10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0376, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0376 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [10/01/2023].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Urban Liveability
ENRIQUE ALISTE
University of Chile, Chile
Urban liveability must be understood as an
interdisciplinary logic and practice. Early
discussions of the concept defined it by its
constituent materials, the physical character-
istics like site conditions and infrastructure
that determine the way of life and well-being
of the inhabitants of a city, whereas later
conceptions sustain more complex notions of
cultural perspectives and how they determine
urban liveability.
Research attempting to measure quality of
life through data, including sociotechnical
approaches, public health and biopolitical
focuses, the contributions from infrastructure
development (from classic urbanization to
more urban green spaces), greater ecosystem
services, and urban services, among oth-
ers, has helped to expand the spectrum of
approaches, frameworks, and analysis used
to discuss liveability in general.
Various methodological proposals for the
creation of benchmarks and indicators, and
city rankings (normally done by consulting
companies), also highlight the concept of
urban liveability as a factor of great impor-
tance for real estate development. However,
as real estate development has increased,
it has also caused unexpected effects, such
as increased gentrification, gated commu-
nities, and urban sprawl into the periphery
(peri-urbanization) in cities around the
world.
Planners, investors, and decision-makers
have different interpretations of the con-
cept of urban liveability, which creates a
series of transformations not only in urban
The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies. Edited by Anthony Orum.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0376
morphology, but more importantly in the
scale and size of urban centers and the level
and range of services provided. This arguably
results in various pathologies and different
forms of integration/disintegration in the
liveability of urban areas.
Pacione (1990) carried out an extensive
review of the concept and its implications. He
noted its international and interdisciplinary
importance, and concluded, among other
things, that the geographical challenge of
the concept is the convergence of differing
criteria.
Therefore, urban liveability can be under-
stood as a perceived notion of well-being and
social cohesion among residents of an urban
area. This is produced by the confluence
of the material conditions of architecture
and urban design, and access to goods and
services (broadly speaking social services,
property and public infrastructure, health
services, environmental and cultural ser-
vices, among others) which support a healthy
and sustainable lifestyle, and give residents
this perceived notion of liveability (Pitman,
Daniels, and Ely 2015; Villanueva et al. 2015;
Norouzian-Maleki et al. 2015; Revell and
Anda 2014; de Haan et al. 2014; Badland et al.
2014; Teo 2014; Kraftl 2014; Sepe and Pitt
2013; Newton 2012; Holden and Scerri 2012;
Vine, Buys, and Aird 2012; Ruth and Franklin
2014; Antognelli and Vizzari 2016).
Recent work in this field includes the
definition and measurement of variables
which are used to define liveability by car-
tographic methods (Cheshmehzangi 2015),
the identification of sustainable conditions
(Gough 2015), and the possibilities of pro-
moting walkable streets (Hooper et al. 2015;
Andrews et al. 2012), all studies which
use improved forms of assessment such

2 URBAN LIVEABILIT Y
as indicators and integrated methods. The
increasing importance and value of open
public spaces shows the value placed on
environmental concepts and ecostemic ser-
vices in urban liveability (Villanueva et al.
2015; Badland et al. 2014), along with green
infrastructure and the challenge of climate
change (Pitman, Daniels, and Ely 2015).
Badland et al. (2014) emphasize the social
determinants of public health, and also make
significant advances in identifying indica-
tors of liveability, as well as the diversity
and complexity of the criteria surrounding
this concept. They identify 11 domains con-
tributing to the health and welfare of the
population: crime and safety, educational
services, employment and income, social
security and health services, housing, cul-
tural and recreational services, locally grown
food and other goods, natural environment,
public open spaces, transportation, and local
democratic participation and social cohesion.
This concept of liveability can undoubtedly
contribute to a greater understanding of the
meaning of well-being in urban areas, but it
does replicate patterns of urban development
which rarely take into consideration cultural,
historical, political, and social differences
around the world. As noted in Badland et al.
(2014) most studies of urban liveability priv-
ilege data gathered in countries whose gross
domestic product (GDP) is relatively high,
principally in the Global North. In countries
whose traditions, resources, and historical
urban forms differ greatly from the Global
North (regions which are traditionally known
as peripheral or disadvantaged) these types
of conceptual constructions can generate
processes in which the use of urban liveability
can become paradoxical, resulting in the cre-
ation of nonuseful or damaging benchmarks
in different social and cultural contexts.
SEE ALSO: Gated Communities (CIDs);
Gentrification; Peri-Urbanization; Real Estate
10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0376, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0376 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [10/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Development; Social Cohesion; Sprawl; Urban
Design; Urban Morphology/Urban Form
REFERENCES
Andrews, G., E. Hall, B. Evans, and R. Colls.
2012. “Moving Beyond Walkability: On the
Potential of Health Geography.” Social Science
& Medicine, 75: 1925–1932. DOI: 10.1016/
j.socscimed.2012.08.013.
