected the uptakeof tracking apps in many countries. Dr Asgari
notes that South Korea has used a more
holistic approach than simply keeping tabs
on mobile phone locations. It draws on CCTV
footage and credit card data as well. He adds
that such an approach was more readily
accepted in the country than it might havebeen elsewhere. This reflected transparency

about how the data would be used, trustin the government, and belief that it would
keep its promise to delete the information
after 28 days. Even absent a state role, thosewith social capital can improve resilienceduring such situations. Mr Gupte reports thatin informal settlements in Indian cities suchas Mumbai and Kochi, efforts by existing
community groups – using social media tools– gave a more accurate picture of what was
happening on the ground than many formal,
government-managed IT tools.
If there is a clear lesson for cities from covid-19
already, then, it is the need for enhanced
society-wide resilience that includes health.
Mr Acuto believes cities should already have
known this. “SARS showed that we needed
local-level planning,” he says, but “most cities
did not have plans, or maybe had ones thatwere ten years old; so, they did not know
where to get information.” He adds that cities
in general are bad at learning lessons from themistakes of others, including those revealedby SARS and Ebola. Now that so many haveexperienced covid-19 first hand, they may be
more ready the next time.
This is also about more than just being ready.
“If we are not building into resilience theprevention of the preventable,” Dr Oni says –by doing things from reducing obesity rates tobuilding trust within communities – “we missa trick.”

11 C Jason Wang et al, “Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan Big Data Analytics, New Technology, and Proactive Testing”, JAMA, March 2020, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762689© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

27

28

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Digital security: A red flag on the roadto the development of smart cities
Risky digitalisation
Rank City
1
2
3
=4
=4
6
7
8
9
=10
=10
12
13
14
15
=16
=16
18
19
20
21
22
23
=24
=24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
=37
=37
=39
=39
41
=42
=42
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
=54
=54
56
57
58
59
60

Score
0
83.2
Sydney82.8
Singapore
82.2
Copenhagen
82.0
Los Angeles
82.0
San Francisco
81.6
New York
79.3
Amsterdam
78.3
Melbourne
77.3
Wellington
76.7
Chicago76.7
Frankfurt
76.6
London76.5
Dallas75.0
Toronto74.8
Zurich72.9
Barcelona
72.9
Madrid72.6
Stockholm
Washington, DC 72.1
71.0
Tokyo
70.1
Hong Kong
69.4
Paris
68.5
Brussels
66.8
Abu Dhabi
66.8
Dubai
65.1
Milan
64.8
Osaka
64.3
Lisbon64.2
Santiago
63.2
Taipei
62.1
Seoul
61.7
AVERAGE
60.1
Rome
60.0
Buenos Aires
59.4
Moscow
59.1
Kuala Lumpur
58.7
Istanbul
57.2
Mexico City
57.2
Shanghai
53.8
Rio de Janeiro
53.8
Sao Paulo
53.7
Casablanca
53.1
Johannesburg
53.1
Riyadh
52.7
Bangkok
52.2
Beijing
51.6
Bogota
48.9
Baku
47.5
New Delhi
47.4
Manila46.4
Lagos
Ho Chi Minh City 46.2
45.7
Quito
45.4
Mumbai
43.6
Cairo
43.6
Kuwait City
39.0
Dhaka
38.5
Karachi
38.0
Jakarta
37.4
Caracas28.1
Yangon20© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

40

60

80

100

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Digitalisation has become pervasive in our
index cities, even most of those in middleincome states. Comparing the 59 cities thatappeared in 2019 and 2021, on average thepercentage of people with access to theinternet has risen from 73.6% to 77.8%. At that
rate, it would take a little over a decade foraccess to become universal. Moreover, someof the most rapid growth in connectivity is
in lower-middle-income cities. In 2019, we
reported that in just two of these – out of
11 – over half of residents could get online. In
2021, this has risen to six in ten. If anything,reliable equipment is even more common, atleast for businesspeople who may, as a group,
have more resources than the population
on average. In only three of our cities dobusinesses have to live with a high or very
high risk that IT infrastructure will not proveadequate for their needs.
This does not mean that everyone can use
the technology in the same way. A country’s
number of secure internet servers per million
people is a proxy of the possibility to engage
in safe e-commerce. Our data show that
residents in wealthier cities have far morecapacity to do this: the US, for example, hasroughly 1,000 times more such servers per
capita than does Myanmar. That said, as withinternet access, even those with the lowest
scores on this indicator are seeing rapid
improvement. The number of secure servers
in Myanmar has risen by more than tenfold
since 2015, and in Nigeria and Pakistan (tied for57th on this indicator) the figure has gone up
over 20-fold.

Meanwhile, the wish for city leaders to use
digital technology to become smart cities
is nearly unanimous. In 59 out of 60 index
cities, we found evidence of an existingsmart city plan or intention to invest in thistransformation in the coming five years.
Caracas is the only exception.
The development of smart cities could be aboon to urban security in general. Lawrence
Susskind – Ford Professor of Urban andEnvironmental Planning at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology – points to Seoul
as one of the world’s most advanced smart
city. It shares with the public extensive data
about the city, from across urban government
departments, CCTV cameras, and automatedInternet of Things (IoT) sensors monitoring
activity and environmental quality. Amid therapidly growing body of applications drawing
on these data are any number related toelements of urban safety: billions of latenight calls to taxi companies were analysed
to plan an after-hours bus service route; aso-called AI-detective monitors crime reports
in real-time to spot incipient trends; reports oftraffic accidents involving the elderly are used
to identify areas to turn into special elderly
protection zones; and installing IoT sensors for
elderly people living alone to monitor whether
they need medical assistance.12
This growth of internet usage among
populations and interest in expanded
application of IT by urban administrations
comes with a worrying weakness. City
governments are often not able to protect
even their own technology. Mr Acuto says that

12 “Seoul: A city based on data,” Smart Cities World, March 2020, https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/special-reports/special-reports/seoul-a-citybased-on-data© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

29

30

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

most have “an enormous fragility to any formof cybersecurity threat, let alone complex
ones.” Mr Falco agrees: “the digital securityof cities is generally pretty terrible. They
often don’t have the money or expertise tounderstand what is going on.” Worse still, adds
Mr Susskind, especially in US cities – manyof which actually score highly on this pillar– no senior person has overall responsibility(and authority) for cybersecurity. “Eachfunctional department has its own IT budget,
but security can’t be the responsibility of
individual departments because all thesystems are connected. If you don’t have an
emergency action plan then, when there is anattack, nobody has the power to shut down
the system.” Although it is hard to measure
directly the extent of urban security efforts –or lack thereof – our index figures indicate that
only a worryingly small 16 of our cities haveactive public-private security partnerships.
This situation raises greater concern because
the online world is not a safe one. In our index
cities, a median of 10.5% of computers faced atleast one known malware attack in 2020. Moreworrying still, governments and businesses
in all but seven index cities are at moderate,
high or very high risk of cyber attack. Even
major urban areas have been suffering highprofile onslaughts. A 2018 attack on Atlanta’s
government left software unusable months
later. In 2019, Baltimore, after its principled
stand to not give into to ransomware, had tospend over US$18m on restoring data andrepairing systems. Nor does the attack haveto be on a city government directly. Whenmalware shut down the Colonial Pipeline in© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

eastern US in May 2021, it left nearly 90%
of gas stations in Washington, DC, without
fuel. As Mr Tomer notes, “these threats arehere today and very real.” Typically, they are
ransomware. Looking to the future, warns
Tim Chapman – director of the infrastructure
design group at engineering firm Arup – abigger challenge looms: “what will become
scary is when states are acting malevolently.
You end up with future wars fought in hybrid
space and we have vulnerable digital systems.
Even setting all the traffic lights to red would
paralyse a city.”

