Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 1 Areas in cities under state jurisdiction (except for Riga) having satisfaction with infrastructure and environmental aspects highly above or below the average The maps depict areas in cities under state jurisdiction (except for Riga) where satisfaction with infrastructure and environmental aspects is highly above or below the average indicator of the respective city (if no area is emphasised, satisfaction with the respective aspect does not differ notably among various areas of the city). The areas were defined with the help of Getis-Ord Gi* spatial statistics method and generalized in line with the scale used – 1:250 000. The values are indicated for areas having at least 30 respondents. Basemap – © OpenStreetMap. Legend
Daugavpils C13.1. Use of a car as a mode of transportation on a typical day
D1.11. Satisfaction with the noise level
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 2 D2.8. Feeling safe in own neighbourhood
D3.4. Satisfaction with own neighbourhood
D4.3. Noise mentioned as an important issue in the city
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 3 D4.9. Housing conditions mentioned as an important issue in the city
Jelgava C13.1. Use of a car as a mode of transportation on a typical day
D2.3. Agreement with the statement that the presence of foreigners is good for the city
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 4 D2.11. Agreement with the statement that most people in own neighbourhood are being trusted
D4.10. Road infrastructure mentioned as an important issue in the city, % of respondents (average in Jelgava – 64.8)
D4.9. Housing conditions mentioned as an important issue in the city
Jēkabpils C13.1. Use of a car as a mode of transportation on a typical day, % of respondents (average in Jēkabpils – 57.5)
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 5 C13.7. Walking as a mode of transportation used on a typical day
D1.5. Satisfaction with the state of streets and buildings
D1.8. Satisfaction with the availability of retail shops in the scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (not at all satisfied), average in Jēkabpils – 1.4
D1.10. Satisfaction with the quality of air
D2.8. Feeling safe in own neighbourhood
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 6 D4.3. Noise mentioned as an important issue in the city
Jūrmala C13.3. Use of a train as a mode of transportation on a typical day
D1.1. Satisfaction with public transport in the scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (not at all satisfied), average in Jūrmala – 1.9
D1.8. Satisfaction with the availability of retail shops in the scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (not at all satisfied), average in Jūrmala – 1.8
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 7 D1.9. Satisfaction with schools and other educational facilities in the scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (not at all satisfied), average in Jūrmala – 1.7
D2.7. Feeling safe in the city, in the scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree), average in Jūrmala – 1.9
D2.8. Feeling safe in own neighbourhood, in the scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree), average in Jūrmala – 1.7
D3.2. Satisfaction with the financial situation of own household
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 8 D4.1. Urban safety mentioned as an important issue in the city, % of respondents (average in Jūrmala – 18.5)
D4.4. Public transport mentioned as an important issue in the city, % of respondents (average in Jūrmala – 11.7)
Liepāja C13.5. Use of a public transport as a mode of transportation on a typical day
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 9 C13.6. Use of a bicycle as a mode of transportation on a typical day
D1.4. Satisfaction with cultural facilities such as concert halls, theatres, museums and libraries
D1.5. Satisfaction with the state of streets and buildings
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 10 D1.6. Satisfaction with public spaces such as markets, squares, pedestrian areas
D1.7. Satisfaction with green spaces such as parks and gardens
D1.10. Satisfaction with the quality of air in the scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (not at all satisfied), average in Liepāja – 1.8
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 11 D1.11. Satisfaction with the noise level in the scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (not at all satisfied), average in Liepāja – 1.9
D2.3. Agreement with the statement that the presence of foreigners is good for the city in the scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree), average in Liepāja – 2.4
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 12 D2.5. Agreement with the statement that it is easy to find good housing at a reasonable price in the city
Rēzekne C13.1. Use of a car as a mode of transportation on a typical day, % of respondents (average in Rēzekne – 52.8)
D1.5. Satisfaction with the state of streets and buildings
D1.11. Satisfaction with the noise level in the scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (not at all satisfied), average in Rēzekne – 1.9
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 13 D2.9. Agreement with the statement that the city is committed to fight against climate change (energy efficiency, green transport) in the scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree), average in Rēzekne – 2.2
D4.3. Noise mentioned as an important issue in the city
D4.7. Education and training mentioned as an important issue in the city
Valmiera C13.7. Walking as a mode of transportation used on a typical day, % of respondents (average in Valmiera – 92.1)
D2.8. Feeling safe in own neighbourhood
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 14 D2.11. Agreement with the statement that most people in own neighbourhood are being trusted
Ventspils C13.1. Use of a car as a mode of transportation on a typical day, % of respondents (average in Ventspils – 54.5)
C13.5. Use of a public transport as a mode of transportation on a typical day, % of respondents (average in Ventspils – 46.8)
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 15 D1.1. Satisfaction with public transport in the scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (not at all satisfied), average in Ventspils – 1.8
D2.6. Agreement with the statement that the administrative services of the city help people efficiently
D2.12. Agreement with the statement that the public administration of the city can be trusted
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia Survey Life quality in cities, 2017 16 D3.4. Satisfaction with own neighbourhood