September 30, 2026
Quality of life in Swiss cities
Quality of Life in Swiss Cities
Beatriz Oyadomari de Sousa; Adriana Camargo De Brito
DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602714
Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.
Summary
The growth of urban areas intensified the need to evaluate quality of life as a tool to analyze population well-being. Given the limitations of global rankings that do not make their data available, a study used official and open databases to ensure transparency and replicability. The objective was to develop a ranking to classify five Swiss cities (Zurich, Bern, Basel, Lausanne, and Geneva), based on 2023 data. Variables were selected from the OECD’s well-being dimensions, adapted to the Swiss context. After data processing and normalization, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods (WSM, TOPSIS, and VIKOR) were applied, combined with Shannon Entropy to define variable weights, minimizing interpretive biases. Spearman correlation showed strong convergence between the methods, demonstrating the consistency and robustness of the evaluation. The results of the three methods were synthesized into a global ranking, which positioned Zurich in first place, followed by Basel, Bern, Geneva, and Lausanne. The research established a replicable and well-founded model, offering support for urban management.
Keywords: Swiss cities; City statistics; Urban quality of life; Ranking; Multicriteria decision making.
1. Introduction
Urban areas represent the main centers of economic, social, and political development of a country. However, the growing population concentration in cities intensifies challenges associated with urban development (Răducan et al., 2025). Given this scenario, the assessment of quality of life emerges as an essential instrument for understanding and measuring the well-being of the population (Ríos-Vásquez & de la Fuente-Mella, 2023).
The World Health Organization [WHO] defines quality of life as an individual’s perception of their position in life, influenced by cultural context, value systems, expectations, and personal goals (Răducan et al., 2025). This perception can vary across cultures and over time, aligning with social priorities (MacLean & Salama, 2019). Academic literature indicates that quality of life is composed of two pillars: subjective well-being, which refers to personal satisfaction, and objective well-being, which encompasses concrete indicators, such as socioeconomic ones (Das, 2008; Patil & Sharma, 2022).
In Switzerland, recent data from the study “Stadt-Land-Monitor” (Hermann et al., 2025) indicate that, although the majority of Swiss people positively assess their quality of life, the country’s growth generates critical challenges. Concerns about housing shortages and traffic are examples of urban tensions that affect citizens’ well-being. While this data reflects the subjective pillar, this study focuses on the analysis of the objective pillar of quality of life, using concrete and statistical indicators.
The measurement of these aspects often occurs through evaluation indices that classify cities in dimensions such as quality of life, urban mobility, and socioeconomic development (Tischer & Polette, 2019). However, global rankings like Mercer (2024) and IMD (2025) present limitations for a replicable scientific analysis, as their raw data are not open. Furthermore, many of these rankings are based on subjective weights or opinion surveys, which can introduce a global bias that ignores local cultural contexts (MacLean & Salama, 2019). Although the IMD index addresses well-being, its main focus lies on technological infrastructure and digital perception, which differs from the multidimensional approach to quality of life (De Jong et al., 2015; Răducan et al., 2025).
Given these limitations, the present research adopts an approach that prioritizes transparency, verifiability, and replicability. The selection of reference indicators and cities (Tischer & Polette, 2019) is addressed through the use of official and open databases. The choice of indicators is based on the quality of life model of the Swiss Federal Statistical Office (FSO, 2025), which, although based on the well-being dimensions of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], has been expanded to include specific aspects of the Swiss urban reality, such as mobility, infrastructure, and leisure. To support the statistical analysis, the “City Statistics” database (FSO, 2024) is used, which integrates the European Eurostat project, ensuring the standardization and quality of Swiss official statistics (FSO, 2026a). The selection of cities for study, including Zurich, Bern, Basel, Lausanne, and Geneva, is justified by their presence in international rankings and their demographic representativeness, concentrating half of the Swiss urban population (Swiss Confederation, 2023).
The need for a model based on official and objective statistics, capable of measuring well-being in a multidimensional way and mitigating interpretative biases, justifies the relevance of this study. Thus, the objective of this work is to develop an open ranking for the main Swiss cities, based on the official database “City Statistics” (FSO, 2026b), with the purpose of measuring well-being in a multidimensional way.
