Arithmetic never was my strong suit.Nor was logic, despite your pretensions!
For example Dublin shows up as people being very satisfied with the noise level. From personal experience I can say that Groningen, ranked slightly lower on that list, is tremendously quieter than Dublin. It's been over a decade since I visited, but this noise map doesn't suggest it's become any quieter: https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/2023/03/18/tyres-road-surfaces-and-speed-being-considered-in-noise-reduction-plans/ Similar notes clearly apply to many of the categories.Yes, this is the point that I am making. The method we (you and I) apply here is anecdotal, but let's not underestimate this, because it *is* objective. We want a city to be objectively livable, on your example quieter, not quiet in the opinion of locals who have suffered noise for so long that they don't notice it any longer and it does not occur to them to complain about it. In some places the polled people may think à la, "Oh, this is the EU asking questions. I better make my home town look fantastic" just like Russians who see on TV that their economy is doing brilliant, so it is not worth a mention that they have to burn their boots and pieces of old furniture to warm up their home.
It's based on polling, asking what people think. Isn't livability objectively measurable, such as number of kindergartens/schools per parents etc?I partially disagree with that. At best you might leave things on the table, at worst you'd risk measuring in the wrong direction. Asking people could act as a sanity check for whether something like the number of kindergartens/schools per parents actually does what you think it does.
This particularly applies to the Russian minority, which is relatively much larger in Estonia and Latvia than in Lithuania.This is the correct answer. (Everything else is rather irrelevant.)