Smart city security: A foundation
too often not poured
This is the context for one of the mostworrying findings in our index. Of the 59 cities
with smart city plans, only 15 focus in detailon the security of the underlying networks
and data. Mr Falco is not surprised. From his
experience both advising on and helping to
implement smart city technology, the figure“sounds right.” Mr Susskind agrees. Althoughsome cities are doing a lot, overall “thecommitment to cybersecurity is still minimal,”he says.
The implications of low attention to security
combined with greater digitalisation
are stark. The kind of attacks described
previously will only multiply as the numberof vulnerable targets grows. Mr Falco warns
that improvements to digital security related
to physical infrastructure “should be done,
but we are not even seeing advanced cities
thinking about this.” One problem, he adds, isSafe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

that because cities and how they have chosen
to digitise their systems are so different, eachneeds its own bespoke security strategy.
Moreover, a lack of attention to security canlead officials to miss issues inherent in smart
cities. Mr Van Begin notes that there is no“logical, directed link between a smart and asustainable city.” One issue, for example, isenergy usage. Before the covid-19 pandemic,
data centres were already responsible foras much carbon emission worldwide as theairline industry. A greatly expanded use of IT
will only exacerbate the problem. As cities
increasingly try to adopt smart approaches,
Mr Van Begin adds, they must find ways to“use the technology to solve [environmental
security] problems without creating new
ones.”
Finally, if citizens believe that security for
their own data is lacking, it will undermine
the effectiveness of smart city tools. Alice
Xu – head of the connected communities/
smart city programme at the City of Toronto– explains that the low uptake of the Canadianfederal government’s covid-19 contact
tracing app, around 15%, in part seems toreflect privacy worries. Those deploying
technology have to “think about these fromthe perspective of citizens and make sure that
security fits in with the concerns of residents.”
Toronto is far from alone. Low uptake of
tracking apps is a global issue and studies rank
privacy concerns as a leading reason.13 Most of
the commonly cited, successful data-enabledtracking programmes, on the other hand, arenot so much voluntary as reliant on legislation

allowing health authorities to mine credit cardand phone GPS data – as in Seoul and Taipei –or in practice to restrict the activities of those
who do not have the app – as did Singapore.

Integrating security into theconcept of smart cities“None of the impetus toward smart cities
has anything to do with improving people’s
security,” says Mr Susskind, “since it was not
focused on security.” Ms Zhao adds that, whenit comes to smart cities, urban officials havenarrow perspectives focused largely on what
IT is available. “We need a mindset change,”
she concludes. “We need a holistic approachthat thinks about an entire safe, smart city in acomprehensive way.”
Mr Falco explains that one reason for a lack of
discussion around security in smart city plans
is that “often they aren’t a real thing; saying
you have a smart city policy is a marketing
window.” Mr Léon adds that this reflects theterm’s origins: “it started as a nice slogan.
Nobody wants a Dumb City.”
Accordingly, the idea needs a more robust
definition. The key to success in creating one
will involve taking the emphasis off the word
“smart” and putting it on “city.” Ms Akhmouchspeaks for many when she says cities must“avoid thinking more data is the solution to
everything. smart cities need to be thoughtof as something more people-centred anddemand driven, the end being to improve
citizen and city well-being.” As Mr Léon
adds, this may not always even be related

13 Séverine Toussaert, “Upping uptake of COVID contact tracing apps”, Nature Human Behaviour, January 2021, https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41562-021-01048-1; Dyani Lewis, “Why many countries failed at COVID contact-tracing — but some got it right”, Nature, December 2020, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03518-4; Emily Seto et al, “Adoption of COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps: A Balance Between Privacy andEffectiveness”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, March 2021, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7935397/.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

31

32

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

to technology and innovation but to “thecapacity of the city to provide adequate living
conditions to all.”
One inevitable element of this approach, says
Mr Gupte, is that “citizens should be creators,architects and arbiters of technology.” This, inturn, adds Mr Assiago, will make smart cities
more focused on safety issues in general. “Thesmart city approach so far has not necessarily
tried to promote safety as a public good; it has
positioned it as a privatised good.” With better
governance, the use of, and access to, data
can be aligned with improving local safety asa public good – something he says is too often
missing.
Toronto shows what this can look like. Its
smart cities programme had been putting inplace a clearly people-centered approach.
Ms Xu explains that “nobody wanted to use
technology for its own sake.” Indeed, theformal vision statement of her office – to make
Toronto “a globally leading resilient, futureready, and equitable city” – does not even
explicitly mention technology.
This citizen-focus shapes initiatives in various
ways. For example, one of the biggest projects
in response to covid-19 involved providing
free wifi to a substantial number of large
apartment buildings. The inhabitants –generally of lower socio-economic status than
the general urban population – frequently did
not have connectivity. Ms Xu explains that theinitiative gave these individuals and families
access to the digital tools and strategies
others were using to address lockdown-© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

related restrictions on activity. Indeed, plans
anywhere in the world to extend the scopeof e-government cannot work well until all
citizens can access such services.
Ms Xu adds that one benefit of building asmart city around people is that “security isa natural inclusion. The public expects thatto be front and centre. There is no debate.”
Moreover, the definition of security cannot be
imposed from above for it to be effective, shesays. “A big question for people is who feels
safe and who doesn’t.” Even for something likebuilding smart technology into traffic lights,“we are looking at best practice [to avoid
hacking] and what the residents want in termsof safety.”Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Figure 6: Cities that have Smart City Plans and Cities that have Secured Smart City Plans

The city has a smart city
plan and explicitly focuseson cybersecurity of thesmart city infrastructure/
network
Abu Dhabi
Bangkok
Copenhagen
Dubai
Frankfurt
LondonLos Angeles
Mexico City

Moscow
New York
San Francisco
ShanghaiSingapore
SydneyTaipei

The city has a smart city plan or plans to invest in the next five years
Amsterdam
Baku
Barcelona
Beijing
BogotaBrussels
Buenos Aires
Cairo
Casablanca
ChicagoDallasDhaka

Ho Chi Minh City
Hong Kong
Istanbul
Jakarta
Johannesburg
Karachi
Kuala Lumpur
Kuwait City
Lagos
LisbonMadridManilaMelbourne
Milan
MumbaiNew Delhi
Osaka
Paris
Quito
Rio de Janeiro
RiyadhRomeSantiago
Sao Paulo

Seoul
Stockholm
Tokyo
TorontoWashington, DC
Wellington
YangonZurich© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

33

34

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Infrastructure Security: At a crossroads
A blink with lasting repercussions
Rank City
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
=9
=9
11
=12
=12
14
=15
=15
17
18
19
20
=21
=21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Score
0
93.4
Hong Kong
92.1
Singapore
89.0
Copenhagen
88.6
Toronto
87.7
Tokyo
87.3
Stockholm
86.6
Osaka
Washington, DC 86.5
84.5
Chicago84.5
Sydney84.4
New York
84.2
Wellington
84.2
Zurich84.1
Frankfurt
84.0
Madrid84.0
Melbourne
83.7
Barcelona
83.6
San Francisco
83.5
Amsterdam
83.0
Seoul
82.9
Dallas82.9
Los Angeles
82.7
London
82.6
Paris
82.4
Taipei
82.3
Brussels
80.3
Shanghai
77.4
Lisbon77.3
Abu Dhabi
76.6
Milan
76.5
Beijing
76.0
Dubai
74.5
Rome
74.2
Moscow
72.1
Istanbul
71.5
AVERAGE
70.8
Santiago
69.0
Kuala Lumpur
66.5
Sao Paulo
65.7
Bangkok63.7
Jakarta
62.9
Rio de Janeiro
62.6
Buenos Aires
62.1
Mexico City
59.8
New Delhi
Ho Chi Minh City 59.5
59.1
Quito
58.6
Baku
57.3
Mumbai
57.0
Bogota55.2
Riyadh
53.4
Kuwait City
52.9
Manila52.2
Casablanca
49.8
Johannesburg
49.6
Dhaka
47.2
Cairo
43.0
Karachi
40.5
Yangon38.0
Caracas
32.4
Lagos

