Abstract
The paper presents an alternative conceptual framework to theorise urban liveability. It reviews two urban liveability measurement methodologies to identify the existing understanding of liveability in practice and literature. The paper highlights the lacunas of theorising liveability through the utility-based approaches and proposes a framework to establish liveability through a non-utilitarian approach. It adopts the central argument of the capability approach to insinuate liveability through human well-being, functioning, capability, and freedom. In present literature Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum, Sabina Alkire have discussed the capability approach extensively. It also discusses the ethical arguments of John Rawls and the egalitarian considerations of Ronald Dworkin to establish the uniqueness of the capability approach and to theorise liveability. The paper contributes toward a structured and systematic review of the existing methods to theorise and measure liveability and presents a comprehensive conceptual alternative framework to measure liveability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The normative reference point is important for evaluating capability approach that belong to the field of evaluative social policy. The analysts show (or assume) that a number of capabilities (or functionings) are important and valuable outcomes in a specific policy field, and then judge the policies (e.g., interventions into the conversion factors) with regards to their effect on individuals' ability to choose these functionings. Capability approach may engage to analysing diverse policy fields come up with a great diversity of normative underpinnings like the liveability dimensions and indicators (Goerne, 2010).
References
AARP. (2018). Retrieved May 27, 2019, from https://livabilityindex.aarp.org/livabilitydefined
Alford, J. (2013). The multiple facets of co- production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review, 1–18.
Alkire, S. (2016). The capability approach and well-being measurement for public policy. In M. D. Adler, & M. Fleurbaey (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of well-being and public policy. Oxford University Press.
Anand, P., Hunter, G., Carter, I., Dowding, K., Guala, F., & Hees, M. v. (2007). The measurement of capabilities. OECD 2nd World Forum (pp. 1–31).
Balsas, C. J. (2004). Measuring the livability of an urban centre: An exploratory study of key performance indicators. Planning, Practice & Research, 19(1), 101–110.
Basu, K. (1987). Achievements, capabilities and the concept of well-being. Social Choice and Welfare, IV(1), 69–76.
Basu, K., & Lopez-Calva, L. F. (2011). Functionings and capabilities. In K. J. Arrow, A. Sen, & K. Suzumura (Eds.), Handbook of social choice and welfare (pp. 153–187). Elsevier.
Biswas, A. (2016). Insight on the evolution and distinction of inclusive growth. Development in Practice, 26(4), 503–516.
Biswas, A. (2019). A framework to analyse inclusiveness of urban policy. Cities, 87, 174–184.
Biswas, A., Kidokoro, T., & Seta, F. (2017). Analysis of Indian urban policies to identify their potential of achieving inclusive urban growth. Urban Research & Practice, 10(2), 198–227.
Biswas, A., Kidokoro, T., & Seta, F. (2019). Metropolitan governance and local decentralisation in India: Case of Chennai and Kolkata metropolitan regions. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 1–22.
Blair, D. H. (1988). The primary-goods indexation problem in Rawls’s theory of justice. Theory and Decision, 24(3), 239–252.
Chiappero-Marinetti, E. (2008). Complexity and vagueness in the capability approach: Strengths or weaknesses? In F. Comim, M. Qizilbash, & S. Alkire (Eds.), The capability approach: Concepts, measures and applications (pp. 268–309). Cambridge University Press.
Clark, D. A. (2006). The capability approach: Its development, critiques and recent advances. Global Poverty Research Group - Working Paper Series(32).
Cohen, G. A. (1993). Equality of what? On welfare, goods, and capabilities. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 9–29). Oxford University Press.
Comim, F. (2008). Measuring capabilities. In F. Comim, M. Qizilbash, & S. Alkire (Eds.), The capability approach: Concepts, measures and applications (pp. 157–200). Cambridge University Press.
