Safety score
Personal safety, institutional trust, and resilience signals informed by international safety and crime data.
Safety in Calgary73/100
Safety
Safety in Calgary
Calgary's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. Safety in Calgary scores 73/100, placing it in the solid group of the indexed set.
- Last updated
- 2026-05-16
- Data year
- 2025
- Module score
- 73/100
Safety framing
Directional indicator
Safety framing blends violent-crime context, resident perception, and institutional response capacity into a directional orientation.
Verified utility layer
See country emergency profile
Verified country-level emergency contacts attach via the country hub where official publishers have been integrated.
Verified local dataset
Pending integration
Source-backed safety metrics will appear when the platform integrates verified city-level data.
Calgary safety data table
This HTML table mirrors the visible score cards so important comparison data is never trapped in a browser-only chart.
| Metric | Value | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Safety framing | Directional indicator | Use this section as context, not an official measurement. |
| Verified utility layer | See country emergency profile | Where no verified profile exists, the platform shows a transparent fallback rather than guessed values. |
| Verified local dataset | Pending integration | Transparent fallback is shown until then. |
Safety city comparison
A crawlable comparison across every indexed city makes it easy to scan how this module changes between metros.
| City | Score | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Calgary (this page) | 73/100 | Calgary's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Singapore | 95/100 | Singapore is among the safest cities globally, with very low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
| Tokyo | 93/100 | Tokyo scores at the very top globally on safety, with very low violent-crime context, strong institutions, and high resident perception of safety. |
| Kyoto | 93/100 | Kyoto scores very high on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Copenhagen | 92/100 | Copenhagen scores high on safety due to strong public trust, low violent-crime context, and reliable institutional response. |
| Osaka | 92/100 | Osaka scores high on safety, with strong institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Zurich | 91/100 | Zurich is among the safest large European cities, with very low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
| Seoul | 90/100 | Seoul is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context, strong institutional response, and consistent public-space confidence. |
| Taipei | 90/100 | Taipei is among the safer large global cities, with very low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Doha | 90/100 | Doha is among the safer global cities, with very low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Abu Dhabi | 90/100 | Abu Dhabi is among the safer global cities, with very low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Helsinki | 90/100 | Helsinki scores well on safety, with strong institutional response and stable public-safety perception. |
| Wellington | 90/100 | Wellington scores high on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Munich | 89/100 | Munich scores well on safety, with strong institutional response and stable public-safety perception. |
| Amsterdam | 88/100 | Amsterdam scores high on safety, with low violent-crime context and strong everyday public-space confidence. |
| Vienna | 88/100 | Vienna is among the safer large European capitals, with low violent-crime context and consistent everyday public-space confidence. |
| Hong Kong | 88/100 | Hong Kong scores high on safety with low violent-crime context and reliable institutional response across the metro. |
| Dubai | 88/100 | Dubai scores high on safety, with very low violent-crime context and reliable institutional response across the metro. |
| Prague | 88/100 | Prague is among the safer European capitals, with low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Oslo | 88/100 | Oslo scores well on safety, with strong institutional response and steady public-safety planning. |
| Edinburgh | 88/100 | Edinburgh scores well on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Perth | 88/100 | Perth scores well on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Sydney | 87/100 | Sydney is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
| Auckland | 86/100 | Auckland is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
| Lisbon | 86/100 | Lisbon is among the safer European capitals, with low violent-crime context and strong public-life stability. |
| Warsaw | 86/100 | Warsaw is among the safer European capitals, with low violent-crime context and stable resident experience. |
| Shanghai | 86/100 | Shanghai is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Melbourne | 86/100 | Melbourne is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Brisbane | 86/100 | Brisbane is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Riyadh | 86/100 | Riyadh scores well on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Toronto | 84/100 | Toronto is among the safer large North American cities, with low violent-crime context and solid institutional response. |
| Madrid | 84/100 | Madrid is among the safer large European capitals, with low violent-crime context and strong night-time public life. |
| Vancouver | 84/100 | Vancouver is among the safer large North American cities, with low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
| Kigali | 84/100 | Kigali is widely cited as among the safer African capitals, with low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Stockholm | 84/100 | Stockholm scores well on safety overall, with strong institutional response and steady public-safety planning. |
| Hamburg | 84/100 | Hamburg scores well on safety, with strong institutional response and district-level variation. |