20

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

40

60

80

100

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

When considering developments at theurban level, digital assets are the hare tophysical infrastructure’s tortoise. Mr Chapman
explains that “city planning can take decades,
in some cases centuries.” Mr Tomer agrees:“infrastructure works in about the longest
cycles we have for humans.”
As a result, some index indicator results arelittle changed from 2019. For example, thosecities with the top of the rail network andpower network scores in each year are almost
identical. Similarly, certain drivers of successremain constant. In 2021, infrastructure
scores – overall, input and output – correlate
closely with both the HDI and the control
of corruption scores we have for each city.
More relevant here, the extent of correlationis nearly the same as that seen in 2019. This is
the case even though we have changed andre-weighted several of our indicators in the
new index. In that sense, as Mr Chapman says,“in city planning terms, covid-19 is but the blinkof an eye.”As blinks go, though, it is having a profoundeffect. Mr Tomer explains that “this is the mostdisruptive infrastructure-related development
in a very long time. The uncertainty is off thecharts relative to any other moment in living
memory.”The nub of the problem is that the pandemic
has undermined the conventional answers tosome basic questions, including what kind ofphysical city would best serve how residents
want to live. In particular, the possible
voluntary continuation of working from home

and an ever greater shift of commerce online
could have substantial and diverse knock-on
effects that bring with them fundamental
implications for infrastructure.
Water and electricity usage in cities may
become much more diffuse. The resultant
large shifts in distribution patterns for such
utilities may require substantial revisions
to their networks. Even the concept ofessential infrastructure is evolving. Mr Tomer
recalls that, before the pandemic, it “was aminority view that broadband was a central
infrastructure. Now you won’t find a mayor
anywhere in world who isn’t saying ‘we needbroadband connections to every homeand business.’ The tenor is fundamentallydifferent.”
At least some of these changes ininfrastructure demand may subside when
covid-19 does. This, though, remains highly
uncertain, especially because, as our experts
told us time and again, the pandemic rarely
introduced new urban trends: it accelerated
existing ones. As for whether these willreverse and to what extent, Mr Chapman
comments, “nobody has a clue. Everybody isguessing.”

New security challenges in a newkind of city
Instead of a temporary blip, the experienceof the last year may lead to a broader
reconceptualisation of the city by citizens,at least to an extent. To begin with, Ms Zhao
explains, widespread remote working means© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

35

36

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

that many people no longer see cities as theinevitable physical hub for the economy.
Instead, a focus on liveability seems tobe growing. One result, discussed in theenvironmental security section of this report,
is a greater focus on urban sustainability.
Another is a greater interest in more
integrated cities with services within easy
walking or cycling distance. Ms Akhmouchsays that “we are seeing the expectation ofurban dwellers changing. It is now having
all the amenities and services locally. The
discourse shifts from mobility to accessibility,
which changes planning.”
The most high-profile example is Paris’
ambition to become a 15-minute city, witheverything residents need within 15 minutesof their front doors. Once again, though,the pandemic may be making existingideas of greater interest rather than simply
creating new ones. Brussels’ plans for a “Cityof Proximity” – which aims at all needed
services within 10 minutes – and Melbourne’s
aspiration for 20-minute neighbourhoods bothpredate covid-19.
The implications of a lasting transition towards
more sustainable, compact urban areas willbring winners and losers. Mr Hino explainsthat in Tokyo and surrounding areas, transitoriented, high-density, compact cities havealready developed around railway stations.
Residents can, or have to, walk every day tomany nearby shops and other destinations. On
the other hand, certain urban areas might notsurvive the transition. Mr Chapman believes
that, in future, “some cities designed solely© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

around the car will have to be abandoned.
There is too much sprawl.” Managing thatdecline will bring its own societal and safetyissues.
Indeed, efforts to respond to changing
thinking of urban citizens about the kind of
cities they want will require a reordering ofurban infrastructure on a large scale, witha host of disparate security challenges. The
digital security section of this report has
already discussed some of those associatedwith digitalisation and the increasing use ofsmart city tools for infrastructure. This is only
a part of such issues. Any shift in traffic andutility usage patterns has potential benefits
and difficulties for keeping the city safe.
Meanwhile, novel challenges have appeared.
Mr Tomer notes, for example, that the abilityof transport providers to tell apart real or
fake proof of covid-19 vaccinations has thepotential to become a public health issue.

No time to pause for reflection
One could understand a wish to slow down
infrastructure development until the natureof what would best serve the city becomes
clearer. That, though, is never an option, no
matter how extensive an upheaval a city faces.
For example, Mr Chapman notes that London
city officials in the early 1940s had no choice
but to engage in extensive planning to rebuild
the city even before the tide of the second
world war had turned.
Rapid urbanisation – especially in Asia andAfrica – makes action on infrastructureSafe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

development too urgent to pause. From the
combined effect of greater migration to urban
areas and births within them, the total numberof people living in cities will roughly double by
2050. As a result, even to keep the quality oflife in urban areas around the world where it is,cities will have to build as much infrastructurein the next 30 years as they have accumulated
over their previous existence.

Here, though, it is worth noting that, while
sustainability policies are widespread in index
cities, they are not having a universal effecton infrastructure development. Of particular
relevance to infrastructure security, while justfive index cities do not account for disasterrisk at all in their urban planning and design,of the remaining 55, over half (29) show little
evidence of compliance.

The actual requirement will be larger, notes
Mr Gupte, because in many cities, especiallyin the developing world, infrastructure isinsufficient for current needs. “The extent
of this infrastructure gap,” he says, “is a huge
issue. It may well be the most importantquestion in meeting the Sustainable
Development Goals.”

Meanwhile, as cities try to expand
infrastructure to meet demand, they will
also need to focus on the governance ofexisting assets. Here too, our index cities cansometimes fall short. Water is a case in point.
All but eight of our cities are rated as having
tolerable or better water infrastructure, yetmore than half have medium or higher levelsof water stress. Part of this reflects the natural
resources available, but that is far from thewhole story. “You need good management,”
explains Ms Akhmouch. “Infrastructure is
not the full solution. Most countries have agood idea of what they have to do. The big
problem is who does what and who pays forit. It is often more a governance issue than atechnical one.”For both cost and environmental reasons,
Mr Gupte and Mr Van Begin stress thatsuch investment needs to be, to the extent
possible, nature-based and people-centred
green infrastructure solutions. As the former
explains, “it is costly to build ‘against nature’.
Think of huge air conditioning systems built
to cool down homes built using materials anddesigns that absorb or retain heat. Instead,the most exciting innovations work ‘withnature’, trees and green roofs to cool down thebuilt environment, using local or ‘traditional’
materials and designs flexible enough toaccommodate changing temperatures, while
being much more cost effective to rebuild incase of disaster.” This is part of a wider needfor natural resilience and environmental
security planning dealt with in a later section.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

37

38

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Personal security: Individual safety as acollective endeavour
Income and personal security: a complex relationship
Rank City
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
=25
=25
27
28
29
=30
=30
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
=45
=45
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
=55
=55
57
58
59
60

Score
0
86.4
Copenhagen
80.5
Amsterdam
80.3
Frankfurt
79.7
Stockholm
79.2
Brussels
79.0
Paris
78.3
Wellington
77.2
Toronto76.9
Lisbon76.6
Madrid76.3
Sydney75.8
Barcelona
74.5
Singapore
74.4
London73.4
Zurich
73.3
Tokyo
73.2
Osaka
73.0
Melbourne
70.9
Taipei
70.7
Santiago
70.4
Hong Kong
69.9
Seoul
69.4
Rome
68.7
Milan
67.0
Abu Dhabi
67.0
Dubai
66.9
New York
Washington, DC 66.8
66.6
Los Angeles
64.9
Chicago
64.9
San Francisco
62.3
AVERAGE
61.4
Dallas60.1
Kuala Lumpur
59.5
Beijing
59.0
Shanghai
58.4
Rio de Janeiro
58.0
Kuwait City
Ho Chi Minh City 56.5
55.9
Buenos Aires
53.9
Sao Paulo
52.8
New Delhi
52.5
Mexico City
51.8
Riyadh
51.7
Johannesburg
50.9
Bogota
50.9
Quito
49.9
Moscow
48.8
Istanbul
48.5
Casablanca
48.2
Mumbai
48.1
Cairo
47.6
Jakarta
47.3
Baku
46.6
Dhaka
46.4
Bangkok
46.4
Manila46.1
Caracas39.2
Yangon
33.7
Lagos
33.3
Karachi20© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