Comim, F., Qizilbash, M., & Alkire, S. (2008). Introduction. In F. Comim, M. Qizilbash, & S. Alkire (Eds.), The capability approach: Concepts, measure and applications (pp. 1–25). Cambridge University Press.
Comim, F. (2001). Operationalising Sen's capability approach. Justice and poverty: Examining Sen’s capability approach. 5-7 June 2001, Cambridge.
Dang, A.-T. (2014). Amartya Sen’s capability approach: A framework for well-being evaluation and policy analysis? Review of Social Economy, 72(4), 460–484.
Dinnie, K. (2010). City branding: Theory and cases. Springer.
Dworkin, R. (1981a). What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10(4), 283–345.
Dworkin, R. (1981b). What is equality? Part 1: Equality of welfare. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10(3), 185–246.
EIU. (2019). The global liveability index. Retrieved May 28, 2019, from EIU website: https://www.eiu.com/topic/liveability
Gammell, M. P., Han, D., Jennings, D. J., Carlin, C. M., & Hayden, T. J. (2003). David’s score: A more appropriate dominance ranking method than Clutton-Brock et al.’s index. Animal Behaviour, 66(3), 601–605.
Goerne, A. (2010). The capability approach in social policy analysis - Yet another concept? Working Papers on the Reconciliation of Work and Welfare in Europe (pp. 1–22).
Gough, M. Z. (2015). Reconciling livability and sustainability: Conceptual and practical implications for planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(2), 145–160.
Hart, C. S., & Brando, N. (2018). A capability approach to children’s well- being, agency and participatory rights in education. European Journal of Education, 53, 293–309.
Herrman, T., & Lewis, R. (2017). University of Oregon . Retrieved May 19, 2019, from https://sci.uoregon.edu/sites/sci1.uoregon.edu/files/sub_1_-_what_is_livability_lit_review.pdf
Hick, R. (2012). The capability approach: Insights for a new poverty focus. Journal of social Policy, 41(2), 291–308.
Howlett, M., & Lindquist, E. (2004). Policy analysis and governance: Analytical and policy styles in Canada. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 6(3), 225–249.
Kaal, H. (2011). A conceptual history of livability. City, 15(5), 532–547.
Lee, J., & Choi, G. (2019). A dominance-based network method for ranking efficient decision-making units in data envelopment analysis. Sustainability, 11, 1–20.
Ley, D. (1990). Urban liveability in context. Urban Geography, 11(1), 31–35.
Martinetti, E. C. (2006). Capability approach and fuzzy set theory: Description. University of Pavia, Italy.
Martinetti, E. C. (2000). A multi-dimensional assessment of well-being based on Sen’s functioning approach. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 108(2), 207–239.
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs. (2019). Retrieved May 28, 2022, from https://amplifi.mohua.gov.in: https://amplifi.mohua.gov.in/assets/htmllanding/pdf/eol.pdf
MoUD. (2018). Liveability and standards in cities. Government of India.
Nambiar, S. (2013). Capabilities, conversion factors and institutions. Progress in Development Studies, 13(3), 221–230.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Adaptive preferences and women’s options. Economics and Philosophy, 17, 67–88.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59.
Okulicz-Kozar, A. (2013). City life: Rankings (Livability) versus perceptions (Satisfaction). Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 433–451.
Osmani, S. R. (2009). The Sen system of social evaluation. In K. Basu, & R. Kanbur (Eds.), Argument for a better world: Essays in honor of Amartya Sen (Vol. I: Ethics, Welfare and Measurement, pp. 15–34). Oxford University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective actions. Cambridge University Press.
Perkin, N. D. (2008). Livability, regional equity, and capability: Closing in on sustainable land use. University of Baltimore Law Review, 37(2), 157–202.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Revised). The Belknap Press.
Robeyns, I. (2003). Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: Selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 61–92.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 30–53). Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2000). Consequential evaluation and practical reason. The Journal of Philosophy, 97(9), 477–502.