| Dublin | 84/100 | Dublin scores well on safety overall, with district-level variation and stable institutional response. |
| Beijing | 84/100 | Beijing scores well on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Berlin | 82/100 | Berlin has solid safety with neighborhood variation. Violent-crime context is comparatively low; opportunistic risks concentrate in transit and night-life areas. |
| Shenzhen | 82/100 | Shenzhen scores well on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Tel Aviv | 82/100 | Tel Aviv scores well on day-to-day safety with stable institutional response. |
| Montevideo | 82/100 | Montevideo scores well on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Rome | 80/100 | Rome is broadly safe with low violent-crime context and tourist-area pickpocketing the most visible practical concern. |
| Milan | 80/100 | Milan is broadly safe with low violent-crime context and property-related opportunistic risks the most visible day-to-day concern. |
| London | 79/100 | London has solid safety with neighborhood variation. Violent-crime context is comparatively low; opportunistic risks are concentrated in transit and tourist hubs. |
| Canberra | 79/100 | Canberra's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Paris | 78/100 | Paris has solid overall safety, with neighborhood variation and tourist-area opportunistic risks more visible than violent crime. |
| Bangkok | 78/100 | Bangkok has solid overall safety with violent-crime context comparatively low and tourist-area opportunistic risks the most visible practical concern. |
| Seattle | 78/100 | Seattle has solid overall safety with neighborhood variation and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. |
| Kuala Lumpur | 78/100 | Kuala Lumpur has solid overall safety with neighborhood variation and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. |
| Brussels | 78/100 | Brussels scores moderately on safety, with stable institutional response and district-level variation. |
| Hanoi | 78/100 | Hanoi scores well on safety, with steady public-safety perception and stable institutional response. |
| Bangalore | 78/100 | Bangalore scores well on safety, with steady public-safety perception and stable institutional response. |
| Cairo | 78/100 | Cairo scores moderately on safety, with tourist-area opportunistic risks the main practical pain point. |
| Addis Ababa | 78/100 | Addis Ababa scores moderately on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Boston | 78/100 | Boston's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Tallinn | 77/100 | Tallinn's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Washington DC | 77/100 | Washington DC's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Adelaide | 77/100 | Adelaide's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Barcelona | 76/100 | Barcelona has solid overall safety, with violent-crime context low and tourist-area opportunistic risks the most visible practical concern. |
| Santiago | 76/100 | Santiago has solid overall safety with neighborhood variation; property-related opportunistic risks remain the main day-to-day concern. |
| Mumbai | 76/100 | Mumbai has solid overall safety with consistent neighborhood experience and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. |
| Ho Chi Minh City | 76/100 | Ho Chi Minh City scores moderately on safety, with tourist-area opportunistic risks the main practical pain point. |
| Istanbul | 76/100 | Istanbul scores moderately on safety, with tourist-area opportunistic risks the main practical pain point. |
| Casablanca | 76/100 | Casablanca scores moderately on safety, with tourist-area opportunistic risks the main practical pain point. |
| Accra | 76/100 | Accra scores moderately on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Panama City | 76/100 | Panama City scores moderately on safety with stable institutional response and district-level variation. |
| Ljubljana | 76/100 | Ljubljana's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Montreal | 76/100 | Montreal's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Fukuoka | 76/100 | Fukuoka's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| New York | 74/100 | New York is mid-pack on safety: violent-crime context has improved over decades but property and incident pressure remain present in dense areas. |
| Quito | 74/100 | Quito scores moderately on safety with district-level variation and active institutional response. |
| Riga | 73/100 | Riga's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Vilnius | 73/100 | Vilnius's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| San Francisco | 72/100 | San Francisco has mid-tier safety with strong neighborhood variation; violent-crime context is comparatively low and property-related risks are visible. |
| Chicago | 72/100 | Chicago has mid-tier safety with strong neighborhood variation; central districts and the Loop are widely stable for daily life. |
| Budapest | 72/100 | Budapest's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Bratislava | 72/100 | Bratislava's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Busan | 72/100 | Busan's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Christchurch | 72/100 | Christchurch's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Austin | 71/100 | Austin's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| San José | 71/100 | San José's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Los Angeles | 70/100 | Los Angeles has mid-tier safety with strong neighborhood variation; resident experience differs widely across districts. |
| Buenos Aires | 70/100 | Buenos Aires has mid-tier safety with neighborhood variation and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. |
| Jakarta | 70/100 | Jakarta has mid-tier safety with neighborhood variation and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. |
| Delhi | 70/100 | Delhi scores moderately on safety, with district-level variation and active institutional response. |