40

60

80

100

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

The index data this year, as in the past, seemto give a clear message: at the urban level,
personal security and income levels areconnected. The correlation between city
scores for personal security in the 2021 Safe
Cities Index and those for the HDI are, after
infrastructure, the closest for any pillar. Mr
Assiago warns, however, that seeing personal
security as a function of wealth proves to be
an analytical dead end. UN-Habitat, he recalls,
looked into the apparent link some years ago
and found “no direct correlation between
poverty and crime levels. On the contrary,some cities with higher absolute levels ofpoverty had more safe contexts.”
The way to explain this statistical connection
without apparent direct causation is to look
for attributes that wealthier cities may have incommon apart from money. An unexpecteddisconnect in this pillar’s results, in particular
the indicators specifically dealing with policing
and crime, can focus the search in the rightplace.
As with other pillars, personal security inputs
and outputs have a high level of statisticalcorrelation. Within this context, someindividual cases differ markedly. On personal
security outputs, Singapore scores an averageof 97.3, markedly ahead of second place
Copenhagen (92.7) and well over the index
average (67.2). At the same time, it finishes in40th place on inputs (51.7), falling below theaverage (57.3). Although the most extreme
case, several other Asian cities, notably Tokyo,
Osaka, Seoul and Taipei, have much lower
input than output scores.

The difference is particularly noticeable whencomparing scores for judicial system capacity– based on per capita personnel levels – andthose for the prevalence of crime rates. On thelatter measure, Singapore, Tokyo and Osaka
are tied for the best result, getting full points.
At the same time, all three finish among thebottom ten cities for capacity. Singapore also
gets full marks for organised crime control.
Although the Japanese cities secure only
middling scores here, these are still muchhigher than the ones they get for judicial
system inputs. Similarly, albeit to a lesser
extent, Taipei and Seoul also have low levels ofcrime and organised crime mixed with fewer
people per capita in the judicial system than inmany cities.
Although examples of this apparent
dichotomy seem more common in Asia, these
are not unique to the continent. Toronto andStockholm, for example, also have a similar
combination of scores. Rather than an artefactof regional culture, this ability to achievea higher degree of personal safety withapparently lower levels of investment mustarise from something else.

Necessary elements of security cocreation
This secret sauce does not work apart fromhigh-quality state institutions related topersonal security. The latter are an essential
foundation anywhere. Gerald Singham,chairman of Singapore’s National Crime
Prevention Council, a multi-stakeholder
NGO, believes that his city’s success in this

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

39

40

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

field begins with its “first class police force
that is technically well-trained and equipped.”
Similarly, the judiciary is of high quality,
while laws are both clear and transparently
enforced. More important, he adds, these
actors are “not corrupt. Once your police force
is corrupt, law and order goes down the drain
and there is no hope.” This is consistent with
our data: the correlation between scores forcontrol of corruption and personal security
output in our index is very high.
Effective government activity, thoughnecessary, is insufficient. In fact, too greata reliance on it can be counterproductive.
Mr Hino explains his concerns about
possible plans for prototype cities with“CCTV and various sensors that can detectsuspicious activity, identify suspicious
individuals, but make people feel that they
are being monitored as if they were in the
Panopticon. These will be ‘safe cities’, but
I am concerned about the protection of
personal information and privacy.” The kindof proposals have appeared in different partsof the world and can spark strong negative
reactions. A ground-up smart neighbourhood
development in Toronto’s Waterfront area
aroused notable public opposition, and acompany’s discussions with Portland, Oregon,
for gathering data on public transit numbers
broke down in early 2021 over issues oftransparency and privacy.
Mr Assiago explains that, at whatever level ofdevelopment, the best way for a city to reacha high level of personal security is through its
co-creation by the public and the authorities.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

This requires both effective local government
institutions and the enabling of citizens to playa key role in enhancing their own and theirneighbours’ security. “Safety is an issue of
urban governance,” explains Mr Assiago “andfrom that perspective a better governed city
allows the participation of non-state actors.”
Indeed, he adds, in true co-creation, citizens
define what it means to be safe. This meaning
may differ even between neighbourhoods
within the same city but meeting such needs isessential to making people feel safe.
Citizen co-creation of security benefits heavily
from social cohesion and commitment.
Mr Hino explains that, in Japanese cities, a“strong territoriality” in neighbourhoods,
including high levels of home ownershipand low relocation rates, have traditionally
undergirded efforts in this area by
promoting the deepening of social links andcommonalities between those living in thesame area and across the local community
as a whole. In particular relevant here, “crime
prevention activities by the neighbourhood
associations,” he says, have been “supported
by social capital – that mutual senseof belonging, community, and shared
responsibility – and have enhanced social
capital in turn.”
Meanwhile, Mr Singham observes that one of
the key messages of his organisation is that“crime prevention is a shared responsibility.
The individual has a duty to participate.”
Singaporeans seem to agree. The city has
a large neighbourhood watch programme,
which goes beyond keeping an eye on theSafe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

local area to include volunteers going on
patrol together around where they live; a newprogramme started in 2019 for commutersto act as police eyes and ears, Riders on
Watch, had 26,000 people sign up in its first
five months; and one of the most popular
TV shows produced in Singapore, reports
Mr Singham, is Crimewatch, which features
current crime concerns and provides crime
prevention advice.
Nor is the social capital needed to enhancesafety limited to high income cities orneighbourhoods. Mr Assiago explains that,“people keep saying that slums are someof the most dangerous neighbourhoods,
based on levels of crime, but they don’t lookat social capital. In these neighbourhoods,
you have some of the highest level of social
capital because they cope and adapt. If weare looking to prevent crime and violence, weneed to look at the cultural context in orderto understand low-cost, community-oriented
solutions that work to promote liveable
cities, especially found in the low-income
neighbourhoods of cities.”
Social capital and cohesion can dissipate.
Mr Hino warns that increasing fluidity inJapanese urban areas is reducing the security
impact of neighbourhood associations.
On the other hand, it can also be built up.
One way, Mr Hino adds, is city design.
“The key,” he says, “is to have security includedin the considerations of planners. Individual
physical security is associated with social
relationships. Designers should maintainand encourage these.” This often involves

creating public spaces that people will
want to use and where they will interact,building further connections. He posits one
explanation of Tokyo’s and Seoul’s relatively
low crime rates is that “there are more ‘eyes
on the street’ in such cities” due to urban
structures that reduce use of motor vehicles
and increases human, in particular pedestrian,interaction in public spaces. Unfortunately,
though, few policymakers understand crime
prevention through environmental design.
“Almost all of them consider SDGs, but few
consider health and even fewer consider
crime,” Mr Hino concludes.
Another important way to enhance social
cohesion, says Mr Singham, is to makesure that people feel being part of society
benefits them. “When people feel that they
have a stake in what tomorrow will look
like, they will make sure that today’s society
is safe and protected. You need good buy-into the laws, practices and ethos.” Mr Assiago
makes the same point from a different
perspective. UN-Habitat has found in its
research that the key driver of insecurity is
the extent of social exclusion.
This provides an important new explanationfor one connection in our index data. A higher
percentage of the population living in informal
settlements correlates with lower personal
security scores. If Mr Assiago is correct, thereason is not so much that slums represent
an inherent source of insecurity but that they
are a proxy measure of the extent of social
exclusion more generally.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

41

42

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Covid-19 and the criminal threat
landscape
As Mr Singham notes, “the modality of crimes
doesn’t stay still, it evolves.” As in other areas,
covid-19 again has acted as an accelerant
here. In general, the greater movement ofactivity online has driven an increase incybercrime worldwide14 such as greateruse of malware and ransomware. The mostwidespread problem, however, has been a risein scamming – with initial contact made online
or by telephone.15 In Singapore, online scams
have been a particular challenge. Mr Singham
reports that during 2020 the already low crime
rate in the city dropped by 16% if one left out
scams, but rose by 6% overall if included.
The shift to cybercrime during the pandemic
appears to be associated with a drop in
physical crime. It may be that criminals areobeying work from home orders as muchas everyone else, but both Mr Hino and Mr
Singham warn that this might not be the case.