Antognelli, S., and M. Vizzari. 2016. “Ecosystem
and Urban Services for Landscape Liveabil-
ity: A Model for Quantification of Stake-
holders’ Perceived Importance.” Land Use Pol-
icy, 50: 277–292. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.
2015.09.023.
Badland, H., C. Whitzman, M. Lowe, M. Dav-
ern, L. Aye, I. Butterworth, D. Hes, and B.
Giles-Corti. 2014. “Urban Liveability: Emerging
Lessons from Australia for Exploring the Poten-
tial for Indicators to Measure the Social Deter-
minants of Health.” Social Science & Medicine,
111: 64–73.
Cheshmehzangi, A. 2015. “The Reinvention of
Liveability in Public Places: Interaction Map-
ping Analysis of Central Nottingham’s Improved
Walkability.” Journal of Human Behavior in
the Social Environment, 25(5): 426–440. DOI:
10.1080/10911359.2014.980594.
de Haan, F. J., B. C. Ferguson, R. C. Adamowicz, P.
Johnstone, R. R. Brown, and T. H. F. Wong. 2014.
“The Needs of Society: A New Understanding
of Transitions, Sustainability and Liveability.”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 85:
121–132. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.005.
Gough, M. Z. 2015. “Reconciling Livability and
Sustainability: Conceptual and Practical Impli-
cations for Planning.” Journal of Planning Edu-
cation and Research, 35(2): 145–160. DOI:
10.1177/ 0739456X15570320.
Holden, M., and A. Scerri. 2012. “More Than
This: Liveable Melbourne Meets Liveable Van-
couver.” Cities, 31: 444–453. DOI: 10.1016/
j.cities.2012.07.013.
Hooper, P., M. Knuiman, F. Bull, E. Jones, and
B. Giles-Corti. 2015. “Are We Developing
Walkable Suburbs through Urban Planning Pol-
icy? Identifying the Mix of Design Require-
ments to Optimise Walking Outcomes from the
‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ Planning Policy in

Perth, Western Australia.” International Jour-
nal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,
12(63). DOI: 10.1186/s12966-015-0225-1.
Kraftl, P. 2014. “Liveability and Urban Architec-
tures: Mol(ecul)ar Biopower and the ‘Becoming
Lively’ of Sustainable Communities.” Environ-
ment and Planning D – Society & Space, 32(2):
274–292. DOI: 10.1068/d21012.
Newton, P. W. 2012. “Liveable and Sus-
tainable? Socio-Technical Challenges for
Twenty-First-Century Cities.” Journal of Urban
Technology, 19(1): 81–102. DOI: 10.1080/
10630732.2012.626703.
Norouzian-Maleki, S., S. Bell, S. B. Hosseini,
and M. Faizi. 2015. “Developing and Testing a
Framework for the Assessment of Neighbour-
hood Liveability in Two Contrasting Coun-
tries: Iran and Estonia.” Ecological Indicators, 48:
263–271. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.033.
Pacione, M. 1990. “Urban Liveability: A Review.”
Urban Geography, 11(1): 1–30. DOI: 10.2747/
0272-3638.11.1.1.
Pitman, S. D., C. B. Daniels, and M. E. Ely. 2015.
“Green Infrastructure as Life Support: Urban
Nature and Climate Change.” Transactions of the
Royal Society of South Australia, 139(1): 97–112.
DOI: 10.1080/03721426.2015.1035219.
Revell, G., and M. Anda. 2014. “Sustainable Urban
Biophilia: The Case of Greenskins for Urban
10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0376, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0376 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [10/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
URBAN LIVEABILIT Y 3
Density.” Sustainability, 6(8): 5423–5438. DOI:
10.3390/su6085423.
Ruth, M., and R. Franklin. 2014. “Livability for
All? Conceptual Limits and Practical Impli-
cations.” Applied Geography, 49: 18–23. DOI:
10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.018.
Sepe, M., and M. Pitt. 2013. “Improving Liveability
and Attractiveness by Preserving Place Identity
in Emblematic Thoroughfares: A Method and a
Case Study.” Urban Design International, 18(3):
229–249. DOI: 10.1057/udi.2013.3.
Teo, S. 2014. “Political Tool or Quality Expe-
rience? Urban Livability and the Singaporean
State’s Global City Aspirations.” Urban Geog-
raphy, 35(6): 916–937. DOI: 10.1080/02723638.
2014.924233.
Villanueva, K., H. Badland, P. Hooper, M. J.
Koohsari, S. Mavoa, M. Davern, R. Roberts,
S. Goldfeld, and B. Giles-Corti. 2015. “De-
veloping Indicators of Public Open Space to
Promote Health and Wellbeing in Communi-
ties.” Applied Geography, 57: 112–119. DOI:
10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.003.
Vine, D., L. Buys, and R. Aird. 2012. “The Use
of Amenities in High Density Neighborhoods
by Older Urban Australian Residents.” Land-
scape and Urban Planning, 107: 159–171. DOI:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.013.