2. Material and Methods
The present research adopted a quantitative approach, of an exploratory and descriptive nature, structured as a multiple case study. The objective was to carry out a comparative analysis of urban quality of life, focusing on the elaboration of a ranking for five Swiss cities: Zurich, Bern, Basel, Lausanne, and Geneva. The evaluation was based on official indicators, extracted from open databases, to ensure the objectivity and replicability of the well-being measurement.
The data used were obtained from the “City Statistics” database (FSO, 2026b), maintained by the Swiss Federal Statistical Office (FSO). The collection took place via the interactive platform “Swiss Stats Explorer” (FSO, 2026c), where filters were applied to select the cities, the period, and the variables of interest. The resulting tables were exported in Excel format (.xlsx) for subsequent processing. All data were open and anonymized, in compliance with Swiss data protection legislation (Swiss Confederation, 2022).
The selection of indicators was based on the FSO quality of life model (2025), which, although grounded in the well-being dimensions of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], was expanded to include specific axes of Swiss urban reality, such as mobility, infrastructure, and leisure. The original model contemplated 11 dimensions, to which two dimensions of economic and demographic context were added. Initially, 30 indicators were selected, broken down into 56 variables.
In the selection process of indicators, within the “Culture and Leisure” dimension, the scope of the original indicator for demand for museums and theaters was expanded to include the demand for cinemas. This decision aimed to ensure the internal coherence of the dimension, as other indicators already encompassed cinema in their metrics, and the availability of specific data allowed for a refinement of cultural measurement.
The data processing was carried out using the Python programming language, in the “Google Colab Research” environment, with the aid of the pandas and numpy libraries. Initially, the database was loaded in Excel format, followed by a structural cleaning that included the removal of headers, non-informative footers, and the exclusion of rows and columns with missing data. Indicators without coverage for the year 2023 were discarded, resulting in a final set of 45 variables.
Among the relevant exclusions, the Infrastructure and Services dimension was removed due to the absence of data for the selected period. The “Average taxable income (in CHF)” indicator was also discarded, aligning with the perspective that income, while necessary, is not sufficient to measure well-being in isolation (Goerlich & Reig, 2021). Variables with gaps, such as noise pollution and green areas, and “Theater visits” (due to the absence of records for Geneva), were also suppressed.
Additionally, the variable names were standardized, including the translation from German and English with the aid of artificial intelligence tools, followed by manual review. The feasibility of dimensional reduction was investigated through Principal Component Analysis (PCA), with a Pearson correlation analysis. However, the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity indicated the infeasibility of PCA, as the reduced sample dimension (five cities) was insufficient to guarantee the statistical robustness required for variable reduction.
Due to the infeasibility of PCA, the methodological strategy was directed towards Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM), based on the approach proposed by Ye et al. (2022). This methodology integrated the Shannon Entropy Method for weight assignment with three MCDM algorithms, aiming for an evaluation of urban quality of life based on objective and mathematically robust criteria.
For the determination of the weights of the 45 variables, the Shannon Entropy Method was adopted. This technique defines the importance of each indicator based on its ability to provide information to the system, measured by the dispersion of the raw data (Ye et al., 2022). The calculation of the entropy (ej) for each indicator j and the final weight (wj) of each variable were performed according to the mathematical formulations described in the original work.
The 45 variables were classified according to their functional polarity in relation to urban well-being, defining benefit variables (value 1) and cost variables (value -1), according to Ye et al. (2022). Nationality variables were excluded to avoid interpretive biases. After this categorization, the data were subjected to Min-Max linear normalization, which uses these polarities to convert variables of different units into a common scale between 0 and 1, following the specific equations for benefit and cost variables presented in the original study.
Statistical processing and multicriteria modeling were based on the approach proposed by Ye et al. (2022). For this purpose, a triple aggregation strategy was adopted using the Weighted Sum Method (WSM), TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), and VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija i Kompromisno Resenje) methods. The application of these algorithms was carried out using the pymcdm library (Kizielewicz et al., 2023). The final score for WSM, the proximity coefficient for TOPSIS, and the final index for VIKOR were calculated using the respective mathematical formulations detailed in the original work.