| Zagreb | 70/100 | Zagreb's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Dallas | 69/100 | Dallas's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Athens | 68/100 | Athens's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Bucharest | 68/100 | Bucharest's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Medellín | 68/100 | Medellín's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Muscat | 67/100 | Muscat's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| São Paulo | 66/100 | São Paulo has mid-tier safety with strong neighborhood variation; resident experience differs widely across districts and time of day. |
| Nairobi | 66/100 | Nairobi has mid-tier safety with strong neighborhood variation; resident experience differs widely across districts and time of day. |
| Manila | 66/100 | Manila has mid-tier safety with neighborhood variation and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. |
| Miami | 66/100 | Miami's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Guangzhou | 66/100 | Guangzhou's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Chiang Mai | 66/100 | Chiang Mai's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Belgrade | 65/100 | Belgrade's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Manama | 65/100 | Manama's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Mexico City | 64/100 | Mexico City has mid-tier safety with strong neighborhood variation; resident experience differs widely across districts and time of day. |
| Cape Town | 64/100 | Cape Town has mid-tier safety with strong neighborhood variation; resident experience differs widely across districts and time of day. |
| Bogotá | 64/100 | Bogotá has mid-tier safety with neighborhood variation and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. |
| Lima | 64/100 | Lima has mid-tier safety with neighborhood variation and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. |
| Rio de Janeiro | 64/100 | Rio scores moderately on safety with significant district-level variation and active institutional response. |
| Chengdu | 64/100 | Chengdu's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Kuwait City | 63/100 | Kuwait City's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Rabat | 63/100 | Rabat's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Santo Domingo | 62/100 | Santo Domingo's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Wuhan | 62/100 | Wuhan's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Amman | 62/100 | Amman's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Gaborone | 62/100 | Gaborone's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Tunis | 61/100 | Tunis's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Lagos | 60/100 | Lagos has mid-tier safety with strong neighborhood variation and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. |
| Johannesburg | 60/100 | Johannesburg has mid-tier safety with strong neighborhood variation; resident experience differs widely across districts. |
| Colombo | 60/100 | Colombo's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Phnom Penh | 59/100 | Phnom Penh's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Dakar | 59/100 | Dakar's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Guatemala City | 58/100 | Guatemala City's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Dar es Salaam | 57/100 | Dar es Salaam's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Kampala | 57/100 | Kampala's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
Interpretation
Safety scoring blends violent-crime context, perceived safety, and institutional response capacity. Verified country emergency profiles attach where available. Across the indexed cities the safety average is 76/100, so Calgary is 3 points below the median. Data year 2025; last updated 2026-05-16. Drawn from 4 institutional references.
Read this module with the main open the calgary city profile and the read the scoring methodology page so single-topic pages do not hide tradeoffs across dimensions.
Structured indicators on this page are directional and intended for orientation. Verified datasets are being integrated; official sources should be used for critical decisions.
Sources
4 institutional references inform this view, listed below with reliability notes. Structured indicators on this page are directional and intended for orientation; verified datasets are being integrated and official sources should be used for critical decisions.
- UN-Habitat: World Cities Report 2024
Used as a policy and methodology reference for urban exposure and resilience signals.
- US Environmental Protection Agency: National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Used where United States city comparisons need air-quality benchmark context.
- NASA: NASA POWER
Used as an energy-resource and weather-normalization reference.
- IPCC: AR6 WGII Chapter 6: Cities, settlements and key infrastructure
Used to explain urban climate vulnerability and adaptation scoring logic.
Continue exploring
These links connect module pages back to city, ranking, and sibling topic paths with crawlable href values.
Calgary city profile
Return to the complete Calgary profile with all module scores and source context.
Cost of Living in Calgary
Affordability, essential costs, and day-to-day financial pressure for residents.
Air Quality in Calgary
Health-oriented air-quality conditions with context from WHO, EEA, and EPA benchmarks.
Energy in Calgary
Clean-energy readiness, grid resilience, and solar or efficiency opportunity signals.
Internet Speed in Calgary
Broadband and mobile connectivity quality, latency, and digital-readiness signals for residents and remote workers.
Climate Risk in Calgary
Climate exposure, hazard frequency, and adaptation context for floods, heat, storms, and wildfires.
Overall Intelligence
A balanced ranking of cities across affordability, air quality, clean-energy readiness, and resilience.
Quality of Life
Cities that combine strong services, mobility, safety, clean air, and resilience into a healthy day-to-day profile.