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 significant disparities in green cover among the world's most liveable cities. The range of green cover, from 1.2% in Osaka to 50.6% in Vienna, underscores a stark contrast. The mean green cover stands at 23.3%, while the median is slightly lower at 18.7%, indicating a skewed distribution with a few cities having exceptionally high green cover.
Vienna, Sydney, and Auckland lead in urban forestry with green cover percentages of 50.6%, 47.1%, and 37.7% respectively. These cities exemplify successful integration of green spaces within urban environments, likely contributing to their high liveability rankings. In contrast, Osaka, Geneva, and Vancouver lag significantly with green cover percentages of 1.2%, 9.8%, and 10.9% respectively. This suggests substantial room for improvement in these cities.
The NDVI statistics, with a range from 0.038 to 0.279 and a mean of 0.171, further highlight the variation in vegetation health and density across these cities. The built-up intensity, ranging from -0.089 to 0.022 with a mean of -0.023, indicates that most cities have more green spaces than built-up areas, though the negative mean suggests a general trend towards urbanization.
These findings imply that cities with higher green cover, like Vienna and Sydney, likely benefit from improved air quality, reduced urban heat island effects, and enhanced resident well-being. Conversely, cities with lower green cover, such as Osaka and Geneva, may face challenges related to environmental sustainability and resident quality of life. Addressing these gaps through targeted urban forestry initiatives could significantly enhance the liveability of these urban areas.