Deloitte recently asked 1,000 Americans if they would be willing to give up car ownership in favor of something that they are calling "Mobility-as-a-Service." This umbrella moniker is meant to capture everything from public transit and bike shares to Ubers and car rentals.
Here are the results:
What's interesting is how willing young people seem to be to forgo car ownership. (Note: Willing, here, includes people who answered somewhat willing, willing, and very willing.)
It's also doesn't seem to be dependent on geography. Broadly speaking, urbanites are more likely to say that they would be willing to give up owning a car. In this survey, 50% of people in urban areas said that they would be at least somewhat willing, whereas the number drops to 17% for people in rural and suburban areas. But oddly enough, young people in rural and suburban areas are just as willing, if not more willing than their urban counterparts. I wonder why.
This maybe suggests that we are seeing a generational shift in how younger people view car ownership. That, or they haven't started having enough kids yet and their perspective will change as they get older. If I had to guess, I'd say it's a mix of both, but more of the former. Because look at the large spread between the next two cohorts in the above chart. There are some trends here (assuming this data is representative). It's not just about family life.
Also noteworthy is the fact that Canadians are some of the most unwilling people, according to this survey:
Personally, I hate driving. I look forward to the day when most cars drive themselves. So I'd place myself in the very willing camp. What about you?
There are countless rankings of cities out there. And most of them probably don't mean very much. But the concept of a "global city", as coined by Saskia Sassen in the early 90s, is still immensely fascinating to me. And that's because there is, in fact, an order. There are cities that are less and more important to the global economy.
To this end, Resonance Consulting has just released their annual ranking of the world's best cities. And this year, they've introduced something new to their methodology: perception data. For this, they partnered with Ipsos and asked more than 22,000 respondents across 30 countries the following three broad and open-ended questions:
What are the top 3 towns or cities you would most like to live in someday?
What are the top 3 towns or cities you would most like to visit in the next 12 to 24 months?
What 3 towns or cities do you believe currently offer the best job opportunities?
The intent with these questions was to not anchor people to a specific list of places, and to not necessarily anchor people to big global cities. Maybe the best job opportunities are believed to be in small towns that most people aren't thinking about. The result is that thousands of different towns and cities were mentioned during the survey period.
While this didn't necessarily impact the cities and usual suspects that you would expect to see in a ranking like this -- cities like London, New York, and Paris -- it did change certain things and offer some interesting insights. For example, the strong global perception of Sydney helped to move it into the top 10 for the first in the ten-year history of this report.
On the other end of the spectrum, negative sentiment (outside of China) toward Hong Kong caused the city's ranking to drop precipitously. It is now ranked 97th, behind cities like Naples (Italy), Birmingham (UK), and Rochester (US). Singapore, in case you're wondering, is ranked 5th:
Living in a low-density place with lots of greenery and open space can feel like a pretty "green" way to live. Maybe you've even got a little garden where you grow delicious tomatoes. And indeed, a lot of people seem to think this is the case. According to this recent YouGov poll (which surveyed 1,000 Americans), 75% of US adult citizens believe that "it's better for the environment if houses are built farther apart." The number drops slightly to 68% for Democrats, but we're still talking about a clear majority.
Broadly speaking, the perception data also served to remind us that we continue to have a bias toward cities. When people are asked where they want to live, visit, and work, they still think of the world's biggest and most important places. So despite the rise of decentralizing technologies (i.e. Zoom) and the bad things that happened to cities as a result of the pandemic, big cities remain at the center of the global economy.
This is not at all surprising.
Cover photo by Aaron Gilmore on Unsplash
Most experts will tell you that the opposite is, in fact, true. One of the best ways to be green is to live in a high-density urban setting and get as far away as you can from the natural environment so that you don't screw it up. There are multiple reasons for this, but it generally comes down to the fact that cities use land and other resources far more efficiently on a per capita basis. Smaller living spaces, fewer cars, more things that are shared, and so on.
The reason why this isn't so obvious is that per capita thinking is perhaps harder to grasp. Living in the countryside certainly feels more green than living in the middle of New York City. But what if the 8.5 million or so people in New York City suddenly decided to sprawl outward into the countryside to consume more housing (that would then need to be heated and cooled), and then started driving everywhere (in lieu of taking transit, cycling, and walking)?
This would be a less green outcome. It's about the collective here, not what feels nice and green for any one individual.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