It may just be harder in a lockdown to reporta crime, especially when, Mr Hino adds, thelikely culprit may be a close family member.
Mr Singham explains that success against
scams begins with educating residents so thatthey understand how to avoid being drawn
in. That effort is paying off: “people are morealert to it and know how to make a report.”
Similarly, the police have worked with private
telecoms companies and internet service
providers to reshape the environment. In
particular, they have made it harder for thoseseeking to perpretrate scams from outside thecountry to hide the fact they are not phoning
from a local number. Equipping the public
and enhanced police efforts are leading toprogress. In 2020, the authorities were able
to freeze more than 9,000 bank accounts andrecover 35% of funds reported lost to scams.
Even as crime evolves, the lessons ofphysical security can help create a moresecure digital environment.

14 The COVID-19 pandemic and trends in technology, Chatham House Research Paper, February 2021, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/02/covid19-pandemic-and-trends-technology/03-covid-19-changing-cybercrime-landscape
15 Interpol, Cybercrime: COVID-19 Impact, August 2020, https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2020/INTERPOL-report-showsalarming-rate-of-cyberattacks-during-COVID-19© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Environmental security: Policy
progress has still not achieved its goals
Rank City
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
=11
=11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
=51
=51
=51
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Score
0
91.7
Wellington
90.3
TorontoWashington, DC 87.6
85.5
Bogota
84.9
Milan
84.5
Copenhagen
83.7
Stockholm
83.3
Rio de Janeiro
82.3
Zurich
81.0
Kuala Lumpur
80.9
Amsterdam
80.9
New York
80.6
Tokyo
80.3
Taipei
80.1
Quito
79.0
Sydney78.8
Buenos Aires
78.4
Barcelona
78.3
San Francisco
78.0
Rome
77.2
Dallas
77.0
Osaka
76.7
Sao Paulo
76.3
Los Angeles
76.1
Melbourne
74.9Frankfurt
74.8
Hong Kong
74.3
Lisbon74.0
Chicago73.8
Jakarta
73.7
London73.1
Madrid
72.9
Seoul
72.1
Mexico City
71.7
Paris
70.4
Brussels
69.9
Singapore
69.3
Shanghai
68.8
Lagos
68.5
AVERAGE
Ho Chi Minh City 66.4
65.9
Manila65.6
Johannesburg
62.9
Bangkok62.8
Istanbul
60.5
Moscow
60.1
Mumbai
58.2
Dhaka
57.0
Beijing
56.8
New Delhi
54.3
Santiago
46.7
Abu Dhabi
46.7
Baku
46.7
Riyadh45.3
Yangon41.9
Caracas
37.7
Dubai
35.4
Karachi
35.1
Casablanca
33.8
Cairo
22.0
Kuwait City

20

40

60

80

100

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

43

44

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Strong policies in most cities
As with every other pillar, a city’s level of
economic development correlates closelywith its environmental security scores. An
important difference, though, shows thatleading middle-income cities do far better inthis area than in any other. In particular, threeat this income level finish in the pillar’s top ten:
Bogota (4th); Rio de Janeiro (8th); and Kuala
Lumpur (10th). The highest that a middleincome country finishes in any other pillar is in
health, where Beijing and Shanghai tie for 19th.
This relative strength among middle-income
cities may reflect history: both Mr Léon and Mr
Van Begin note that environmental resilienceat the urban level had a high profile in the
global south before moving up the agenda in
the north.
Moreover, in some cases, the source of income
may matter more than its extent. Four highincome cities that finish in the bottom ten
places of the environmental security pillar
overall – Abu Dhabi (tied for 51st), Riyadh (tiedfor 51st), Dubai (56th) and Kuwait City (60th) –as well as the two upper middle-income ones
– Baku (tied for 51st) and Caracas (55th). They
have in common the high contribution of fossil
fuel exports to their national economies.
Another reason why scores in this pillar areless tied to income levels than the othersis that policies related to environmental
security are ubiquitous. Although the depthof detail varies, our index scores show that
only five cities fail to mention sustainability in© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

their master plans altogether; just seven lack
any renewable energy incentives; and only
three fail to provide wider green economy
incentives. This widespread success in ourscoring does not result from choosing overly
easy indicators. Mr Van Begin commentsthat “your research confirms what wesee. Sustainability planning has become
mainstream. Rarely do we get to a city thatsays ‘we don’t have anything.’ Many policies
are in place, which is good.” Although theprecise local definition of environmental
security varies with the specific challenges
that a city faces, he continues, the growing
profile of issues related to sustainability,
climate change and resilience have driven city
leaders worldwide.

The pandemic has driven
environmental security up
the agenda
As in other areas of urban security, covid-19
has exercised a substantial impact on theenvironment. The immediate outcomes canbe mixed: the World Bank’s Mr Wahba notesthat reduced travel has improved air quality
in many cities, but efforts to reduce viraltransmission through packaging has led
to an increase in single-use plastics andattendant pollution.
Looking at the longer term, if anything, theexperience of the pandemic will lead tomore extensive and ambitious green policies.
Several of our experts report seeing, in
Mr Van Begin’s words, “a direct link between

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

the impact of covid-19 and an enormous
uptake on sustainability issues at the urban
level.” Part of this, explains Ms Zhao, is thegreater appreciation that the pandemic andassociated lockdowns gave to the importanceof environmental issues such as air quality
and pollution. More important, she and others
add, is that by exposing weaknesses in thearea of health, the experience of the virus
has increased city officials’ focus on the needfor resilience in the face of other challenges.
As Mr Van Begin puts it, city leaders have
“understood that we are exposed to manyother possible abrupt catastrophes. So
resilience, more than ever, has become frontof mind at the local level.”
The foremost catastrophes are thosepotentially arising from climate change. The
thinking, notes Mr Léon, is that “while in therelatively short term, covid-19 is bringing usa health crisis, the crisis in the medium term
will be socio-economic. However, we must
not forget that in the long term climate change
will be one of the most important challenges
we face.” The extent of the growth in urban
leaders’ focus on climate issues is difficult
to measure robustly. That said, one study
from September 2020 found that within thepreceding year the number of cities worldwide
with net-zero carbon pledges rose from 101
to 823.16 Since that publication appeared,
several hundred new cities have joined the
UN-led Race to Zero coalition.17 Although
not likely to have an immediate, direct impact

on environmental security, this can be only
good news for mitigation efforts over the
longer term.
Some of this increase would have happened
anyway: the net-zero movement began togain traction in 2019, before covid-19 madeits presence felt. It is, nevertheless, hard to
disagree with Ms Akhmouch when she says“the pandemic is going to accelerate therethinking of cities and how we live,” especiallywith regard to the environment, “because of
the unique combination of the ‘Zoom effect’and the ‘Greta effect.’”
This heightened focus on resilience andenvironmental security is timely for two
reasons. First, as Mr Susskind notes, whilecities can provide leadership on climatechange mitigation, it “is ultimately a global
problem. Adaptation, on the other hand,needs to be done locally.” The latter will
require engaged cities.
Second, explains Ms Akhmouch, the expected
growth in cities in the coming decades can –with correct policies – create a huge resilience
opportunity. Mr Chapman predicts that green
infrastructure and natural capital together
form “the next big piece” that will differentiate
the most desirable cities.

