LIVABILITY IN EXISTING AND FUTURE CITIES

A Qualitative Applied Research Measuring Livability in an Indian City

Hyderabad

Prof. Kenworthy M.Sc Urban Agglomerations Presented by:

Prof. Peterek SS18 Anuradha Sharma
 WHAT

LIVABILITY

WHY HOW

FOR WHOM ???

2
LIVABILITY QUALITY OF LIFE

WHAT
3
  Current world population (2018)  Current Indian population (2018)

7.6 billion 1.3 billion

 World population estimation  Indian population - 1.7 billion in 2050,

9.8 billion in 2050 1.5 billion in 2100

11.2 billion in 2100

 Cities - home to 58% of world

population by 2050

WHY
Livability
4
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html
ECONOMIC INDICATORS
 Per Capita Gross Domestic
Product (PCGDP)
 Consumer Price Index (CPI)
 Producer Price Index (PPI)
 The Mercer - Quality of Living ranking
 The Economic Intelligence Unit – The
Global Livability Ranking
 The Monocle - Quality of life top cities
 PricewaterCoopers PwC - cities of
opportunity
5
01 02 03 04
Literature Survey Questionnaire Survey Results Conclusion
• Research questions • Formulation of • Key findings from • Conclusion at different
guiding the thesis questionnaire survey results levels – policy level,,
research • Livability in India • Methods of national level, city
• Few definitions of • Application of survey calculations council
livability to Indian city- • Relating results with
• Timeline of livability Hyderabad, case-study literature models
• Indicators of livability
• Key findings of
literature study :
relation of livability to
sustainability, place,
life satisfaction, health,
happiness, SWB
• Reference cities

6
01 02 03 04
Literature Survey Questionnaire Survey Results Conclusion
• Research questions
guiding the thesis
research
• Few definitions of
livability
• Timeline of livability
• Indicators of livability
• Key findings of
literature study :
Models of livability,
relations of livability to
sustainability, place,
life satisfaction, health,
happiness, SWB
• Reference cities

7
MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• How was livability measured then (past) and how is it measured now?
• What are the different theories on livability?
• What are the different indices – organizations which provide livability rankings to the world cities and what are
the key indicators used by these organizations? Are there common criteria used and is there potential to
develop a more comprehensive method to measure livability?
• What are the key factors that affect the livability?

SUB-RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• What are the factors to design a livable city?
• How does livability relate to sustainability, happiness, life satisfaction, health, subjective well-being (SWB) and
built environment?
• Does living in a city with high levels of livability increase happiness?
• Is individual happiness independent from livability of a city?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of social indicators and subjective well-being (SWB) measures?
8
 “Livability refers to the quality of life, the standard of living or the general
well-being of a population in a specific region, area or city” (Okulicz-Kozaryn
and Valente 2018)

Authors Dalkey and Rourke define livability as “a person’s sense of well-being, his satisfaction,
and dissatisfaction with life, or his happiness or unhappiness” (RISSER et al. 2005)

Ruut Veenhoven - “the degree to which a living environment fits the

adaptive repertoire of a species. Applied to human society, it denotes the
fit of institutional arrangements with human needs and capacities”
(Veenhoven 2014)

Martin and his colleagues define livability as “individual’s overall satisfaction with life and
their general personal well-being” (RISSER et al. 2005)

“Livability refers to an urban system that contributes to the physical, social

and mental well-being and personal development of all its inhabitants. It is
about delightful and desirable urban spaces that offer and reflect cultural and sacred
enrichment” (Timmer and Seymoar 2006).
9
 Happiness

