Torn by conflict, the MENA region is not exactly known for its stable living situations. There's no question the majority of the region has seen its share of war zones, security crackdowns, economic crises and failed infrastructure.
But how bad is bad? As more migrants continue taking huge risks and going through great lengths to flee their home countries, the answer is pretty clear. And a new report released this month confirmed that for some, it's as bad as it can get.
The Economist's new liveability report included five Middle Eastern countries in the top 10 most deteriorating liveability scores. To no one's surprise, Damascus comes in with the worst liveability score possible, of 140 — but it's also the most deteriorating, so it's only getting worse.
Libya's Tripoli comes in fifth-least liveable at a score of 136. The capitals of Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain also all saw drastic drops. No Middle Eastern cities were ranked most liveable.
Keep in mind, the report excluded cities that are in even worse condition like Baghdad or Kabul, places that have been in turmoil before the previous liveability report five years ago. Damascus was considered a tourist destination until just recently.
"The survey is designed to address a range of cities or business centres that people might want to live in or visit," the report wrote. "Although few could currently argue that Damascus or Kiev are likely to attract visitors, their inclusion in the survey reflects cities that were deemed relatively stable just a few years ago."
But not all of the news is bad for the region — both Dubai and Kuwait City were included in the most improved cities in the past five years. Dubai, with a score of 75, saw an increase of 3.4 points while Kuwait City, with a score of 83, improved by 2.5 points.
By Hayat Norimine
