Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Urban Liveability (Issues w/ Measuring (Inherent Bias (may favour tastes…
Urban Liveability
Issues w/ Measuring
-
Inherent Bias
may favour tastes of corporate executives, academics, researchers targeted by such surveys
-
-
-
- no. of factors + areas covered e.g. healthcare
- type of factors (qualitative/quantitative)
-
- boundaries for same cities may be diff.
- how info is obtained e.g. pools of cities used are diff. e.g. no Asian cities
still useful: no one definition of liveability. diff. measurements provide more ways of thinking & assessment. often receive media attention, attract investors
Intro
TA of indicators: usually investors, expatriates, entrepreneurs
depends on place, time & purpose of assessment & on value system of indiv. assessor
rating of urban places in terms of QoL (state of social well-being of indiv./grp, either perceived or identified by observable indicators)
-
is it congruence (harmony) or dissonance (lack of harmony)? what is degree to which city satisfies physical & psychological needs & wants of citizens?
encompass elements of home, neighbourhood & urban area that contribute to safety, economic opportunities & welfare, health, convenience, mobility & recreation
-
-
-
-
Factors
Social & Economic
Crime
-
fear of crime is pdt of victimisation, consequence of social control breakdown
has adverse effects on indiv., society, economy & social cohesion. affects safety & mobility (liveability)
fear of crime can produce '-' feelings-> protective measures (weapons, self-defence) or avoidance behaviour (x walk at dangerous places at night)
Crowding
- physical env. (density, site design, temp.)
- social env. (nature of indiv.'s r/s w/ proximate persons)
-
- task env. (degree of congruence btw behavioural goal of indiv. & env. setting)
- indiv. (sex, cultural norms, self-esteem, personal space)
evid of impacts is inconclusive but does show crowding intensifies influence of related env. stressors
Socio-Economic Status
varying Y & social status-> live in diff areas due to property values-> limited access to certain infra
econ opportunities in city centre (more attractive)-> high rentals, property values, vice versa (below)
low accessibility-> low density, reducing liveability potentials
daily hassles-> minor annoyances but are chronic & repetitive. no. & rate of hassles exp-ed are gd predictors of indiv.'s overall health status & perceived energy lvl
Political
Terrorism
attractive locations: densely populated city centres, religious sites
-
-
Economic Intelligence Unit in 2016: fears made life more challenging in cities trying to boost their liveability
Env.
Noise Pollution
unwanted sound. impacts: annoyance/stress, effects on job performance, lower property values
-
alleviation of road-traffic noise: restrict traffic at certain areas (hospitals), highway design (vegetation buffer zones), housing design (double/triple glazing)
-
Air Pollution
-
-
- smoky sulphurous smogs from burning of fossil fuels. during winter, emissions rise as DDheating of buildings rises but atm x disperse emissions (thru winds)
- photochemical smogs from sunlight + hydrocarbons & NOx e.g. California: 97% of areas have reduced visibility, 70% eye irritation
Urban Legibility
-
-
-
need to meet unique design needs of elderly, disabled etc. e.g. public info cues-> improved guidance systems