An agile literature review exercise on Livable City

 

Working paper: jh-2021-03-27-a (https://josephho33.blogspot.com/2021/03/an-agile-literature-review-exercise-on_27.html)

An agile literature review exercise on Livable City

 

JOSEPH KIM-KEUNG HO

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Dated: March 27, 2021

 

 

Abstract: Literature review, conducted in an agile mode, is a useful way to conduct literature review and learn intellectual topics. This is especially the case for part-time Undergraduate students who typically have a busy rhythm of life. This article presents an agile literature review exercise on Livable City for illustration. The Livable City topic chosen should be useful to Geographical Imagination students learning this topic. Students interested in literature review in the Research Methods subject and intellectual learning should also find this article helpful for their study purpose.

Key words: agile literature review exercise, intellectual learning, literature review, livable city.

 

 

Introduction

Literature review is a major topic in the subject of Research Methods. Very often, the main emphasis of literature review is to be vigorous, comprehensive and systematic. As a lecturer on the subjects of Geographical Imagination and Research Methods for the part-time Undergraduate students in Housing Studies, the writer has an interested to develop and teach the agile literature review exercise to his students. This is because this agile exercise mode is more in sync with the busy life rhythm of the part-time students. As such, this article has a quite straightforward aim of presenting an agile literature review exercise on the topic of Livable City to illustrative this agile exercise mode. Also, the topic of Livable City is chosen as it is a topic in the subject of Geographical Imagination taught by the writer within the Housing Degree programme in Hong Kong. The next section will present this agile literature review exercise, followed by a brief conclusion section.

 

The agile literature review exercise on Livable City

The literature review exercise is an agile one, which implies a nimble, evolutionary and responsive mode. The underlying intellectual learning effort involved in this exercise is intended to be in sync with the busy pace of life of busy learners, which is typical of part-time undergraduate degree students in Housing Studies. This exercise conducted by the writer was carried out from March 25 to 27, 2021. The literature search part of the exercise relied on Google Scholar and two U.K. university e-libraries. The exercise findings on Livable City are presented in Table 1.

 

Table 1:  A set of gathered academic ideas related to Livable City, grouped in three categories