The implementation challenge
While policy performance in this field is strong
and getting stronger, “the problem”, as Mr Van

16 Data-Driven EnviroLab and NewClimate Institute, Accelerating Net Zero: Exploring Cities, Regions, and Companies’ Pledges to Decarbonise,
September 2020, https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/NewClimate_Accelerating_Net_Zero_Sept2020.pdf
17 Compare figures in “Celebrating one year on from the Climate Ambition Alliance, the #RaceToZero campaign has brought together the largest
global alliance committed to net zero”, Cop25 blog post, September 21st 2020, https://cop25.mma.gob.cl/en/celebrating-one-year-on-from-theclimate-ambition-alliance-the-racetozero-campaign-has-brought-together-the-largest-global-alliance-committed-to-net-zero/, and in “700+ citiesin 53 countries now committed to halve emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050”, C40 press release, April 16th 2021, https://www.c40.org/
press_releases/cities-committed-race-to-zero.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

45

46

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Begin says, “lays in implementation. There is
still a lot to be done.” Our index results reflect
this well. Environmental security has both thehighest average input, or policy, score (86.5
points) and the lowest output, or results, score(50.5) of any pillar. To put it in context, this gapof 36 points is 12-fold the average difference
between combined input and output scoresfor the other pillars.
In explaining the difficulties in policy
implementation, as Ms Akhmouch puts it,“of course economic development matters,”
but it is far from the only thing. Indeed, whilesome environmental security initiatives are
no doubt expensive, Mr Gupte notes that“sustainable solutions can be cost-effective[compared with, for example, more traditional
infrastructure] and do not have to be difficult
to finance.” He cites as one example theEmergency Resilient Recovery Project ofMozambique’s Ministry of Education. With
UN-Habitat’s technical assistance and WorldBank funding, this rehabilitated and rebuilt
resilient schools in severely flood affected
and climate precarious areas. The effort
employed traditional skills and local materials
such as mud, rocks, and bamboo, as well
as a participative approach that used local
skills and materials while providing training
to the community on resilient construction
techniques and employment.
Again, a more detailed look at our data
yield an unexpected yet relevant result. On
the one hand, both environmental security
aggregate input and output scores correlatewith city HDI results, indicating that levels of© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

policy ambition and the state of the urban
environment improve with income. On theother hand, the size of the gap between
input and output scores also rises withHDI. In other words, although richer cities
tend to have more extensive policies, they
are still not achieving results consistent with
their ambitions.
This study is far too short to provide a detailed
manual to urban environmental policy
implementation. Our interviewees, however,point to two basic prerequisites for success,both related to holstic governance.
The first involves urban administrations. Ms
Akhmouch explains that the main practicalbarrier that the OECD sees to environmental
policy implementation “is a huge
fragmentation of planning systems and thepersistence of silos. Many cities are investing a
lot in plans that on paper are holistic, but use
a sectoral approach for implementation.” This
results in a failure to consider the inevitabletrade-offs between sectors or how best to
sequence change. “You don’t get coherence,”
she continues. To address the issue, she adds,
a growing number of cities are accordingly
using Sustainable Development Goals withinplanning to “connect the dots within the cityand rethink planning, investment and budget
allocation from the ground up” in order tofoster effective implementation.
Second, effective action in this field requires
city governments not to command change
but to lead an effort with actors from acrosssociety. Mr Susskind explains that “theSafe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

majority of actions required to respondseriously to climate risk involve collective
choices. The whole community has tolegitimise an overall action plan; it can’t just be
the responsibility of individual departments.”
Similarly, says Mr Van Begin, “political
governance is a defining element of success,including the way to reach out to citizens
and get them on board. These kind of actions
require a number of stakeholders. You cannot
just do this top down.”
Urban partnerships of various social actors arenecessary for much environmental activity,
not just large-scale measures in the face ofclimate risk. “Nobody can do environmental
security alone,” notes Mr Tory. Success“comes from partnerships.” He cites a telling,intentionally small example. A commonlyused takeout container in Toronto is nonrecyclable. Impeding change is consumer
preference: many think that the food simply
looks better in these black, plastic trays thanwhen sold in other containers. To address this,Mr Tory says, requires “a partnership between
consumers and the private sector. One has
to say ‘we will get over how it looks but you
have to find ways to make it recyclable.’ Thatis the spirit needed.” Meanwhile, if researchis necessary to solve that problem, funding
parternerships with the local public sector
may be appropriate. “There is deep caring
about the environment and buy-in for change,”
he concludes. “We will have to change how
institutions partner and know how to use
financial and regulatory tools to incent.”

It is suggestive that, of those cities finishingin the bottom ten in aggregate scores ofenvironmental security outputs, only New
Delhi is in a country that scores greater than
5.1 out of ten in The Economist Intelligence
Unit’s latest Democracy Index. Even thosecities with more democratic environments,
however, will need to find better ways toengage. Mr Susskind points out that thethe collective decisions needed to achieveenvironmental security will in some cases
involve drastic steps, such as emptying out
sections of the community that cannot
be protected. The capacity to engage
stakeholders and co-ordinate collective
action to this extent “is not there in northern,
developed places or in places in the lessdeveloped global south. We have no goodmodels yet for collaborative decision-making
and risk management. It is not enough tohave a policy. The policy needs to reflectcollective choices.”© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

47

48

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Conclusion
Covid-19 has driven the broader city safety
agenda in at least four ways. The mostobvious is that the disease has posed its
own danger to the health of urban residents,
especially for people who are older or haveunderlying medical conditions. Second, it hasforcefully reminded us of dangers that successagainst infectious disease had allowed many
to ignore for some time: as biologicalorganisms, humans need cities with a wide
range of assets – including not just healthcare,
but also those related to infrastructure andthe environment – in order to deal with themulti-faceted problems arising when microbes
attack. Third, this ongoing blink in history has
alerted us to risks arising from what we are
becoming: as lockdowns have accelerated
technological and social trends, it has become
clear that many cities remain unprepared forat least some of the resultant vulnerabilities.
Finally, it has led us to think about the kindof cities we want to live in, a reconsideration
that, in turn, has led us to reassess longer
term dangers in the way of achieving
safe, sustainable, liveable cities as well as
opportunities for getting there.
As a result, as Mr Léon puts it, while “for some
this is a crisis, for some it is an opportunity.”
Both are correct. The pandemic is animmediate health challenge, but it has also
created a potential turning point across every
pillar of urban safety. A renewed, more holistic
understanding of urban safety gives hope for
cities that are not just more secure, in every
sense, but more sustainable and enjoyable
places in which to live.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Not everything, however, is positive. Mr
Gupte warns against the risk of “manydecisions, taken in heat of the moment of thepandemic, which bend or burden data privacy
relationships or raise broader legal and ethicalworries, getting hardwired into the longerterm status quo.” Indeed, the opportunity that
covid-19 provides comes with old challenges
for urban societies in new forms – what Mr
Hino calls the “trilemma of safety (including
health), economic security and liberty(including privacy).” As cities address theintertwined maze of safety-related challenges
raised in the wake of covid-19, they will needto balance these – and other – fundamental
considerations.
In doing so, our experts repeatedly refer to
two underlying pieces of guidance. One is
to take a holistic, resilient approach that is
flexible enough to focus on immediate crises
while seeing the implications of different
kinds of security for all the others. Reaching
this state, says Mr Léon, takes a lot of difficult
decisions, “but I think the cities of the world
will adapt.” More important, officials, experts– and, indeed, those of us who define city
safety implicitly through indexes – need tobe humble. The constantly evolving contoursof what urban security means must be
decided on by citizens and achieved with
their cooperation. It is in this context that arange of promising developments – from thesmart cities to the increasing deployment ofgreen infrastructure – can make the greatest
contribution. As Mr Assiago explains, the goal
should not be “securitised cities, but to haveones where people can interact while feelingsafe and not intruded on.”

