By Accommodation Times Bureau
There has been a debate in public domain related to the rankings of Mumbai and Delhi between the Ease of Living Index of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) released on13th August 2018 and the Global Liveability Index released by The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), on 14 August 2018. The debate primarily centred around the fact that while Greater Mumbai (117) ranked below Delhi (112) in the Global Liveability Index of the EIU, the ranks of the two cities were in the reverse order at 3 and 65 respectively in the Ease of Living Index released by MoHUA.
|Ranking Source||Greater Mumbai rank||Delhi rank|
|Ease of Living||3||65|
|Global Liveability Index*||117||112|
*The EIU’s liveability work refers to the metropolitan areas so the EIU report refers to New Delhi where Ease of Living Index refers to a larger urban agglomeration under NCT.
According to the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, Ease of Living Index of MoHUA looks at Delhi as not only New Delhi but an urban agglomeration of around 1488 sq. km. comprising the Municipal Corporations limits of East, South, North and New Delhi. Global Liveability Index looks at New Delhi only. Hence, the geographical areas and population covered for Delhi are different in both the indices and not comparable as such.
Every city has been assigned a rating of relative comfort over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors in 5 broad categories namely stability, health care, cultural and environmental, education and infrastructure in the global liveability index. A total of 78 indicators—56 core indicators and 22 supportive indicators across 15 thematic categories namely governance, identity and culture, education, health, safety and security, economy, affordable housing, land use planning, public open spaces,transportation and mobility, assured water supply, waste-water management, solid waste management, power, and quality of environment are part of the Ease of Living Index.
These 15 categories are then bracketed into four pillars of institutional, social, economic and physical. A careful look at the various indicators covered under both the indices clearly shows that there are very few points of convergence and this can be ascribed to the different methodologies and largely to the different backgrounds in which both the indices are prepared, it said.