Transportation Community

LIVABILITY Life satisfaction

Well-being

Sustainability Standard of living

Quality of life

10
 Maslow’s hierarchy of
Aristotle’s Eudaimonia

Use of livability term

Osborn & Ordway

Modern Eudaimonia
Introduced livability
Importance of QOL

Livability plans by
US , Canada
concept

Galbraith
needs

C.D Ryff

cities
model
TIMELINE OF LIVABILITY

384-322 BC 1943 1953-54 1967 1970 1989 1990

• QOL roots in Eudaimonia • •

Canadian • Introduced Had 6 factor
• Eudaimonia = doing & living well structure
born planning
• Identified
• Term used as ‘happiness’ or economist eudaimonia well-
model to
‘flourishing’ being ~
• QOL matters articulate the
psychological
• Concept ~ Greek theory not the well-being
concept of
• 20th century- theme for number of livability
psychology goods
11
Source : various
INDICATORS OF LIVABILITY

Quality of life – measured using social indicators

Subjective Objective

Represent individual’s appraisal of these conditions
Capture experiences
Provide validation, assessment, evaluation of
objective measures
Easier to modify and also easy to compare
Represent external life conditions like income, education
Objectivity
Easy to make comparisons across various levels
Reflect normative ideals of a society

Biased responses Fallible

Inaccurate Ad hoc selection of variables

12
Source: (E. Diener and Suh 1997).
450 cities, 10 categories, 39 indicators
13
MERCER
140 cities, 5 categories, 30 indicators
14
EIU
 111 cities, 4 Pillars, 79 indicators
15
EASE OF LIVING INDEX,2018, INDIA
 Ease of Living Index Index + Mercer + EIU

16
LIVABILITY IN INDIA

• Confederation of Indian Industry assesses livability of 37 cities in India with an main aim to
measure significant drivers of health and wealth of the community
• Livability concept and ranking system launched in June 2017 by Union Minister – Harshdeep Kaur
• The Ministry of Urban Development issued the livability standards as a guideline to rank cities
• Aim of providing the ranking - to attain the livability status to the cities which will invite more
investments and improve tourism, promote competitive spirit among cities
• Rankings for 111 cities in the country, 79 indicators : 57 core, 22 supporting indicators
• The source of the livability standards - the 24 features from the Smart City Proposals (SCPs) which
are grouped into 15 categories, forming the four pillars

17
Source: Confederation of Indian Industry 2010, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2018
LIVABILITY MODEL, MoUD-INDIA

18
Source - Ministry of Urban Development 2017
 City Score Rank City Score Rank
Delhi 42.15 1 Pune 58.11 1
CII LIVABILITY RANKINGS, 2010

Mumbai 41.21 2 Navi Mumbai 58.02 2

EASE OF LIVING INDEX , 2018

Chennai 32.91 3 Greater Mumbai 57.78 3
Bangalore 32.06 4 Tirupati 57.52 4
Kolkata 30.57 5 Chandigarh 53.16 5
Hyderabad 27.83 6 Thane 52.27 6
Ahmedabad 27.03 7 Raipur 50.58 7
Pune 26.28 8 Indore 50.16 8
Gurgaon 25.42 9 Vijayawada 49.27 9
Goa 24.90 10 Bhopal 49.11 10
Source: Confederation of Indian Industry 2010
Chennai 47.24 14
Ahmedabad 44.28 23
Hyderabad 43.13 27
Bangalore 34.38 58
Delhi 33.18 65
Source: Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2018 19
LOCATION OF 6 REFERENCE CITIES

20
CITIES AND HEALTH, 2017
• Effects of built environment on SWB
components
• Survey, 562 households, Sydney
• Characteristics of respondents
• Satisfaction with life
• Affective SWB
• Neighborhood environment
• Various dimensions of built environment
QOL – KAMLOOPS, CANADA, 2016
• Survey conducted every 3 years
• 409 responses
• 19 questions
• Objectives for survey – resident satisfaction
with city services, impressions on safety, QOL,
revenue and tax perceptions, key issues for
improvement, identify important social issues
QOL –WELLINGTON, NZ, 2016
• 7155 responses -7 cities
• 39 attributes
• Uses 3/4/5 scales
• 42 questions in the survey
• Domains – health and well-being, crime and
safety, community, culture and social
networks, council decision making processes,
environment (built and natural), public
transport, economic well-being, housing
QOL – MOSCOW, RUSSIA, 2016
• Conducted every 2 years
• 1200 respondents
• 5 point Likert scale
• Domains – city services, crime and safety,
government services, PT, participation in
recreational programs
QOL – BRISTOL, UK, 2017-18
• 3500 respondents
• 34 wards
• 65 questions
• Over 200 indicators
• Domains – council and democracy, community
and living, health and well-being, crime and
safety, education and skills, sustainability and
environment, culture and leisure indicators,
transport indicators, housing employment
indicators
QOL – EUROFOUND, 2016
• Includes objective and subjective measure
• 26 indicators on well-being
• 1000-2000 responses / country
• 103 questions, 262 items
21
01 02 03 04
Literature Survey Questionnaire Survey Results Conclusion
• Formulation of
questionnaire
• Livability in India
• Application of survey
to Indian city