To verify the correlation between the rankings generated by the methods, Spearman’s Correlation was calculated, which is suitable for ordinal data. The consolidation of the global ranking was performed by the arithmetic mean of the classifications obtained in the three algorithms (WSM, TOPSIS, and VIKOR), a procedure justified by the strong convergence shown between the methods, ensuring a more robust and balanced final result.
During the preparation of this work, artificial intelligence tools (ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepL) were used to assist in the translation of terms and texts originally presented in German and English, as well as in the standardization of city names and indicators. Additionally, the tools provided methodological support in data organization and the application of exploratory statistical techniques. The analytical procedure was defined, executed, and validated by the author, who assumes full responsibility for the final content.
3. Results and Discussion
The initial stage of the research focused on consolidating and processing the dataset, resulting in a final “dataset” composed of forty-three variables. This process involved the exclusion of specific dimensions and indicators, such as ‘Infrastructure and Services’ and ‘Average Taxable Income’, due to the absence of consistent data or inadequacy for isolated well-being measurement, as argued by Goerlich and Reig (2021). The removal of nationality indicators was also carried out, aiming to mitigate potential interpretive biases and ensure that the ranking was based on objective quality of life criteria, aligned with the study’s scope. This standardization was crucial to ensure comparability between the five Swiss cities analyzed, eliminating distortions arising from gaps in official data or sociopolitical criteria.
The verification of the feasibility of dimensional reduction, through Principal Component Analysis (PCA), revealed that the approach was not statistically robust for the sample in question. Although the Pearson correlation heatmap indicated significant associations between several indicators, especially in the dimensions of labor market and education, the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity did not validate the adequacy of the matrix for PCA. The test result, with a Chi-Square statistic of negative infinity and a P-value of one, accompanied by a zero determinant error warning, confirmed the singularity of the matrix. This phenomenon occurred because the number of variables (fifty-six initially) exceeded the limited number of observations (five cities), making the extraction of stable components unfeasible and justifying the methodological transition to Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM).
Shannon Entropy Weighting
With the decision matrix properly structured, the Shannon Entropy Method was applied to objectively determine the weights of the forty-three variables, according to the approach of Ye et al. (2022). This technique, which differs from methods that use subjective weights, assigns greater importance to indicators that show greater dispersion in the raw data, reflecting their ability to discriminate performance among cities. The calculated percentage weights revealed that the indicator ‘Economically active people’ obtained the highest weighting, with approximately 4.83%, followed by ‘Percentage of employed in the secondary economic sector’, with about 4.56%. These results indicate that the dynamism of the labor market and the local productive structure are the factors that most distinguish the Swiss cities evaluated.
Other indicators with significant weights included ‘Public transport displacements’, with approximately 4.29%, and educational levels, such as ‘Population aged twenty-five to sixty-four years with secondary school level II as the highest level of education’ (about 4.07%) and ‘Students in higher education institutions’ (approximately 4.06%). The high weighting of these factors underscores that the main differences in urban quality of life among Swiss metropolises lie in educational opportunities and the efficiency of mobility systems. The Shannon Entropy method, by identifying these indicators with greater variability, established them as the criteria with the highest discriminatory power for constructing the ranking.
In contrast, variables such as ‘Percentage of employees in the tertiary sector of the economy’ and ‘Motorized individual transport displacements’ showed the lowest weights, with approximately 1.07% and 1.11%, respectively. This low weighting suggests that these dimensions are more homogeneous among the analyzed Swiss cities, possessing reduced discriminatory power for the formation of the final ranking. The objective distribution of weights, determined by Shannon Entropy, is fundamental to the model’s reliability, as it ensures that the final index prioritizes nuances where cities indeed exhibit significant contrasts, offering practical support for urban decision-making by directing investments to areas with greater potential for differential impact.