Sen, A. (2003). Development as capability expansion. In S. Fukuda-Parr & A. K. Shiva Kumar (Eds.), Readings in human development (pp. 3–13). Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2004). Rationality and freedom. Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (2006). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151–166.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. The Belknap Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1 Liveability index for Indian cities (MoUD, 2018)
Liveability dimensions | Liveability indicators | Liveability sub-indicators |
|---|---|---|
Institutional | Governance | Percentage of citizen services available online |
Percentage of citizens using online services | ||
Average delay to redress grievance | ||
Tax collection as a percentage of tax claim | ||
Extent of cost recovery for O&M in water supply services | ||
Capital expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure | ||
Percentage of population covered under ward committees | ||
Percentage of services integrated through city command centre | ||
Social | Identity and Culture | Projects on restoration and reuse of historic buildings |
Percentage of ecologically important areas covered through projects for restoration | ||
Hotel occupancy rate | ||
Percentage of budgetary allocation towards cultural/sports activities | ||
Number of cultural/sports events hosted by city authority | ||
Education | Percentage of school-aged population enrolled in schools | |
Percentage of female school-aged population enrolled in schools | ||
Student–teacher ratio in primary education | ||
Percentage of schools with access to digital education | ||
Percentage of students completing primary education | ||
Percentage of students completing secondary education | ||
Health | Number of in-patient hospital beds per 10,000 population | |
Number of healthcare professionals per 10,000 population | ||
Average response time in case of health emergencies | ||
Period of prevalence of water borne diseases | ||
Period of prevalence of vector borne diseases | ||
Safety and Security | Number of streets, public places, junctions covered through surveillance systems | |
Number of recorded crimes per 100,000 population | ||
Extent of crimes recorded against women, children and elderly per year | ||
Fatality due to transport-related accidents per 100,000 population | ||
Economic | Economy and employment | Increase in collection of professional tax |
Increase in issuance of construction permits | ||
Unemployment rate | ||
Percentage of vendors registered and provided formal spaces | ||
Physical | Housing and inclusiveness index | Percentage of slum/economically weaker section (EWS) households covered through formal/affordable housing |
Percentage of slum areas covered through basic services | ||
Open space index | Availability of green spaces per capita | |
Availability of public and recreational places per capita | ||
Mixed use and compactness index | Share of mixed land use area in overall city land use | |
Net density | ||
Energy index | Percentage of city population with authorised electrical service | |
Percentage of electrical connections covered through smart meters | ||
Average number of electrical interruptions per customer per year | ||
Average length of electrical interruptions per customer per year | ||
Percentage of total energy derived from renewable sources | ||
Energy consumption per unit—water supply and sewerage | ||
Total energy consumption per capita | ||
Percentage of new and redeveloped buildings following green building norms | ||
Energy consumption per unit—street lighting | ||
Mobility index | Geographical coverage of public transport | |
Availability of public transport | ||
Percentage of road network with dedicated bicycle tracks | ||
Mode share of public transport | ||
Percentage of interchanges with bicycle parking facilities | ||
Mode share of non-motorised transport | ||
Extent of signal synchronisation | ||
Availability of paid parking spaces | ||
Percentage coverage of footpaths – wider than 1.2 m | ||
Percentage of traffic intersections with pedestrian crossing facilities | ||
Extent of universal accessibility incorporated in public rights-of-way | ||
Water index | Household level coverage of direct water supply connections | |
Per capita water supply | ||
Quality of water supplied | ||
Level of non-revenue water | ||
Percentage of water connections covered through meters | ||
Percentage of plots with rainwater harvesting facility | ||
Wastewater index | Coverage of toilets | |
Coverage of sewerage network and/or septage | ||
Collection efficiency of sewerage network | ||