22
PROCESS OF FORMULATION OF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 City 5 City 6

Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire

Selected questions Selected questions Selected questions Selected questions Selected questions Selected questions

Different categories
(selected questions are categorized into different themes)

FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Shared through Facebook and Gmail

Results collected

Analysis

source - Author
23
CASE STUDY CITY - HYDERABAD
• Capital city of Telangana state
• Population = 7.75 millions, 2011 census
• City’s area = 625 sq.m
• Hyderabad stands at 6 in 2010, 2 in 2012 according to CII livability rankings and stands at 27 in
Ease of living 2018

source - Author

24
ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE
• 7 themes, total questions =87
• Conducted between 5-17 July, 2018 – 12 days, 25-30 min to complete the survey
• A total sample size: n=77 obtained
• 88.31% (68)complete and 11.68% (9) incomplete surveys

Category / Themes Question numbers

Characteristic of respondents 1-26
Neighborhood characteristics 27-40
Subjective well-being (SWB) and satisfaction 41-51
with life
Safety and crime 52-58
Community and living indicators 59-62
City services, Governance, and Environment 63-76
Transportation 77-85
Others – uncategorized 86-87
Source - Author

25
• The questionnaire contains open-ended and closed questions
• 4, 5, 10 Point Likert-Scale used in the survey
• Weights given to each option ranging from 0 to 100, -100 to 100 depending on the question

26
27
01 02 03 04
Literature Survey Questionnaire Survey Results Conclusion
• Key findings from
survey results
• Methods of
calculations
• Relating results with
literature models
• Conclusion of survey
results

28
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
a. Characteristic of respondents (1-26)
• 92% (71) currently live in Hyderabad, 8%
(6) did not.
• 9% (7) of respondents lived less than one
year and more than half lived in city from
20 years or more
• 55% (42)-45% (35) Male female ratio
Distribution of respondents in diff. zones,
Hyderabad

12%

40%

28%

5%
15%

east west north south central

29
• Almost all respondents 83% (65) belong to age group – 18 to 49 years

48% (37) 47% (36)

• 55% (42) – rent house 44% (34) – own house

• At least one vehicle per house (2,3,4 wheeler) owned by respondents
• 79% (61) respondents have paid job
• Average Net income of respondents Rs.82,268.51 – 1029.58 Euros (18-08-18)

30
b. Neighborhood characteristics (27- 40)

Q28. Top two qualities that make Hyderabad good place to live in

Jobs
Friendly/nice
people
Amenities

Shopping City’s
atmosphere
Location
Community
involvement Sports
activities

Proximity
Outdoor
Climate activities
City services
44% Affordable
Resources
No pollution cost of living
52%
Clean city
Size of
Birth place community
Security &
Landscape/
safety
greenery

31
 Overall QOL and Quality of Services in
100% Hyderabad
10%(8) 12%(9)

80%
Quality of life in Hyderabad
36%(28) Very satisfied
improvement in last 3 years
47%(36) Satisfied
60% 100%
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied 80%

Percentage of Improvement
40% Excellent
36%(28) Very good
29%(22) Good 60%
20% Fair 49%
Poor
17%(13) 9%(7) 40%