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

49

50

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Appendix: Index methodology
A. Overview
The Safe Cities Index is a global, policy
benchmarking tool developed to measureurban safety. The index measures urban
safety in an objective manner around theworld, enabling comparability across cities ofvarying sizes and at different income levels.
The index encompasses multiple dimensions
such as infrastructure, socioeconomic
factors, governance and technologicalsystems. The index covers major cities
across different geographies, income levels,and size. In recent years, urban safety has
evolved to include factors that range fromthe physical to the virtual. Moreover, thecovid-19 pandemic has exposed gaps andweaknesses in existing city-defenses, leading
policymakers to urgently refocus theirattention on the evolving risks and rethinktheir urban strategies.
The Safe Cities Index was first launched in2015 with 44 indicators and 50 cities. Since
then, the index has been updated once every
two years, increasing city coverage as well
as strengthening the framework to include
emerging challenges in urban safety. As theindex moves into its fourth iteration in 2021,
the framework has been further updated
to reflect the dynamic nature of the urban
safety landscape with a special focus on
health security as the world struggles toemerge from the pandemic.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

B. The Safe Cities Index 2021
framework
The covid-19 pandemic has played a majorrole in shaping the index framework for thisyear’s edition. The 2021 Safe Cities Index
consists of 76 sub indicators grouped under 5domains. Below is a summary of the updates
made to the framework.
Framework updates
The index framework has been subjected toan extensive reevaluation and has undergone
significant changes, including updates toexisting indicators, updates to scoring
methodology, addition of new indicators
under existing domains and the addition of a
new domain to the framework.
1. Addition of a new domain: With thegrowing importance of sustainable
development, particularly in urban areas,
we decided to include environmental
security as a stand-alone category in theindex for this year. In prior editions of theindex, sustainability-related indicators
were distributed across the index.
However, given the growing attention tosustainability by city planners and policy
makers, we decided to cut this out into aseparate stand-alone category by itself.
The focus on environmental sustainability
in cities has become an important factor in
urban safety.

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

2. Deepening existing domains: The initial
four domains have been updated with new
indicators to capture emerging issues inurban safety over the years. Key updates
that have been made are to the domainsof health and personal security. The healthsecurity domain has been updated toinclude indicators assessing the pandemic
preparedness and performance of cities.
The personal security domain has been
updated with additional indicators tomeasure economic security, women’ssafety and the capacity of the
judicial system.
3. Other updates: Some indicators from the2019 framework have been removed, whileothers have been modified with updates totheir scoring guidance and data sources in linewith their broader relevance to urban safety.
City updates
The 2021 index benchmarks 60 cities. The
composition of cities remains similar to 2019,with the exception of one replacement. The
city of Lima from Latin America has been
removed. Lisbon from Europe has been added
to the list of cities in the 2021 index. Pleaserefer to table A2.1 for a complete list of cities in
the 2021 index.

C. Index domains
Digital security assesses the ability of urban
citizens to freely use the internet and otherdigital channels without fear of privacy

violations, identity theft and malicious online
attacks. On inputs, cities are scored on theirawareness of digital threats and cybersecurity
preparedness and the safety of smart cities.
On outputs, the index measures the numberof secure internet servers and the risk of
online attacks. New indicators were added tomeasure the safety of smart cities.
Health security measures how cities fare on
the level and quality of healthcare services
and infrastructure in the city. On inputs,
cities are scored based on the availability,
access and quality of healthcare service.
Output indicators include metrics such as life
expectancy, infant mortality and other subindicators. New indicators have been added toboth inputs and outputs to measure pandemic
preparedness and performance and mental
health issues.
Infrastructure security considers thebuilt physical environment, measuring theavailability, quality and sufficiency of existingcity infrastructure and its vulnerability to
man-made and natural disasters. On inputs,
the index takes into account sub-indicatorssuch as the quality of infrastructure as wellas the enforcement of transport safety, while
outputs include metrics such as the number ofdeaths from road traffic accidents and climate
related disasters.
Personal security considers how at-risk
citizens are from crime, violence, terrorist
threats, natural disasters and economic
vulnerabilities. Input indicators in this domain© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

51

52

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

take into account policies and decisions suchas the capacity of the judicial system, gun
regulation, political stability, laws around
women’s safety and economic security. On
outputs, the index takes into account theprevalence of petty and violent crime, threatof civil unrest, corruption levels and new
indicators assessing income inequality.
Environmental security considers how
the city has incorporated sustainability
parameters into its urban planning to reducecarbon emissions and manage climate risks.
It takes account of policy inputs aimed at
improving the health of the natural andphysical environment in urban areas, where
many have witnessed severe deterioration inrecent years. Input indicators in this domain
look at the city’s sustainability master planand market incentives for renewable energy
sources. Output indicators include urban tree
cover and the rate of water stress in cities.

D. Indicators
The Safe Cities Index 2021 includes bothquantitative and qualitative indicators. The
index comprises 76 individual sub-indicators.
Quantitative indicators: 31 of the 76 subindicators are based on quantitative data.
For example, the number of secure internet
servers and life expectancy at birth.
Qualitative indicators: 45 of the 76 subindicators are qualitative assessments basedon a methodology decided upon by The EIU.
For example, privacy policies and prevalenceof petty crime.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

E. Indicator normalisation
In order to be able to compare data points
across cities, as well as to construct aggregate
scores for each city, the gathered data is
made comparable. To do so, the quantitative
indicators were normalised on a scale of 0-100
using a min-max normalisation, where eachscore represents the standard deviation/s
from the mean, with the best performing city
scoring 100 points and the weakest performingcity scoring 0.
Qualitative indicators were normalised aswell. In some instances, those scores were ona scale of 0–4 with 0 being the lowest or mostnegative score, and 4 being the highest or
most positive score — these were normalised
in a similar manner to quantitative indicators.
While normalised values (that is, a score of
0–100) allows for direct comparability withother normalised indicator scores, minmax scoring also leads to changes in scoresfrom the previous edition of the index, even
without an actual change in raw data-driven
performance. For example, in an indicatorwith normalised scoring, if the score of theweakest-performing city is lower than thatof the previous edition of the index, thescores of other cities in scope will be
impacted regardless of actual (raw datadriven) performance.

F. Index construction
The index generates an aggregate
score/ ranking across all the underlying
indicators. The index is first aggregated by

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

domain — creating a score for each domain(for example, personal safety) — and finally,
overall, based on the composite of theunderlying domain scores. To create theunderlying domain scores, each underlying
indicator was aggregated according to an
assigned weighting. Sub-indicators are allweighted equally, as are the four domains.

G. Index weights
By default, each domain in the index isweighted equally while calculating the finalscores and ranks. The EIU default weights foreach domain in the 2021 index are as follows:
Digital security:

20%

Health security:

20%

Infrastructure security:

20%

Personal security:

20%

Environmental security:

20%

In the 2021 edition, we have included an optionof “covid-weights” that awards a higher weightto the health security domain. The covid
weights for each domain in the 2021 index are
as follows:
Digital security:

18.8%

Health security:

25%

Infrastructure security:

18.8%

Personal security:

18.8%

Environmental security:

18.8%© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

53

54

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Table A2.1 The Index framework
INDICATORUNIT

SOURCE

TYPE

1. Digital security
Inputs1.1.1)

Privacy policy

Scale: 0-4

DLA Piper Data Protection Laws of the World

Qualitative

1.1.2)

Citizen awareness of digital threats

Scale: 0-4

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

1.1.3)

Secure smart cities

Scale: 0-2

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

1.1.4)

Cybersecurity preparedness

Scale: 0-4

EIU Operational Risk Briefing

Qualitative

1.1.5)

Public-private partnerships

Scale: 0-2

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

Percentage with internet access%

World Bank; International Telecommunication

Quantitative

Outputs
1.2.1)

Union; Economist Intelligence Unit analysis
1.2.2)

Secure internet servers# per million

World Bank

Quantitative

1.2.3)

Risk of attacks

Scale: 0-4

EIU Operational Risk Briefing

Qualitative

1.2.4)IT infrastructure risk

Scale: 0-4

EIU Operational Risk Briefing

Qualitative

1.2.5)

Percentage of computers infected from online attacks

Scale: 0-5

Kaspersky Lab

Quantitative

2. Health security
Inputs
2.1.1)

Universal healthcare coverage

Scale: 0-2

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

2.1.2a) Availability of public healthcare

Scale: 0-4

EIU Liveability Index

Qualitative

2.1.2b) Availability of private healthcare

Scale: 0-4

EIU Liveability Index

Qualitative

2.1.2c) Availability of OTC drugs

Scale: 0-4

EIU Liveability Index

Qualitative

2.1.3a) Quality of private healthcare provision

Scale: 0-4

EIU Liveability Index

Qualitative

2.1.3b) Quality of public healthcare provision

Scale: 0-4

EIU Liveability Index

Qualitative

2.1.4a) No. of beds per 1,000#

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

2.1.4b) No. of doctors per 1,000#

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

2.1.5)

