Why Chinese Cities Rank Differently for Liveability Around the World

A city can be convenient without topping a global list

A study of 101,630 communities across 42 major Chinese cities offers a different way to understand urban life from the familiar global rankings. Using satellite imagery, points of interest and building data, researchers found large differences between neighborhoods, including a common combination of dense buildings and limited green space. Living comfort ranked highest in the expert surveys used to shape the index.

Those findings help explain why a single position on a global leaderboard can feel distant from everyday experience. Beijing has expanded its metro network, Shanghai has restored waterfront neighborhoods, and Wuhan has developed green corridors that absorb summer rain. Residents and frequent visitors often describe Chinese cities as safe, convenient and culturally rich, with public spaces, community exercise and dance, and digital services that make shopping and travel easier.

Mainland Chinese cities nevertheless rarely appear near the top of global liveability rankings, where Vienna, Copenhagen, Melbourne and Zurich are familiar names. China has transformed urban life at unusual speed and scale, but the improvements do not always translate into leading international positions.

The central issue is what a ranking measures and whose needs it represents. An international employee looking for an English speaking doctor and an international school may judge a city differently from a resident who values a nearby park, affordable services and an easy commute. Some rankings focus on overseas assignments; others include culture, public health, education or the atmosphere of streets.

As of September 28, 2025, the picture is mixed. Global indexes, regional assessments, resident surveys and neighborhood research identify different strengths and weaknesses. Together, they show why Chinese cities can offer substantial daily convenience while still losing points for pollution, uneven access to services and environmental stress.

What the international indexes measure

The Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Liveability Index assesses cities across stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure. Mercer focuses on quality of living for international staff, including housing, healthcare access, international schools, recreation and the ease of everyday tasks. Monocle adds a lifestyle perspective, paying attention to urban design, cafes, street life and leisure.

Chinese cities appear in these indexes, usually outside the leading group. In some years, Suzhou has been the highest ranked mainland city in the EIU list, ahead of Beijing and Shanghai. The two larger cities often perform well in education, transport connections and culture, while air quality and other environmental measures reduce their scores. Hong Kong is assessed separately from the mainland and tends to rank higher within Asia in international comparisons.

Jon Copestake, editor of the EIU survey, explained why pollution alone does not determine a city's result:

Pollution was just one of more than 40 indicator scores that form the overall weighted score for cities.

A weighted score gives some measures more influence than others before combining them into a final result. A city can therefore have a serious weakness in one area while gaining points elsewhere.

Tom Rafferty, an EIU economist based in Beijing, pointed to the capital's cultural life, consumer choice and international connections when explaining its strengths:

It also has, I would argue, more cultural options than most other Chinese cities, a wider range of consumer goods and services, better international transport links, all factors that go into the liveability rating.

Education adds another advantage for Beijing. Taken together, these strengths help explain why Beijing and Shanghai can occupy the middle bands of liveability rankings despite environmental problems. Cities with cleaner air and less pressure from urban scale can still finish above them.

Regional rankings produce a different order

The United Nations Human Settlements Programme released an Asia Top 50 list for 2024 to 2025 that assessed climate comfort, education and healthcare, relative economic prosperity, and living costs compared with income. Guangzhou placed ninth in Asia and first among mainland Chinese cities.

The assessment also included Wuhan, Nanjing, Suzhou, Qingdao, Shanghai, Beijing and Chengdu, alongside other Chinese cities such as Xiamen. Selected positions were:

• Guangzhou: ninth in Asia and highest on the Chinese mainland.
• Wuhan: tenth.
• Nanjing: fourteenth.
• Qingdao: eighteenth.
• Suzhou: twenty sixth.
• Shanghai: fortieth.
• Beijing: forty second.
• Chengdu: forty ninth.

Guangzhou and Wuhan occupied neighboring positions, while Shanghai and Beijing were much farther down the same list. An assessment that includes climate comfort and the balance between earnings and living costs produces a different order from one centered on international connections or services for foreign employees.

A global city brand index placed Hong Kong within the world's top fifty, with Shanghai and Beijing not far behind. Chongqing scored strongly for liveability, governance and education, even though foreign respondents were less familiar with it. Familiarity and judgments about a city's qualities can therefore move in different directions.

An Asia Pacific study of liveability, lovability and prosperity found that China had the largest number of cities in the region's top hundred. Beijing and Shanghai both reached the top ten, reflecting economic scale, culture, education and regional reputation.

Chinese cities tend to perform better in these regional and perception assessments than in global lineups shaped by European and Anglophone preferences. The regional results also show that China's largest and most internationally familiar cities do not always lead when the criteria change.

What neighborhood research reveals

The study covering 101,630 communities in 42 cities built a community liveability index from five main categories and dozens of indicators. Its detailed approach examined conditions close to home, rather than assigning one judgment to an entire city.