0% 4%(3)
Quality of life Quality of Services 20%

Good Satisfied
0%

32
• Problems at community and city level affect the overall quality of life of citizens as they
consume the services around them

Problems at city and neighborhood level

Noise
60
Neighborhood level City level
Transport issues 50 Air quality

40
Accessibility/quality/ 30
availability of public green Quality of drinking water
open spaces 20

10

0
Public transportation
Crime, violation, vandalism
connectivity

Harassment/ eve-teasing Litter or rubbish on the streets

Supply of water Supply of power/ power cuts

33
RELATION BETWEEN LIVABILITY AND PLACE
• Over time places develop a ‘sense of
place’ for residents
• Livability is proportional to the size of
a place
FINDINGS
• Livability Rankings 2018, India contradicts the
statement
• Biggest cities Mumbai, Delhi are ranked at 3 ,53
• And in world rankings :

Livability ~ Size of a place The Mercer

• Economists supports this by saying that The Monocle
“more populous cities offer a The EIU
higher Quality of life which is
implied by wages and costs” PwC
Arcadis
• David Albouy , an economist says that
the bigger the place the higher is
Tokyo – biggest city in the world, ranked 1 in
the quality of life Monocle rankings, 2017
 Duration of stay vs Quality of life
100%

80%
67% 65%
57%
60% 49%
40%

20%
Duration of stay vs sense of belonged to the
0% community
Less than 1 1 to <10 years 10 to <20 20 years or
100%
year years more 86% 85%
78% 82%
80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Less than 1 1 to <10 years 10 to <20 years 20 years or
year more
35
RELATION BETWEEN LIVABILITY AND HEALTH

• World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as a “state of complete physical, mental and
social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”
• The social determinants of health include the circumstances in which people are born,
grow, live and work

Conceptual model of determinants of neighborhood health and livability by Barton and Grant
36
Source: Lowe et al. 2013
 FINDINGS

The extent of healthiness of survey respondents is about

68%

Q43-Health condition -Satisfaction level

Q46-Health among respondents of respondents
100% 100%

28%(21)
80% 80%
68%
Healthiness Percentage

Very satisfied
60% 60%
Satisfied
44%(33)
Neutral
40% 40%
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
20% 20% 21%(15)

0% 0% 7%(5)
Health Your health
Satisfied

37
RELATION BETWEEN LIVABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

• The term sustainability is both about time and place

• It was in the year 1987 when sustainability was first defined in Brundtland report defining it as –
“…. development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their future needs” (Lowe et al. 2013)

• Duijvestein’s model assumes that livability is a subset of sustainability and that no aspect of
livability is contrary to sustainability outcomes
Later

Sustainability

Liveability
Here There

now

Duijvestein's model - Livability as a subset

38
Source: Lowe et al. 2013
RELATION BETWEEN LIVABILITY AND HAPPINESS, LIFE SATISFACTION
c. Subjective well-being (SWB) and satisfaction with life (41-51)

Literature
• Over the past two decades, there is a tremendous increase in quantitative studies of happiness

and well-being
• Happiness varies mostly by people and not by place (Sőrés and Pető 2015)
• Happiness theories tend to explain the relation between livability and SWB.
• Higher the income higher the life satisfaction
Survey results
• Nearly 50% of the respondents experience stress sometimes
• 40% of the respondents are satisfied with the work-life balance

39
 Happiness with life across different groups
10

8.3 7.5
8
8 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.5
7.2 7.2 7 7.1 7

0
Overall Happiness Gender Age Occupation
Happy Male Female 18-24

25-49 50-65 empolyed self employed without employees

self employed with employees student housemaker others

40
 Subjective Well-being (SWB)
100%

20%(15)
28%(21) 27%(20) 28%(21) 28%(21)
33%(25) 32%(24)
80%
46%(35)

60% 37%(28)
33%(25)
39%(29)
44%(33)
51%(38) 40%(30) 40%(30)

40% 31%(23)