Grouping and Analysis of Weights by Conceptual Dimension
The analysis of the indicator weights was deepened through grouping into the conceptual dimensions that structure the quality of life model of the Swiss Federal Statistical Office (FSO, 2025). Although the original reference model predicted thirteen dimensions, the ‘Infrastructure and Services’ dimension was discontinued due to the absence of consolidated and homogeneous secondary data for the analyzed period. The consolidation of weights by dimension, obtained by the algebraic sum of the percentages of the variables in each axis, allowed for an integrated view of the behavior of the main thematic areas.
The ‘Economic Context’ dimension assumed the greatest relevance in the model, concentrating 24.62% of the total weight with nine indicators, resulting in an average weight of 2.74% per indicator. This finding reinforces that the greatest statistical differences between the studied cities are found in the composition of the labor market and local productive forces. Following this, ‘Culture and Leisure’ (14.52% with six indicators and an average weight of 2.42%) and ‘Mobility’ (13.58% with seven indicators and an average weight of 1.94%) stood out, together accounting for more than 28% of the captured variation, evidencing the importance of these axes for urban quality of life.
The ‘Education’ dimension, despite having a cumulative weight of 9.62%, registered the highest average weight per indicator (3.21%), with three variables, followed by ‘Income and Jobs’ (9% with three indicators and an average weight of 3.00%). This highlights the high discriminatory power of variables related to qualifications and professional opportunities. In contrast, ‘Housing Conditions’ (4.10% with three indicators and an average weight of 1.37%) and ‘Environmental Quality’ (1.19% with one indicator and an average weight of 1.19%) obtained the lowest cumulative weights. This lower weighting in Shannon Entropy does not imply irrelevance, but rather low dispersion in the raw data, indicating that housing services and environmental parameters are relatively homogeneous and standardized among Swiss metropolises, which limits their differentiation power in the ranking.
Aggregation of results
The application of different multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, WSM, TOPSIS, and VIKOR, along with Shannon Entropy for objective weight determination, allowed for a comparative analysis of the urban performance of Swiss cities from various analytical perspectives, according to the methodology of Ye et al. (2022). Each method offers a distinct logic for ranking, revealing nuances about the strengths and weaknesses of each urban center.
Using the WSM (Weighted Sum Method), which sums the weighted scores of the indicators, Zurich consolidated its position in first place with a score of 0.266136. Basel came in second with 0.200780, and Bern came in third with 0.200178. Geneva occupied the fourth position with 0.171219, and Lausanne the fifth with 0.161687. The proximity of the scores between Bern and Basel suggests that both have quantitatively very similar indicator structures in the overall accumulation, indicating a fairly balanced overall average performance between them.
The TOPSIS method (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), which evaluates the proximity of cities to a positive ideal solution and a negative ideal solution, showed an inversion in the intermediate positions. Zurich maintained the first position with a proximity coefficient (Ci) of 0.574402. Bern maintained the second position with Ci of 0.401586, surpassing Basel, which remained in third place with Ci of 0.398582. Geneva and Lausanne maintained the fourth and fifth positions, with Ci of 0.313113 and 0.268851, respectively. Bern’s better performance in this method indicates greater efficiency in moving away from critical indicators and approaching urban excellence values in a more balanced way.
Finally, the VIKOR method (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija | Kompromisno Resenje), which seeks a compromise solution and is more rigorous with cities that present bottlenecks in specific indicators, also ranked Zurich first, with a Qi index of 0.081459. Basel regained second place with a Qi of 0.319007, while Geneva reached third place with a Qi of 0.424167. Bern fell to fourth place with a Qi of 0.688925, and Lausanne remained last with a Qi of 1.000000. Bern’s regret index (Ri) (0.047899) revealed vulnerabilities in isolated indicators that penalized its final ranking, while Geneva demonstrated a more resilient performance from the compromise perspective, surpassing Bern in this specific methodology.
The synthesis of the results obtained by the three methods demonstrated a remarkable consistency at the extremes of the ranking. Zurich maintained the first position in all evaluations, while Lausanne remained in the last. The intermediate positions, however, showed variations, with Bern oscillating between second and fourth place, Basel between second and third place, and Geneva fluctuating between third and fourth position. This variation in intermediate positions between the TOPSIS and VIKOR methods indicates that the cities exhibit distinct behaviors according to the logic of the applied algorithm, confirming that multicriteria analysis is capable of capturing varied nuances of urban quality of life that a simple ranking would not reveal.