Extent of reuse and recycling of wastewater | ||
Coverage of storm water drains | ||
Solid waste index | Household level coverage of municipal solid waste collection | |
Extent of municipal solid waste recovered through reuse | ||
Pollution index | Concentration of SO2 | |
Concentration of NO2 | ||
Concentration of PM10 | ||
Noise pollution level | ||
Water quality of public surface water bodies |
Appendix 2 Liveability index for US cities (AARP, 2018)
Liveability dimensions | Liveability indicators | Liveability sub-indicators |
|---|---|---|
Housing | Housing affordability | Housing cost |
Housing cost burden | ||
Availability of subsidised housing | ||
Housing options | Availability of multifamily housing | |
Housing accessibility | Zero step entrances | |
Neighbourhood | Proximity to destinations | Access to grocery stores and farmer’s market |
Access to parks | ||
Access to libraries | ||
Access to jobs by public transit | ||
Access to jobs by motorised vehicle | ||
Mixed use neighbourhoods | Diversity of destinations | |
Compact neighbourhood | Activity density | |
Personal safety | Crime rate | |
Neighbourhood quality | Vacancy rate | |
Transportation | Accessible transport system design | Disability accessible transit and vehicle |
Convenient mobility options | Frequency of local transit service | |
Walk trips | ||
Congestion | ||
Transportation costs | Household transportation costs | |
Safe streets | Speed limits | |
Crash rate | ||
Environment | Air quality | Regional air quality |
Near roadway pollution | ||
Local industrial pollution | ||
Water quality | Drinking water quality | |
Health | Healthy behaviours | Smoking behaviours |
Obesity prevalence | ||
Access to exercise opportunities | ||
Access to healthcare | Healthcare professional shortage areas | |
Quality of health care | Preventable hospitalisation rate | |
Patient satisfaction | ||
Engagement | Internet access | Broadband cost and speed |
Civic engagement | Opportunity for civic involvement | |
Voting right | ||
Social engagement | Social involvement index | |
Cultural, arts and entertainment institutions | ||
Opportunity | Equal opportunity | Income inequality (Gini coefficient) |
Economic opportunity | Jobs per worker | |
Educational opportunity | High school graduation rate | |
Multi-generational communities | Age diversity |
Appendix 3 Liveability dimensions, indicators and sub-indicators for the proposed framework
Liveability dimensions | Liveability indicators | Liveability sub-indicators |
|---|---|---|
Economy | Economy and employment | Increase in collection of professional tax |
Increase in issuance of construction permits | ||
Institution | Governance | Participation |
Equity | ||
Transparency | ||
Efficiency and financial performance | Full O&M cost recovery for urban utilities and services | |
Year on year growth of capital expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure | ||
Environment | Air and noise pollution | Unhealthy concentration of pollutants (SO2, NO2 and PM10) |
Unhealthy noise pollution level | ||
Park and open space | Proximity to parks and open spaces | |
Utilities and services | Water availability and quality | Piped water supply connections to every household |
Water supply equal to water demand | ||
Drinkability of municipal water | ||
Deficiency in water revenue | ||
Waste water | Coverage of public toilets | |
Coverage of sewerage network and/or septage | ||
Coverage of storm water drains | ||
Solid waste management | Household level coverage of municipal solid waste collection | |
Percentage of municipal solid waste recovered through reuse and recycle | ||
Social and cultural well-being | Identity | Projects on restoration and reuse of historic buildings |
Culture | Percentage of budgetary allocation towards cultural/sports activities | |
Number of cultural/sports events hosted by city authority | ||
Education | School-aged population enrolled in schools | |
Female school-aged population enrolled in schools | ||
Adequate primary school | ||
Health | Prevalence of water borne diseases | |
Prevalence of vector borne diseases | ||
General health condition of the public | ||
Hospital infrastructure including number of in-patient hospital beds and doctors | ||
Safety and security | Number of streets, public places, junctions covered through surveillance systems | |
Number of recorded crimes |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Biswas, A. A Conceptual Framework to Visualise Liveability. Int. Journal of Com. WB 5, 793–817 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-022-00178-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-022-00178-2