27%(20)
25%(19)
20% 23%(17)
19%(14) 21%(15) 21%(15)
13%(10) 15%(11)
12%(9)
13%(10) 5%(4)
7%(5) 8%(6) 5%(4)
5%(4) 7%(5) 5%(4) 4%(3)
0% 1%(1) 1%(1) 3%(2) 1%(1)
Your education Your job Your present Your Your family life Your health Your social life Your financial
standard of accommodation situation
living
41
Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied
 Life satisfaction with respect to income
100% 4%(1)
21%(3)
80%
48%(12)
21%(3) 69%(9)
60%
LIFE SATISFACTION COMPARISONS

7%(1)
Life satisfaction with respect to children
40%
36%(5) 100%
36%(9) 9%(3) 10%(3)
20%
31%(4) 80%
14%(2) 12%(3)
0% 51%(17) 45%(14)
Low Medium High 60%
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
40%
21%(7) 32%(10)
20%
19%(6) 7%(2)
0% 7%(2)
With children Without children

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

42
d. Safety and Crime (52-58)

• To ensure that the citizens in any city lead happy and good quality of life, the city should be safe
and crime free (minimum crime rate)

% of respondents affected by crime

100%

79%(59)
80%

60%

40%
21%(16)
20%

0%
Yes No

43
 Extent of safety in Day and Night
100%
DAY NIGHT AVERAGE COMPARED PERCENTAGE
82% 82%
79% 79%
80% 76% 75%
70% 69% 70% 71%
67%
Safety Percentage

59% 58% 59% 59% 61% 59%

60%

40% 33%

20%

0%
In your neighborhood In downtown areas In cityparks outside In current levels of TOTAL AVERAGE Safety given by Safety now as
the neighborhood street lighting NUMBEO compared to 3 years
back

44
 • Traffic safety is the biggest crime and safety issue followed by drunk and drive currently
Hyderabad faces

BEGGING 5%
ASSAULTS 5% 45
SEXUAL HARASSMENT 5% N=74
e. Community and living indicators (59-62)

• The nature, number, and quality of % of respondents who feel belonged to

environmental transactions made within a 100% the community
community by the citizens form the important
82%(61)
component of a community’s perceived 80%
livability and sense of community
• The more the number of transactions is made the
more is the livability and sense of community 60%
perceived by the users (Architecture 2018)
• A minimum requirement to get involved in the
community is to have enough time 40%
• 58% (43) respondents lack time to participate or
involve in community activities 20% 18%(13)

0%
Yes No

46
f. City services, Governance and Environment (63-76)

• Only half of the respondents 50% (34) understand the decision-making process
• Money, trust, and satisfaction have a relation
• According to the results, on an average the highest amount of trust is seen in the Legal
System (48%) followed by the Police (45%), the Parliament (44%), the Local (municipal)
Authorities (35%) and the least amount of trust in the Press (26%).

74.Personal Trust(65.Value for money,66.Satisfication level of city run by government)

100%

80%

60% 48% 48%

44% 45% 43% 45%
40% 35%
26%
20%

0%
Parliament The legal system The Press The police The local The government
(municipal)
authorities
Amount of Trust city government provides value for money satisfied with the way city is run by the government
47
JOB OPPORTUNITIES
37%

PEOPLE LIVING IN PUBLIC OPEN

POVERTY SPACES ALCOHOL & DRUG
37% 47% ADDICTION
48%
CLIMATE & ENV. ISSUES
37%
IMPROVE HEALTH AND
MEDICAL SERVICES
TRAFFIC 34%

CONGESTION
71%

PUBLIC AND CITY COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE 48

INFRASTRUCTURE 29% HOMELESSNESS 25% FOR SENIORS 22% MENTAL HEALTH 19% N=73
ALCOHOL AND DRUG
ROAD
INFRASTRUCTURE
8%
TRAFFIC POLLUTION
5% 36% 10%
WATER
JOB OPPORTUNITIES
4%
PROBLEMS
11%