Living comfort was the leading priority in the expert surveys behind the index, while building massing mattered least. Building massing describes the size and arrangement of buildings. The finding suggests that the practical experience of living in an area carried more weight than the shape of its buildings alone.

Security construction lagged in less developed cities. Negative land uses, including nearby factories, also weighed heavily on neighborhood scores. Dense development and sparse greenery were common, with sharp differences both within individual cities and across regions.

A city average can therefore combine a comfortable district with good parks and services and another where factories, tightly packed buildings or limited greenery make daily life harder. Neighborhood research brings those differences into view.

Shanghai street research identified six qualities of liveable streets in the city's setting:

• Social interaction.
• A sense of belonging.
• Local economic activities.
• A local humanized environment.
• Facilities and mixed uses.
• Safety.

Shanghai's emphasis on social contact and local commerce places ordinary street activity alongside larger infrastructure. Policies opening formerly gated compounds to the street network, attention to pedestrian comfort and small business frontages help sustain daily life beyond office towers and metro stations. Mixed uses bring different activities into the same area, allowing streets to serve more than one purpose.

Parks, drainage and waste systems change daily comfort

Wuhan's sponge city program uses lakes, bioswales and permeable surfaces to absorb rain and reduce heat. Bioswales are planted channels that collect and absorb runoff; permeable surfaces allow water to pass through rather than sending it straight into drains. The approach uses the urban landscape to hold water.

The Yangzi River Beach Park extends for more than seven kilometers. Its trees and water gardens form a green buffer that serves both flood protection and leisure. Residents gain a place to walk and spend time outdoors while the waterfront helps manage high water.

Tianjin's eco city uses a pneumatic waste collection network, moving refuse through underground pipes to centralized collection points. The system reduces odors, noise from waste trucks and the risk of spills, while allowing service around the clock.

Suzhou combines preservation of its classical gardens with access without barriers and discreet modern amenities. Careful restoration, unobtrusive signs and ramps allow seniors and families with strollers to use the sites while retaining their calm and artistic character.

These projects work at the scale of a district, corridor or individual place. Their benefits are concrete: less truck noise, a more accessible garden, a shaded walking route or a landscape that absorbs rain. They also help explain why experiences vary within the same city, even when everyone shares one international ranking.

How smart city policies affect liveability

China's smart city pilots have tested sensors, data platforms and digital public services for nearly two decades. A large study following cities over time treated the pilots as a quasi natural experiment, comparing outcomes to estimate the effect of the policy.

The research found that smart city policy increased liveability scores across economic, environmental, social security and daily convenience measures. Gains were stronger in large cities rich in knowledge and skills, where technology could be applied alongside improvements in social governance.

Nearby cities outside the pilot programs also experienced gains as practices and networks spread. The findings suggest that the effects of a city's digital upgrades can reach beyond its administrative boundaries.

Residents experience these programs through quicker access to clinics, more reliable buses, traffic management that reduces delays, digital utility payments and city apps combining several services. For visitors and expatriates, bilingual interfaces and customer service are equally relevant. Technology contributes most to everyday comfort when people can use it simply and accessibly.

What residents value, and where they are dissatisfied

A study of 40 major Chinese cities found moderate satisfaction with liveability. Residents favored the convenience of public facilities, the natural environment and the sociocultural environment. Dissatisfaction centered on urban security, environmental health and convenient transportation.

Transport has improved markedly in the years since that survey, through rapid metro expansion and a shift toward electric buses and taxis in many cities. The survey captures residents' concerns at its own point in time, while later changes explain why today's journeys may feel different.

Street safety is often described as a strength by residents and frequent travelers. Walking at night in central Beijing or Shanghai feels routine for many people, and police presence is visible. Such experiences sit alongside the broader dissatisfaction with urban security recorded in the resident study.

Beijing's Peking University and Tsinghua University contribute to the capital's educational strengths. The National Centre for the Performing Arts in Beijing and cultural venues in Shanghai's West Bund support calendars of concerts, exhibitions and festivals.

Public healthcare coverage is broad, large hospitals are modern, and clinics offering traditional Chinese medicine provide complementary care valued by many residents. Access to these services is part of everyday liveability, alongside the international healthcare options considered by rankings aimed at expatriates.

Digital commerce adds another layer of convenience. Groceries and meals can arrive within minutes, platforms help users find nearby services, and QR code payments are almost universal. New arrivals sometimes need time to learn local apps and cashless systems. Bilingual help is improving in central districts visited by tourists and foreign workers.

Why environmental and access problems still lower scores

Air quality has improved in many large Chinese cities compared with a decade earlier, but seasonal haze persists. Heavy industry upwind can counter local progress, making a city's air quality dependent partly on activity outside its boundaries.

Climate change brings heat waves in the south and cold snaps in the north, straining electricity supplies, health services and comfort outdoors. A nationwide analysis covering 2006 to 2016 found a steady rise in liveability scores while also finding that extreme heat, heavy rain and freezing events reduced liveability in different regions.

