city liveability index vs economic indicators. happy?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/canadas-cities-score-poorly-on-economic-rankings/article2306330/

Canadian cities often do well in international rankings of livability. For example, Vancouver sits fifth, tied with Dusseldorf, Germany, on consulting firm Mercer’s latest rankings, behind Vienna, Zurich, Auckland, and Munich. Ottawa and Toronto make the top 20. Montreal is 22nd.

But fresh air, green space and bike paths appear to have little to do with economic dynamism.

-----------

http://www.mercer.com/qualityoflivingpr#city-rankings


Mercer Quality of Living Survey - Worldwide Rankings, 2011
Rank City Country
1 Vienna Austria
2 Zurich Switzerland
3 Auckland New Zealand
4
Munich
Germany
5
Düsseldorf
Germany
5
Vancouver
Canada
7 Frankfurt Germany
8 Geneva Switzerland
9 Bern Switzerland
9 Copenhagen Denmark
11 Sydney Australia
12 Amsterdam Netherlands
13 Wellington New Zealand
14 Ottawa Canada
15 Toronto Canada
16 Hamburg Germany
17 Berlin Germany
18 Melbourne Australia
19 Luxembourg Luxembourg
20 Stockholm Sweden
21 Perth Australia
22 Brussels Belgium
22 Montreal Canada

---------------

D - third concept. HAPPINESS - a mix of the 2, kinda, courtesy of the Buddhist nation of Bhutan.

Background

The Royal Government of Bhutan in 2005 made the decision to develop GNH indicators in order to move the concept of GNH from the point of academic discourse to a measurable one. The indicators aim to check whether programmes and policies are consistent with the values of GNH. The government intends to create conditions for situations to be better-assessed and for policy-makers to be better-informed in taking appropriate measures for actual implementation of GNH policy & programmes. So, since the beginning of 2005 the Centre for Bhutan Studies (CBS) involved nine researchers in developing the GNH indicators. In carrying out their responsibility to develop the indicators, apart from literature reviews CBS has had a continuous process of consultations at various levels ranging from academics to secretaries and directors of RGOB to Bhutanese citizens.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/bhutan/8355028/Bhutans-Gross-National-Happiness-index.html

It was first proposed in 1972 by Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the country's former King.
King Wangchuk said that instead of relying on Gross Domestic Product as the best indicator of Bhutan's progress, it should instead consider its "Gross National Happiness."
That was to be measured by its peoples' sense of being well-governed, their relationship with the environment, satisfaction with the pace of economic development, a sense of cultural and national belonging.

D -aside- this can allow a nation to offset the 'brain drain'.
The high return rates of Bhutanese graduates studying abroad suggests there is something to "Gross National Happiness": most return home, even though salaries are significantly lower than overseas, Mr Verma pointed out.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html

D - economic indicators without happiness would be a Phyrric victory.
Though I do understand the importance of productivity and economic growth. Just not on an unsustainable level. Though how any growth powered by fossil fuels can lay any claim to being sustainable is beyond me.
Aside- If 10% of China's 'growth' is offset by environmental degradation and pollution results, but workers' wages (and so inflation) is dictated by this growth that incorporates these negative externalities, then isn't a model that ignores such factors uncompetitive with an economic platform that does? After all, unsustainable growth prices one right out of the marketplace, essentially subsidizing the damage sorta.