Correlation between the methods
To verify the agreement between the rankings generated by the WSM, TOPSIS, and VIKOR methods, Spearman’s correlation was calculated. The results revealed coefficients of 0.9 between WSM and TOPSIS, and also between WSM and VIKOR, indicating a strong central tendency in the classification. The relationship between TOPSIS and VIKOR showed a slightly lower index of 0.7. These values confirm that, although there is substantial convergence between the rankings, the results are not identical, which ratifies that the methods evaluate urban performance from different perspectives.
The correlation of 0.7 between TOPSIS and VIKOR, in particular, demonstrates that the hierarchy of cities is sensitive to the different calculation logics of each algorithm. This variation reinforces the importance of employing a multicriteria approach to capture data nuances, as suggested by Ye et al. (2022). The joint use of these methods allows for a more complete understanding of the cities’ performance, mitigating the influence of distortions that could arise from the application of a single evaluation model.
Consolidated global ranking
With the consistency of the methods confirmed by Spearman’s correlation, the consolidated global ranking was elaborated. For this purpose, the arithmetic mean of the classifications obtained in the three algorithms (WSM, TOPSIS, and VIKOR) was adopted, a procedure justified by the strong convergence evidenced between the methods. The union of the different views allowed for a more robust final result, which reduces the influence of distortions specific to a single algorithm and offers a balanced view of urban performance.
The consolidation of the rankings confirmed the model’s stability at its extremes. Zurich maintained absolute leadership, consistently being the city with the best urban performance across all methodologies, with an average ranking of one. Lausanne, in turn, consistently occupied the last position, with an average ranking of five. The global ranking defined the intermediate positions as follows: Basel consolidated itself in second place with an average of 2.333333, followed by Bern in third with an average of three. Geneva stabilized in fourth position with an average of 3.666667.
Bern, despite achieving an excellent result with the TOPSIS method, ranked third in the overall average, influenced by specific indicators that penalized its score in the VIKOR method. Geneva, in turn, stabilized in fourth position, completing the hierarchy of the main Swiss cities analyzed. However, an important methodological limitation is recognized, related to the size of the sample universe, composed of only five cities. The application of Shannon Entropy in reduced samples requires interpretive caution, as the measurement of entropy and statistical variability is sensitive to the range of data with few observations. In scenarios like this, punctual variations in a single city can amplify the weight of a certain indicator or smooth out discrepancies that would behave differently in a larger sample set. Therefore, the weights and rankings obtained strictly reflect the context and specific variability of these five major Swiss metropolises within the analyzed time frame.
In summary, the research established a replicable and well-founded analysis model for assessing the quality of urban life in Swiss cities. The integration of multi-criteria methods, with objective weighting by Shannon Entropy, allowed for mapping the areas of concern and the competitive advantages of each city, delivering a diagnosis based on statistical evidence and the real variability of indicators. The results confirmed Zurich as a consistent leader and Lausanne as the last placed, while the intermediate positions revealed important nuances about the performance of Basel, Bern, and Geneva, responding to the objective of developing a transparent and robust ranking for the main Swiss cities.
4. Conclusion
This study was dedicated to developing an open ranking for the main Swiss cities, using the official “City Statistics” database from 2023, with the purpose of measuring well-being multidimensionally. It was found that, after data consolidation and processing, a set of forty-three variables was established for the analysis. Objective weighting by Shannon Entropy revealed that the dynamism of the labor market, with indicators such as ‘Economically active persons’ and ‘Percentage of employed in the secondary economic sector’, and education, with ‘Population aged twenty-five to sixty-four with upper secondary education’ and ‘Students in higher education institutions’, were the factors that most distinguished the cities. The application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods (WSM, TOPSIS, and VIKOR) demonstrated strong convergence in the rankings, as evidenced by Spearman correlation. The consolidated global ranking positioned Zurich in first place, followed by Basel, Bern, Geneva, and Lausanne, establishing a replicable and transparent model that offers an evidence-based statistical diagnosis for urban management.