Categories	Academic ideas of Livable City
Category 1: nature of Livable City [idea 1.1]	“At the city level, sustainability, economic growth, and technological advancement are necessary for livability, but the concept of livability focuses on design and environment in order to understand individual and community wellbeing. Broader definitions of livability, as well as specific applications by organizations and media outlets, include arts and culture, recreation, and other day-to-day experiences as part of livability” (Yang et al., 2020).
Category 1: nature of Livable City [idea 1.2]	“Although livability has attracted the attention of policymakers, planners, community groups, and environmental designers, critics have labeled it a “‘fuzzy concept,’ one that means different things to different people, but flourishes precisely because of its imprecision” (Markusen, 2013, p. 293). Architects have interpreted livability in terms of density, morphology, and building performance (Lehmann, 2010). Planners have tended to focus on the consequences of land use, block size and the organization of urban systems (Burgess, 2000), mobility, walkability, and connectivity (Borst, Miedema, de Vries, Graham, & van Dongen, 2008; Larco, Steiner, Stockard, & West, 2012; Schlossberg, Greene, Phillips, Johnson, & Parker, 2006) on people’s location and transportation choices. Landscape architects have been concerned with the quantity and quality of open space affording vibrant community spaces (Bosselmann, 2008; Gehl, 2013), and most recently with the role exposure to ecological systems plays in enriching life and promoting wellbeing (Ahern, 2007; Jackson, 2003)” (Ruggeri et al., 2018).
Category 1: nature of Livable City [idea 1.3]	“Livability is a holistic paradigm of human development and community well-being based on an augmentation of the twin physical-environmental and cultural dimensions of any spaces (Balsas & Carlos, 2004; Jomehpour, 2015; Wyatt, 2009). ….. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012) had perceived livability based on the overall well-being through which a society can satisfy the basic needs of its community (Badland et al., 2014). (Paul and Sen, 2018) had defined livability as an all-inclusive approach for assessing the overall standard of living” (Paul, 2020).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.1]	“The PSC [Partnership for Sustainable Communities] developed six livability principles: Provide more transportation choices; promote equitable, affordable housing; enhance economic competitiveness; support existing communities; coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment; and value communities and neighborhoods (Office of Sustainable Communities 2010). Within the PSC’s definitions of those principles are references to specific, measurable concepts like air quality, land use, accessibility, and energy usage – all recurring components of livability definitions. Though these components are shared with other indicators of city ‘quality,’ they can also be evaluated specifically for their contribution to the quality of life” (Yang et al., 2020).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.2]	“By incorporating so many dimensions, the concept of livability or livable cities is inherently transdisciplinary, a term referring to activity that not only integrates activity from across disciplines but goes on beyond those boundaries to create new frameworks and methods (Rosenfield 1992). …. Principles of transdisciplinary research have been used to study livability components like health equity (Dankwa-Mullan et al. 2010) and landscape architecture (Stokols 2011)” (Yang et al., 2020).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.3]	“Urban livability measurement (ULM), which could reveal the spatial justice that concerns the question of “who gets what, where and how” (Smith, 1979), is conducive to providing useful feedback information for authorities to adjust or formulate opportune policies so that urban regions can continuously meet the needs of current citizens as well as to attract investment and future inhabitant taxpayers (Scott, 1998). Consequently, ULM has become an effective and essential way to determine urban sustainable development as well as residents’ quality of urban life. Currently, due to the diversified definitions of livability, the measurement of urban livability has received no consensus. However, from the existing literature, there are two paths to evaluate urban livability in general, which are the subjective approach and objective approach” (Liu and Wang, 2020).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.4]	“…most of the geographical inquiries on livability are based on objective measures (Pacione, 1990). The objective approach captures tangible and objective life quality represented by material well-being such as infrastructure, crime levels, and social welfare, usually relying on socioeconomic statistical data or geo- data like points of interest” (Liu and Wang, 2020).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.5]	“… livable cities can be seen as resting on four cornerstones: First, all residents of the city should enjoy widening life chances through direct investments in their own talents and well-being…. Second, all households and working-age residents should have access to meaningful work and livelihood opportunities…. Third, any concept of a livable city includes a safe and clean environment… Fourth, livable cities require good governance…” (Douglass, 2000).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.6]	“Livability potential can be stated to be the inherent capacity to develop into the overall well-being of urban and regional spaces for future prosperity (Wyatt, 2009). …. According to Veenhoven (1996), the potential for living is the degree to which its provisions and necessities are adequate to communities’ needs and desires. (Newman, 1999) had identified social amenities, health and included individual and community well-being as significant aspects for evaluating the degree of livability” (Paul, 2020).