As if the world were not already a pretty bleak place, the citys worth to live has been severely reduced by the pandemic.
This, according to a study by a new team of researchers, could be because the cities are “just a piece of a larger mosaic”.
The researchers, from the University of California, Berkeley, found that a large proportion of the world’s population has a negative view of the city.
But in many cases, this perception is simply not backed up by the data.
As part of their research, the team asked 8,000 people in 12 cities to rate the quality of their lives in terms of their perception of the quality and value of the place they live in.
They found that the positive perceptions of the cities were not linked to their overall economic performance.
“We looked at these cities to understand whether they have a negative impact on people’s lives,” said the lead researcher, Professor Peter Pinto from the School of Public Policy and Governance.
“What’s happening is that people have different perceptions of these cities that may not be reflective of the value they get.”
So the researchers took the perception of a city as it is perceived by the population and used that as the basis for their analysis.
What they found was that the cities where people felt most strongly about their citys quality were in places where a large number of people were in temporary poverty.
But the cities that had a positive impact on the lives of people with temporary poverty were in the areas where people were most likely to be employed.
“That suggests that temporary poverty is a big problem in a lot of these places, not just in some of the more urban areas,” said Professor Pinto.
“The negative effects of temporary poverty on people are much more profound.”
And when it comes to their perceived quality, they found that those who live in the most highly rated cities have the highest scores.
“These are the places where the highest number of temporary poor people are concentrated,” said Dr. Pinto, adding that in some cases, temporary poverty was even more severe than permanent poverty.
“If you look at some of these, the cities with the highest levels of temporary economic deprivation have been some of those places that have the most serious impacts on the health of the community.”
The study was published in the journal Social Science Research.
It has been followed by the US Census Bureau, the UK Office for National Statistics, the World Bank, and the World Economic Forum.
The authors are currently working on a study that examines whether the negative impact of temporary wealth is linked to economic outcomes.
“This work suggests that our perceptions of citys’ attractiveness can have an impact on their impact on health, wealth, and social capital,” said University of Oxford Professor Paul McAleese, the lead author.
“While the data does not establish causality, it does suggest that the quality perceptions of our cities can have a direct impact on what people are willing to give up to live in them.”
What does this mean for you?
While the study is still ongoing, it could have an effect on how you decide where to live.
“It could be that we’re seeing a shift from a city-centric view of life that is less important to the health and well-being of people in our communities to a more holistic view that looks at the health, the quality, and overall value of a place,” said McAlese.
In other words, it might be that living in a place that has the highest amount of permanent poverty, and where people are living in extreme poverty, is a better choice.
“Even in the midst of the financial crisis, some people have said, ‘I would rather live in a low-income neighbourhood than a high-income neighborhood’,” he said.
The researchers hope that this new understanding will help people understand what they are getting themselves into.
“There are some things that we need to do to help people, particularly in the developing world, to understand that there are good, sustainable, and safe places to live,” said Pinto and McAlees co-author, Dr. Anna O’Connor.