However, an important methodological limitation is recognized concerning the sample size, composed of only five cities. The application of Shannon Entropy in reduced samples requires interpretative caution, as the measurement of entropy and statistical variability is sensitive to the amplitude of data with few observations, potentially amplifying the weight of a certain indicator or smoothing discrepancies. The weights and rankings obtained strictly reflect the context and specific variability of these five major Swiss metropolises within the analyzed time frame. For future work, it is suggested to explore weighted consolidation techniques for multicriteria methods, where the weights of each algorithm are derived from the degree of agreement between the rankings, and to expand the sample universe to include other Swiss cities, in order to improve the robustness and generalization of the model.
Bibliographic References
Das, D. (2008). Urban quality of life: A case study of Guwahati. Social indicators research 88(2): 297-310.
De Jong, M.; Joss, S.; Schraven, D.; Zhan, C.; Weijnen, M. 2015. Sustainable-smart-resilient-low carbon-eco-knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner production 109(2015): 25-38.
Federal Statistical Office [FSO]. 2024. City Statistics – Quality of life in the cities: A brief overview. Neuchâtel: FSO. Disponível em: <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/asset/en/30206410> . Acesso em: 15 jan. 2026.
Federal Statistical Office [FSO]. 2025. Quality of Life Indicators. Disponível em: <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/cross-sectional-topics/city-statistics/indicators-quality-life.html>. Acesso em 19 set. 2025.
Federal Statistical Office [FSO]. 2026a. Quality commitment. Disponível em: <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/fso/quality-commitment.html> Acesso em 19 fev. 2026.
Federal Statistical Office [FSO]. 2026b. City Statistics: Ausgewählte Variablen nach Städten und Agglomerationen 2020. Swiss Stats Explorer. Disponível em: <https://dv.stats.swiss/?chartId=b4b7ed7a-9937-4e29-ac80-0f8696eb7c26>. Acesso em: 27 jan. 2026.
Federal Statistical Office [FSO]. 2026c. Swiss Stats Explorer. Disponível em <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/services/research/swiss-stats-explorer.html>. Acesso em 04 jan. 2026.
Hermann, M.; Rohner, N.; Stückelberger, S. 2025. Stadt-Land-Monitor 2025: Studienbericht. Zurique: Sotomo. Disponível em:<https://sotomo.ch/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/StadtLandMonitor2025_DE.pdf> . Acesso em: 5 fev. 2026.
Institute for Management Development [IMD]. 2025. IMD Smart City Index 2025 Report. Disponível em: <https://imd.widen.net/s/psdrsvpbk7/imd_smart_city_2025_report>. Acesso em 19 set. 2025.
MacLean, L.; Salama, A. M. 2019. Towards a context specific and multidimensional quality of urban life model. Open House International 44(1): 25-33.
Mercer. 2024. Quality of Living City Ranking. Disponível em: <https://www.mercer.com/insights/total-rewards/talent-mobility-insights/quality-of-living-city-ranking/>. Acesso em 19 set. 2025.
Patil & Sharma, 2022 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]
Ríos-Vásquez, G.; de la Fuente-Mella, H. 2023. Mathematical Analysis and Modeling of the Factors That Determine the Quality of Life in the City Councils of Chile. Mathematics 11(5): 1218.
Răducan, R.; Lozsa, J., Vîrga, D.; Matichescu, M. 2025. New Integrative Model of the Quality of Urban Life: A Systematic Review. Social Indicators Research 179: 895–921.
Swiss Confederation. 20
Swiss Confederation. 2023. Urban and spatial development in Switzerland. Disponível em: <https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/urban-and-spatial-development>. Acesso em 19 set. 2025.
Tischer, V.; Polette, M. 2019. Sistema de avaliação de cidades de referência em transportes e mobilidade urbana sustentável. Cadernos Metrópole 21(45): 481–509.
Article originating from the Final Course Project of the Specialization in Data Science and Analytics of the MBA USP/Esalq
To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform