Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Measuring Liveability, Purpose / Target Groups:
1. Inter-City Comparisons …
Measuring Liveability
Challenges
Operational
Data Reliability
- Typically, the readily obtainable & publicly accessible data are used
- Altho reliable & avail at multiple scales, they are characterised by imp gaps as no one standard source is used to measure all relevant features of a place's economy, evmt, society over time
- Reliance on public data can be unsatisfactory due to infrequency of collection
- Altho useful, proprietary data have emerged to combat this but are expensive / inaccessible / unreliable and not always avail over time
- Data collected from local organised groups of LI urban residents can provide detailed nfo
Appropriate Scale of Analysis
- Liveability can be considered at many scales (neighbourhood vs city)
- Indicators of neighbourhood liveability cannot be scaled up to a regional/state level while large-scale indicators are not always relevant at a community level
- Walkability that can only be measured on a local scale has relevance only up to a regional scale
Indicator Issues
- Lack of Scalability
- Most indicators are at city level & cannot be scaled up or down accurately (Mercer)
- Lack of Interrelatedness
- Single dimension indicators only capture city characteristics of a single sphere but not relationship btwn spheres
- Holistic measures are more useful
- Economic expansion, altho +ve is associated w lower social liveability from greater pollution
- Liveability is broad and encapsulates many facets of urban life so no one indicator can adequately capture all dimensions of liveability
- Lack of Comparability
- for the same index, the choice of liveability indicators may not be similarly weighted
- EIU GLI measures 30 factors while Mercer measures 39 → unable to use these 2 indices for comparison
- Narrow focus on indicators
- Attention is concentrated on issues that can be measured more readily tho they might not be the ones most imp (esp for marginalized)
- Cities should ensure that things tough to measure are not excluded from policies
Data Gap:
- For many CLLDs, basic information is simply unavailable or lacking in detail
- 100 countries in Global South do not keep accurate records of births & deaths
- Data gap on access to adequate housing / informal settlements which wasn't collected rigorously over countries in the past 20yrs according to Global Urban Futures Project
Difficulty in Data Collection:
- CLLDs where respondents are illiterate & cannot comprehend qns affecting accuracy of data collected
- Locals may not speak the official language (dialects)
- Slum settlements inaccessible due to lack of formal roads so limited collection reach
- Lack of financial resources or manpower for data collection in CLLDs that limits the amt of information CLLD cities have access to
Conceptual
Definition of City:
- Affects data collection due to the difficulty in identifying urban area & where a city begins & ends
- CLLDs: cities are continuously expanding due to urban sprawl & rural encroachment so its tough to determine locations to collect data & accurately measure production of waste/resource consumption
- Info collected may quickly become obsolete as cities expand rapidly
Definition of SUD & Liveability:
- Due to different definitions on what SUD & Liveability entails over space btwn, targets are hard to determine
- CHLD/ HICs: emphasis on circular urban metabolism & global evmt concerns or increasing social inequality within cities
- CLLD/ LICs: focus on socio/econ sus thru achieving basic needs & economic growth
- Targets set are applied across the world but each city has their own characteristics
- SDG 1: eradicate extreme poverty (ppl living <$1.90/day) for everyone everywhere, but standard of living differs globally
- Thus tough to have a set of indicators which is applicable to both types of cities
- Existing indicators are largely skewed towards measuring SUD in HICs where evmt focus is strong thus unfeasible to use to measure SUD in CLLDs that focus on socio/econ
Contestation of Needs
- Balance needs to be struck btwn the need to generate better data (+ costs associated) and the need to address pressing dvlpmt and sustainability needs more effectively
-
Indicators
EIU GLI :cityscape: :female-artist::skin-tone-2:
(Economist Intelligence Unit Global Liveability Index)
- Quantifies the challenges that might be presented to an individual’s lifestyle in any given location
- Measurable: every city is assigned a rating of relative comfort for >30 qualitative & quantitative factors over 5 categories (stability, healthcare, culture & evmt, education, infrastructure) → allows for direct comparison btwn locations
- Scores of 1-100 compiled from judgement by in-house analysts / in-city contributors (qualitative) and calculations on relative performance of a number of external data points
- 1: tolerable , 100: ideal
- Ratings on overall score + each category + overall position out of 140 cites
- Melbourne 1st place for 7 years , war-torn Damascus remain last
- Global cities like NY, London, Paris, Tokyo suffer from high crime levels, congestion & PT issues & do not have top rankings
Limitations:
- X Generality: anglo-centric
- X Comprehensive: Does not take into account cost of living as a factor affecting liveability & evmt (air pollution, noise, access to green spaces or urban heat island effect)
- Shortcomings in weighing the categories to be measured, the politics of use & absence of a specific local area
- Prioritises low-density cities over high-density cities as liveable
CLC Framework
(Centre for Liveability Cities Framework)
- Defines a liveable city as ___ for cities that are densely populated (HK, SG)
- Competitive economy: to attract investments & provide jobs
- Cities require a well-functioning economy w job opportunities to achieve a degree of econ security as they're competing w other cities for investment & global talent that are increasingly mobile
- To retain local talent & remain attractive for others to want to relocate / invest / work / live in
- Generates income for sustainability of city & reduce occurrence of socio/politcal instability ↑ liveability
- Sustainable Environment: to survive w limited natural resources by having a clean/green city to appeal to foreign investors
- High QoL: incl social / psychological well-being of popn , CLC focuses on econ,socio,evmt aspects of urban life
Mercer's Quality of Living Survey :cityscape: :female-artist::skin-tone-2:
- Compares 230 countries based on 39 criteria (such as safety, education, healthcare, culture, evmt, political-econ stability, PT)
- NYC is given a baseline score of 100 and other cities are rated in comparison
- Purpose: to help TNCs decide where to open offices or plants & how much to pay their employees
- Target Group: for foreign expatriates / TNCs
- Since criteria is focused on liveability dimensions that affects expats > locals, firms / expats are able to decide on which area is best for businesses / relocation
- Measurement of schools & education is based on the standards / availability of international schs → provides assurance to expats whom wish that their children's education wouldn't be disrupted shld they choose to return home to sim levels of teaching in intl schs
- Measurability: scores are attributed to each of the 39 factors & are weighted to reflect importance to expats
- Comparability: scores permit inter-city comparisons
- Top Cities: Nordic, NW Europe, Australia
- Comprehensive: consider's the city's political/social evmt, health, recreation & natural evmt
Limitations:
- X Generality: Euro-centric
- X Scalability: where data cannot be extrapolated to portray an accurate depiction when scaled up to a country level (instead of city) or scaled down to neighbourhood
- Vancouver (city) has been consistently one of the top cities but Canada (its country) might not be so if rated by the same indicator at country level as Vancouver's Gini coefficient has been higher than national avg
- X Comprehensive: limited in the issue of politics / socioecon → affluence where its liveable for high income expats but not blue collar workers
- Biased on cities w low popn density → better QoL
- Liveability of locals not considered
Criteria:
- Composite index vs single index
- Purpose of measurement
- Target Group: whose liveability is considered (over diff socio-econ characteristics: age/gender)
- Scale: city, neighbourhood
Urban Living Index :house_buildings: :family:
- An ongoing measure of the liveability of suburbs in Sydney that is experiencing urban densification, for residents & local gvmts
- Considers the affordability, community, employability, amenity & accessibility of an area to determine how liveable it is
- Highest ULI ratings correlate to areas w highest proportion of high density dwellings which congregate around business hubs (like City of Sydney) as the infrastructure were built to cater to the needs of these dense populations
- public transport, lotsa employing & retail, food and recreation businesses ↑ accessibility and thus liveability
- X Comparability: designed specifically for Sydney and can only be applied to cities w similar characteristics / experiencing the issue of urban densification
Purpose / Target Groups:
1. Inter-City Comparisons :cityscape:
- A key characteristic of CHLD cities is their ability to attract creative talents:female-artist::skin-tone-2: & high net worth individuals :male-office-worker::skin-tone-2:
- Purpose of measurement is to compare liveability in terms of attractiveness to foreign talent at a city scale to let foreign talents/expatriates do inter-city comparisons
2. Identify areas lacking or to be improved :cityscape::house_with_garden:
- As the indicators w the purpose above are irrelevant to locals, there's a need for more indicators at both scales, as liveability differs btwn foreign talents & locals
- Measure liveability (evmt, socioecon, political) that is tied to aspects of daily living at a neighbourhood scale to identify areas lacking or can be improved to increase overall liveability for the local urban dwellers :family:
- For socio-econ subgroups (elderly vs youth, females vs males), need to further differentiate
Reasons for Challenges:
(extent of difficulty in measurement changes over time & differs over space)
- CLLDs:
- Differences in defn of SUD/L , urban sprawl , data collection
- Institutional: financial & manpower resources
- Social: large scale RU migration / large slum popn / low level of literacy
- Economic: large informal econ sector
- CHLDs:
- Fewer challenges ; mainly in engaging diff stakeholders when developing indicators