N=73
49
 CANADA
EUROPE

TURKEY
USA
JAPAN
BHUTAN

SINGAPORE

INDIA -53%
EUROPE – 14% AUSTRALIA

USA - 7%
AUSTRALIA - 5%
CANADA – 3%
JAPAN – 3% NEW ZEALAND

NEW ZEALAND – 1%
BHUTAN – 1%
SINGAPORE – 1%
TURKEY – 1% 50
OTHERS – 8% N=73
f. Transportation (77-85)

• A citizen in Hyderabad on an average travels about 15 kilometers (9.3 miles) and spends an average
time of 76 minutes traveling each day

Modal split
50%
45%
40%
35% 31%(23)
30%
25% 22%(16)
20% 17%(12) 16%(11)
15%
10%
5%(4)
5% 3%(2) 2%(2) 3%(2)
1%(1)
0%
Motorized Car Public Auto Private buses Walk Biclycle Work at Others
vehicle transportation rickshaw, cab / company home
- bus,train, etc. vans/ school
metro bus

51
01 02 03 04
Literature Survey Questionnaire Survey Results Conclusion
• Conclusion at different
levels – policy level,
national level, city
council

52
 CONCLUSION
• It can be concluded that a certain set of

indicators which can be universally applied

• City has a good quality of life and performs
could be standardized and replicated while other
quite well in various aspects

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
SURVEY CONCLUSIONS

• Subjective measures’ results obtained through indicators need to be tailored according to the
local conditions and user context
survey gives an opportunity to know the
• Both the subjective and objective indicators
opinion of individuals in the present day’s
used together would lead to a complete measure
context on various aspects and helps the city
and understanding of livability
council and policy makers to make amendments,
• INDIAN SCENARIO - It can be concluded that
allocate resources wisely and do what is required
to make the city livable subjective measures need to be paid
attention, included and given equal
importance as the objective measures to
measure quality of life in a region.
53
REFERENCES
Sőrés, Anett, and Károly Pető. 2015. “Measuring of Subjective Quality of Life.” Procedia Economics and Finance 32 (15): 809–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-
5671(15)01466-5
.
The Mercer. 2018. “Mercer Make Tomorrow Today.” Quality of Living. 2018. https://mobilityexchange.mercer.com/quality-of-living-reports.

Veenhoven, Ruut. 2000. “The Four Qualities of Life: Ordering Concepts and Measures of the Good Life.” Journal of Happiness Studies 1 (1): 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010072010360.

Ministry of Urban Development. 2017. “Livability Standards in Cities.” http://smartcities.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/LiveabilityStandards.pdf.

Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. 2018a. “Ease of Livability Index 2018 Rankings.” City Ranks. 2018. https://easeofliving.niua.org/home/index_ranking.

Lowe, M, C Whitzman, H Badland, M Davern, Dominique Hes, Lu Aye, Iain Butterworth, and Billie Giles Corti. 2013. Liveable, Healthy, Sustainable: What Are the Key
Indicators for Melbourne Neighbourhoods. Place, Health and Liveability Research Program. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Liveable,+Healthy+,+Sustainable+:+What+Are+the+Key+Indicators+for+Melbourne+Neighbourhoods?#
0%5Cnhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Liveable,+healthy,+sustainable:+Wh.

Confederation of Indian Industry. 2010. “Livability Index 2010 The Best Cities in India.” Northern Region. http://www.environmentportal.in/files/Liveability-Report.pdf.

Diener, E. D. 1995. “A Value Based Index for Measuring National Quality of Life.” Social Indicators Research 36 (2): 107–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079721.

Okulicz-Kozaryn, Adam, and Rubia R. Valente. 2018. “Livability and Subjective Well-Being Across European Cities.” Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9587-7.

Timmer, Vanessa, and Nola-Kate Seymoar. 2006. “The Livable City.” The World Urban Forum, no. May: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2006.00434.x.

RISSER, Ralf, Karel SCHMEIDLER, Linda STEG, Sonja FORWARD, and Lucia MARTINCIGH. 2005. “Assessment of the Quality of Life in Cities Environmental Conditions
and Mobility.” The Forgotten Modernism of Cities 17 (1): 187–93. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24920748.

54