Access to safe and quality food

Score: 0-100

EIU Global Food Security index

Quantitative

2.1.6)

Policy on substance abuse / drug use

Scale: 0-1

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

2.1.7)

Pandemic preparedness

Score: 0-100

EIU Global Health Security Index

Quantitative

2.1.8)

Mental health

Scale: 0-1

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

2.2.1)

Emergency services in the city

Scale: 0-2

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

2.2.2)

Life expectancy years# of years

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

2.2.3)

Infant mortality# per 1,000

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

Outputs© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

INDICATORUNIT

SOURCE

TYPE

2.2.4)

Age-standardisedInternational Agency for Research on Cancer;

Quantitative

Cancer mortality

World Health Organization
2.2.5)

Lifestyle related disease burden

Mortality rate

Global Health Data Exchange; Economist Intelligence Unit analysis Quantitative

2.2.6)

Mental health burden

DALYs, rate per 100,000

Global Health Data Exchange

Quantitative

2.2.7)

Covid-19 mortality

DALYs, rate per 100,000# per 100,000(as on March 2021)1

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

3. Infrastructure security
Inputs
3.1.1)

Enforcement of transport safety

Scale: 0-10

World Health Organization

Qualitative

3.1.2)

Pedestrian friendliness%

Pedestrians First, Institute for Transportation

Quantitative& Development Policy; Economist Intelligence Unit analysis
3.1.3)

Disaster management / business continuity plan

Scale: 0-4

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

3.1.4)

Water infrastructure

Scale: 0-4

EIU Liveability Index

Qualitative

3.1.5)

Hazard monitoring

Scale: 0-2

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

3.2.1)

Road traffic deaths# per million population

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

3.2.2)

Deaths from climate-related disasters

Rank

German Watch

Quantitative

3.2.3a) Transport infrastructure: Air transport facilities

Scale: 0-4

EIU Operational Risk Briefing

Qualitative

3.2.3b) Transport infrastructure: Road network

Scale: 0-4

EIU Operational Risk Briefing

Qualitative

3.2.3c) Transport infrastructure: Rail network

Scale: 0-4

EIU Operational Risk Briefing

Qualitative

3.2.4)

Power network

Scale: 0-4

EIU Operational Risk Briefing

Qualitative

3.2.5)

Institutional capacity and access to resources

Scale: 0-2

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

3.2.6)

Catastrophe insurance

Scale: 0-2

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

3.2.7)

Disaster-risk informed development

Scale: 0-2

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

3.2.8a) Percentage living in slums%

World Bank; Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

3.2.8b) Percentage of homeless population%

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

Outputs

4. Personal security
Inputs
4.1.1)

Use of data-driven techniques for crime

Scale: 0-2

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

4.1.2)

Gun regulation and enforcement

Scale: 0-10

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

4.1.3a) Threat of terrorism

Scale: 0-4

EIU Liveability Index

Qualitative

4.1.3b) Threat of military conflict

Scale: 0-4

EIU Liveability Index

Qualitative

1 Note: Mortality rates have been used to examine the response to the covid-19 pandemic as, at the time of reviewing the framework and gathering
the data, the global vaccination drive was only getting started.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

55

56

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

INDICATORUNIT

SOURCE

TYPE

4.1.3

c) Threat of civil unrest

Scale: 0-4

EIU Liveability Index

Qualitative

4.1.4a) Police personnel per capita# per 100,000

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

4.1.4b) Prosecution personnel per capita# per 100,000

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

4.1.4c) Professional judges or magistrate personnel per capita# per 100,000

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

4.1.5)

Expenditure on social security%

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Quantitative

4.1.6a) Laws on domestic violence

Scale: 0-4

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Qualitative

4.1.6b) Laws on sexual harassment

Scale: 0-4

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Qualitative

4.2.1a) Prevalence of petty crime

Scale: 0-4

EIU Liveability Index

Qualitative

4.2.1b) Prevalence of violent crime

Scale: 0-4

EIU Liveability Index

Qualitative

4.2.2)

Organised crime

Scale: 0-4

EIU Operational Risk Briefing

Qualitative

4.2.3)

Severity of terrorist attacks

Scale: 0-10

Global Terrorism Index, Institute for Economics & Peace

Qualitative

4.2.4)

Deaths from substance use disorders

Age-standardised (rate)

Global Health Data Exchange

Quantitative

4.2.5)

Level of corruption

Scale: 0-4

EIU Liveability Index

Qualitative

4.2.6)

Enforceability of contracts

Scale: 0-4

EIU Operational Risk Briefing

Qualitative

4.2.7a) Income inequality levels

Gini coefficient

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

4.2.7b) Share of population in vulnerable employment%

World Bank

Quantitative

4.2.8a) Female homicide rates# per 100,000

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

4.2.8b) Prevalence of domestic violence%

Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment; Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

Outputs

5. Environmental security
Inputs
5.1.1)

Sustainability masterplan

Scale: 0-2

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

5.1.2)

Incentives for renewable energy

Scale: 0-1

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

5.1.3)

Green economy initiatives

Scale: 0-2

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

5.1.4)

Waste management

Scale: 0-2

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Qualitative

5.2.1)

Sustainable energy%

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

5.2.2)

Rate of water stress

Scale: 0-4

World Resources InstituteQualitative

5.2.3)Air quality levelsµg/m³

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

5.2.4)

Urban forest cover% of city area

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

5.2.5)

Waste generation

Kg/capita/year

Economist Intelligence Unit analysis

Quantitative

Outputs© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

Table A2.2 List of Cities
Abu Dhabi

CaracasIstanbul

MadridParisSingapore

Amsterdam

Casablanca

Jakarta

ManilaQuito

Stockholm

Baku

ChicagoJohannesburg

Melbourne

Rio de Janeiro

SydneyBangkok

Copenhagen

Karachi

Mexico city

RiyadhTaipeiBarcelona

DallasKuala Lumpur

Milan

Rome

Tokyo

Beijing

Dhaka

Kuwait City

Moscow

San Francisco

TorontoBogota

Dubai

Lagos

Mumbai

Santiago

Washington, DC

Brussels

Frankfurt

Lisbon*

New DelhiSão Paulo

Wellington

Buenos Aires

Ho Chi Minh City

London

New York

Seoul

YangonCairo

Hong Kong

Los Angeles

Osaka

Shanghai

Zurich* New city added in 2021

While every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy of thisinformation, The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd. cannot accept any
responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this report orany of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in this report.
The findings and views expressed in the report do not necessarilyreflect the views of the sponsor.

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

57

Safe Cities Index 2021
New expectations demand a new coherence

LONDONGENEVA

20 Cabot Square
London, E14 4QW
United Kingdom
Tel: (44.20) 7576 8000
Fax: (44.20) 7576 8500
Email: london@eiu.com

Rue de l’Athénée 32
1206 Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: (41) 22 566 2470
Fax: (41) 22 346 93 47
Email: geneva@eiu.com

NEW YORK

DUBAI

750 Third Avenue
5th Floor
New York, NY 10017
United States
Tel: (1.212) 554 0600
Fax: (1.212) 586 1181/2
Email: americas@eiu.com

Office 1301a
Aurora Tower
Dubai Media City
Dubai
Tel: (971) 4 433 4202
Fax: (971) 4 438 0224
Email: dubai@eiu.com

HONG KONG

SINGAPORE

1301
12 Taikoo Wan Road
Taikoo Shing
Hong Kong
Tel: (852) 2585 3888
Fax: (852) 2802 7638
Email: asia@eiu.com

8 Cross Street#23-01 Manulife Tower
Singapore048424
Tel: (65) 6534 5177
Fax: (65) 6534 5077
Email: asia@eiu.com© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021

58