Comparative Analysis: 10 Most Liveable Cities
The following visualizations compare key urban green infrastructure metrics across all 10 cities, derived from Sentinel-2 satellite imagery analysis conducted in December 2025. These metrics provide objective, data-driven insights into each city's vegetation coverage, urban development intensity, and blue-green infrastructure networks.
Total Green Cover Comparison
Figure 1: Total green cover percentage across all 10 cities, measured using NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) from Sentinel-2 satellite imagery. Higher percentages indicate more extensive vegetation coverage including parks, forests, gardens, and green corridors.
Mean NDVI (Vegetation Health Index)
Figure 2: Mean NDVI values indicating overall vegetation health and density. Values range from -1 to +1, with higher values representing healthier, denser vegetation. NDVI measures the difference between near-infrared (reflected by vegetation) and red light (absorbed by chlorophyll).
Urban Built-Up Intensity (NDBI)
Figure 3: Built-up intensity measured using NDBI (Normalized Difference Built-up Index), which identifies constructed surfaces, roads, and concrete areas. Lower values indicate less dense urban development and more integration with natural landscapes. NDBI uses shortwave infrared and near-infrared bands to detect impervious surfaces.
Blue-Green Infrastructure Coverage
Figure 4: Combined view of green infrastructure (vegetation coverage) and blue infrastructure (water bodies including rivers, lakes, and reservoirs). Together, these elements form the city's blue-green network, which provides cooling, stormwater management, biodiversity habitat, and recreational amenities. Water bodies are detected using MNDWI (Modified Normalized Difference Water Index).
Comparative Metrics: All 10 Cities
Ranked by total green cover percentage. All metrics derived from Sentinel-2 satellite imagery (10-meter resolution) processed in December 2025.
| Rank | City | Green Cover % | NDVI (Mean) | Built-Up Intensity | Water Bodies % | Ecological Balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vienna, Austria | 50.6% | 0.279 | -0.059 | 7.8% | 5061.16 |
| 2 | Sydney, Australia | 47.1% | 0.254 | -0.055 | 15.8% | 4714.68 |
| 3 | Auckland, New Zealand | 37.7% | 0.250 | -0.089 | 9.4% | 3773.12 |
| 4 | Melbourne, Australia | 26.6% | 0.204 | -0.018 | 13.9% | 2663.95 |
| 5 | Adelaide, Australia | 26.0% | 0.214 | -0.025 | 3.0% | 2601.19 |
| 6 | Copenhagen, Denmark | 11.4% | 0.113 | 0.015 | 14.7% | 7.55 |
| 7 | Zurich, Switzerland | 11.3% | 0.147 | 0.022 | 6.9% | 5.19 |
| 8 | Vancouver, Canada | 10.9% | 0.099 | -0.017 | 34.4% | 1089.76 |
| 9 | Geneva, Switzerland | 9.8% | 0.108 | 0.011 | 18.6% | 8.75 |
| 10 | Osaka, Japan | 1.2% | 0.038 | -0.017 | 34.5% | 119.34 |
Note: Rankings are based on total green cover percentage. Higher green cover and NDVI values indicate more extensive vegetation. Lower built-up intensity values suggest better integration with natural landscapes. Ecological balance score is a composite metric (higher is better).
Key Findings & Analysis
The satellite data from Q4 2025 reveals striking disparities in green cover among the world's most liveable cities. The green cover ranges from a mere 1.2% in Osaka, Japan, to a commendable 50.6% in Vienna, Austria. The mean green cover stands at 23.3%, with a median of 18.7%, indicating a skewed distribution where a few cities significantly outperform others. Vienna, Sydney, and Auckland lead with green cover percentages of 50.6%, 47.1%, and 37.7% respectively. Conversely, Osaka, Geneva, and Vancouver lag with green cover below 10.9%.
Cities like Vienna and Sydney are setting benchmarks in urban forestry. Vienna's 50.6% green cover is particularly noteworthy, showcasing a robust integration of green spaces within urban planning. Sydney follows closely with 47.1%, highlighting effective urban forestry practices. Auckland, with 37.7%, also demonstrates a strong commitment to maintaining green areas, contributing to its high liveability index.
Significant gaps exist, particularly in cities like Osaka, Geneva, and Vancouver, where green cover is alarmingly low. These cities present clear opportunities for enhancing urban forestry initiatives. Increasing green cover in these areas could not only improve environmental metrics but also enhance residents' quality of life.
The data underscores the critical role of green cover in urban liveability. Cities with higher green cover percentages tend to offer better air quality, reduced urban heat island effects, and improved mental and physical health for residents. For cities with lower green cover, investing in urban forestry could be a pivotal step towards enhancing overall liveability and sustainability.