Assessment of Livable City Maturity Levels: Concepts and Case Studies
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article presents a framework for evaluating and developing urban livability by integrating the Urban Sustainability Framework (USF) with a seven-stage model of livable city development to provide guidelines for assessing cities' progress toward livability and sustainability, taking into account diverse urban contexts and development levels. The article reviews existing livability concepts and measurement tools to highlight limitations in managing the complexity and diversity of urban livability dimensions, including infrastructure, environmental sustainability, social inclusivity, economic competitiveness, and governance. Case studies of cities at different development stages are analyzed using the developed model to demonstrate its application in varying contexts. The article also discusses implementation challenges and proposes strategies to address them, emphasizing the importance of stakeholder engagement, data collection, and long-term planning. It includes policy recommendations for integrating the model into urban planning processes, promoting innovation, and fostering inter-city collaboration. The article concludes by outlining future research directions, model improvements, development of stage-specific indicators, and exploration of new technology impacts on urban livability. This integrated approach provides a useful tool for policymakers, urban planners, and researchers in their efforts to create more livable and sustainable cities.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
- The copyright for this article belongs to the Social Research Institute at Chulalongkorn University. However, the views and content within are solely those of the authors.
- The views and opinions expressed in the articles published in the Journal of Social Research and Review, Social Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University, are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the views or responsibilities of the editorial board of the Journal of Social Research and Review, Social Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University. The editorial board does not reserve the rights to reproduction but requires proper citation for referencing.
References
Anciaes, P. R., & Jones, P. (2020). Transport policy for liveability – Valuing the impacts on movement, place, and society. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.11.009
Antognelli, S., & Vizzari, M. (2016). Ecosystem and urban services for landscape livability: A model for quantification of stakeholders' perceived importance. Land Use Policy, 50, 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.023
Asian Development Bank. (2019). Creating livable cities: Regional perspectives. https://www.adb.org/publications/creating-livable-cities
Brovarone, E. V., Scudellari, J., & Staricco, L. (2021). Planning the transition to autonomous driving: A policy pathway towards urban liveability. Cities, 108, 102996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102996
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2019). Global liveability index. https://www.eiu.com/n/the-global-liveability-index-2019
Global Platform for Sustainable Cities. (2018). Urban sustainability framework. 1st ed. World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org//curated/en/339851517836894370/Urban-Sustainability-Framework-1st-ed
Hooper, P., Boruff, B., Beesley, B., Badland, H., & Giles-Corti, B. (2018). Testing spatial measures of public open space planning standards with walking and physical activity health outcomes: Findings from the Australian national liveability study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 171, 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.12.001
Hooper, P., Knuiman, M., Foster, S., & Giles-Corti, B. (2015). The building blocks of a liveable neighbourhood: Identifying the key performance indicators for walking of an operational planning policy in Perth, Western Australia. Health & Place, 36, 173-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.10.005
Kaal, H. (2011). A conceptual history of livability: Dutch scientists, politicians, policy makers and citizens and the quest for a livable city. City, 15(5), 532-547. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2011.595094
Mahmoudi, M., Ahmad, F., & Abbasi, B. (2015). Livable streets: The effects of physical problems on the quality and livability of Kuala Lumpur streets. Cities, 43, 104-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.11.016.
Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308
Norouzian-Maleki, S., Bell, S., Hosseini, S.-B., Faizi, M., & Saleh-Sedghpour, B. (2018). A comparison of neighbourhood liveability as perceived by two groups of residents: Tehran, Iran and Tartu, Estonia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 35, 8-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.08.004
Norouzian-Maleki, S., Bell, S., Hosseini, S. B., & Faizi, M. (2015). Developing and testing a framework for the assessment of neighbourhood liveability in two contrasting countries: Iran and Estonia. Ecological Indicators, 48, 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.033
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). Green growth indicators 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/data/oecd-environment-statistics/green-growth-indicators-edition-2019_c3557fcf-en
Pamer, V. (2019). Urban planning in the most liveable city: Vienna. Urban Research & Practice, 12(3), 285-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2019.1635728.
Paul, A., & Sen, J. (2018). Livability assessment within a metropolis based on the impact of integrated urban geographic factors (IUGFs) on clustering urban centers of Kolkata. Cities, 74, 142-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.11.015
Sasanpour, F. (2017). Livable city: One step towards sustainable development. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 1(3), 13-17. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3673
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2014) Global biodiversity outlook 4 — Summary and conclusions. Montréal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo4/gbo4-summary-en.pdf
Siemens. (2011). Asian green city index: Assessing the environmental performance of Asia’s major cities. München. https://w1.siemens.com.cn/userfiles/AGCI%20Report_EN.pdf
Sintusingha, S., Wu, H., & Li, X. (2017). A Note on the liveability measure in Melbourne. In P.X.W. Zou, J.Sanjayan, M.Alam, & X.Xu (Eds.), Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate, CRIOCM 2017. (pp. 595–603). China: CRIOCM 2017.
Sochacka, B. A., Kenway, S. J., & Renouf, M. A. (2021). Liveability and its interpretation in urban water management: Systematic literature review. Cities, 113, 103154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103154.
Vitale Brovarone, E., Cotella, G., & Staricco, L. (2021). Rural Accessibility in European Regions. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003083740
Wang, Y-J., Chen, Y., Hewitt, C., Ding, W-H., Song, L-C., Ai, W-X., Han, Z-Y., Li, X-C., & Huang, Z-L. (2021). Climate services for addressing climate change: Indication of a climate livable city in China. Advances in Climate Change Research, 12(5), 744-751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2021.07.006