Language and access to services carry particular weight in rankings designed for expatriates. International schools, English speaking medical staff and familiar retail choices can affect a city's result even when residents are satisfied with local alternatives. Digital services can be difficult for newcomers who have not established local payments or obtained a local mobile number.

Some rankings include perceptions of governance and media freedom in their stability or reputation measures. That weighting tends to favor cities in countries whose values or legal systems are familiar to the ranking organization's audience.

Property cycles, rapid growth and the household registration system also shape urban experience. Migrant families sometimes face barriers to enrolling children in public schools, while older districts can lack sufficient green space per person. Access to an attractive city and access to all its services are separate practical concerns for families moving there.

Chengdu's investment in green walls and planting along streets illustrates another route to daily comfort. Parks, water corridors and community programming can improve the places people use routinely, although broad rankings may capture those benefits only partly.

Four cities show different routes to a better urban life

Beijing's urban form follows a north to south axis with concentric ring roads. Its skyline rises beyond former hutong neighborhoods, many now home to cafes and small galleries. The metro, among the world's busiest, has expanded to distant suburbs.

Night walking feels routine in central districts and around university campuses. Crowds head to the Western Hills on weekends, while new parks and restored river corridors provide space within the dense capital. Community fitness equipment and pocket parks sit alongside its major tourist attractions.

Shanghai, the mainland's most international city, has preserved historic architecture from the 1920s and 1930s in its old concession areas while placing new towers in Pudong, across the Huangpu River. Many buses and taxis run on electricity, and streets are quieter than a decade earlier.

Some Shanghai rail corridors also serve as green strips. Social interaction and local commerce support lively streets, while the retail and food scenes feel accessible to newcomers. Bilingual signs are common along major roads and at transport hubs.

Wuhan, long known as a furnace for summer heat, has added shade trees and incorporated wetlands and lakes into its urban fabric to absorb rain and lower temperatures. The Yangzi River Beach Park provides continuous public waterfront access as well as flood control. Morning and evening dancing and exercise in public squares build community ties while supporting health.

Suzhou connects its classical heritage with modern planning. Suzhou Industrial Park, developed with Singapore, uses clear planning rules, districts combining different activities and coordinated transport. Alongside the city's accessible gardens, it has become a model for growth centered on people's needs in a rapidly changing economy.

The dates behind the changing picture

The evidence covers different periods, from Shanghai's preserved buildings to research tracking liveability and more recent regional rankings. The main dated assessments follow this sequence:

• 2006 to 2016: a nationwide analysis found rising liveability scores and regional losses associated with extreme heat, heavy rain and freezing events.
• 2024 to 2025: the Asia Top 50 assessment placed Guangzhou ninth and Wuhan tenth, with several other mainland Chinese cities in the top fifty.
• September 28, 2025: global indexes, regional assessments and local studies presented different pictures of Chinese urban liveability.

The periods matter because Chinese cities have changed rapidly. Metro expansion, electric transport, restored waterways and digital public services affect what residents experience, while each survey or ranking reflects its own criteria and assessment period.

Whose definition of liveability counts?

An expatriate assignment places practical weight on international schools, services available in a familiar language and recreation suited to newcomers. A resident's priorities may center more on neighborhood comfort, local temperatures, social ties and useful parks. The EIU, Mercer and Monocle reflect different preferences, while regional assessments can give greater weight to climate and the relationship between income and living costs.

Chinese cities show strengths in rapid transit, safety in many districts, cultural institutions and digital convenience. Air pollution, climate extremes, limited greenery in older neighborhoods and barriers facing migrants continue to reduce comfort and access.

Smart city programs, sponge city improvements and streets designed for social life address different parts of that picture. Open data that allows comparisons can help track changes. The most useful assessment connects citywide results with the services, streets and public spaces people actually use.

Key Points

• Mainland Chinese cities generally sit outside the top tier of global liveability rankings, despite major improvements in urban infrastructure.
• EIU, Mercer and Monocle use different criteria, including public services, environmental conditions, expatriate needs and street life.
• The 2024 to 2025 Asia assessment placed Guangzhou ninth and Wuhan tenth; Shanghai ranked fortieth and Beijing forty second.
• Brand and regional studies highlighted Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing and Chongqing, with China having the most cities in an Asia Pacific top hundred.
• Research across 101,630 communities in 42 cities found strong local differences and made living comfort the leading expert priority.
• A survey of 40 cities found moderate resident satisfaction, with concerns about security, environmental health and transport.
• Smart city policy improved liveability measures, especially in large cities rich in knowledge, and brought gains to nearby cities.
• Wuhan's parks and drainage, Tianjin's waste pipes, Suzhou's accessible heritage and Shanghai's street design show practical improvements.
• Pollution, extreme weather, language barriers and unequal access to services remain weaknesses, while rankings capture different parts of daily life.