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.7]	“In order to simplify how a functioning built environment supports a community’s initiatives to be a sustainable and livable community, we start by differentiating physical system failure (e.g. an asset that has outlived design life) from organizational failure (e.g. dysfunctional management). These two modes of failure present different challenges, but city planners, engineers, and others who design and manage the built environment likely can exert more influence in assessing the potential for failure of physical assets within a city. And, by developing a dependency model, with a working built environment as the foundation, sustainability and livability goals are more within reach” (Reinera and Rouse, 2018).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.8]	“Neighbourhood satisfaction is the most common measure used in empirical studies that assess livability within built environments for urban planning purposes. …. Some empirical research suggests that high population density leads to lower neighbourhood satisfaction (Bramley et al., 2009; Cook, 1988; Rodgers, 1981), supported by theorists from urban sociology (Fischer, 1973; Simmel, 1903; Wirth, 1938). Yet, other research suggests that high density by itself is not detrimental to neighbourhood satisfaction (Adams, 1992; Arundel and Ronald, 2017; Howley et al., 2009)” (Mouratidis, 2018).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.9]	“…..  residents of denser urban forms walk more (Ewing et al., 2003; Rodrı´guez et al., 2006; Sung et al., 2015) and have better health (Barton, 2009; Sturm and Cohen, 2004). However, other research suggests that compact-city residents may present more health problems (Næss, 2014) and that excessively dense high-rise forms may cause several psychological problems (Gifford, 2007)” (Mouratidis, 2018).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.10]	“Urban competitiveness imposes new agendas on the cities of the future: work is now being done on how to improve the interaction between urban regeneration, economic growth and social renewal in order to achieve more comprehensive development of the city. The greatest challenge is to integrate place identity, urban sustainability and globalization (Christensen, 1999; Forrester and Snell, 2007; Gospodini, 2004; Massey and Jess, 1995). The sustainability of any place depends on a number of factors which contribute to its liveability, quality and identity (Butina Watson and Bentley, 2007; Carter et al., 1993; Castells, 1997; Hague and  Jenkins, 2005; Nijkamp and Perrels, 1994; Whyte, 1980)” (Sepe, 2010).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.11]	“According to livability theory objective conditions such as infrastructure matter for subjective wellbeing (Veenhoven and Ehrhardt 1995). Hence, in livable cities people are supposed to be happy. Furthermore, if you live in a livable city where most people are happy, you are likely to become happy as well. Fowler and Christakis (2008) found that happy people make others happy. Livability is important for businesses—happy people are better workers (Lyubomirsky et al. 2005). Livability is important for city governments, because livable cities attract good workers and businesses, and business activity is the key for city development (Economist 2011a, b)” (Okulicz-Kozaryn, 2013).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.12]	“Urban policy and housing literature has highlighted the importance of developing policy frameworks around designing and building livable communities and neighbourhoods (Burton, 2000; Leccese & McCormick, 2000; Neuman, 2005). Particular attention has been paid to the living environments of low income groups (Forrest & Kearns, 2001; Seo & Chiu, 2014). …. although livability is a global concept, how it is pursued and achieved hinges on local contexts” (Weia and Chiu, 2018).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.13]	“Recent studies proved that the walkability is a part of livability components in order to promote a livable space and sustainable environment [4]. Also, the livable city benefits from pedestrianization, by meeting its purpose in promoting sustainable access and linkage for all its citizens within a neighbourhood” (Yassin, 2019).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of Livable City [idea 2.14]	“…. it has been argued that the livability is part of the sustainability concept [4]. Furthermore, it acts as an aim and theory of the sustainable urban development. In other words the livable city is the other face of the sustainable city, as they share one focal objective: ‘‘achieving the ultimate development with the least resource consumption and environmental impact to ensure the wellbeing of both humans and the earth” [10].” (Yassin, 2019).
Category 3: application considerations of Livable City [idea 3.1]	“Modern cities, he [Munford] suggested, were faced with two developments simultaneously—the decline of inner cities, and the exodus of those who could leave inner cities at the same time that growth was taking place, resulting in an urban sprawl that was spilling over jurisdictional boundaries and defying efforts at planning. The consequence was that some parts of the region were characterized by congestion, overly high densities in Mumford’s view, and other parts, the new suburbs, were characterized by such low densities that provision of services like public transit was uneconomical” (Mellon, 2009).
Category 3: application considerations of Livable City [idea 3.2]	“The United Nations projects that by 2050, more than half of the world’s population will live in dense metropolitan areas (United Nations, 2014). This growth compels planners to consider not only how to develop more compact and efficient cities, but how to improve the quality of life for urban dwellers. Despite urbanization, cities must continue to be livable places, supporting the health, safety, mobility, and sociability of their residents (Macdonald, 2005). Urban design has long been considered an important influence on livability, yet the relationship between urban design qualities and livability remains ambiguous (Southworth, 2003)” (Ruggeri et al., 2018).
Category 3: application considerations of Livable City [idea 3.3]	“Kevin Lynch was among the first to realize the potential of new technologies like time-lapse photography and movies for capturing the perceptual qualities of the urban experience (Appleyard, Lynch, & Myer, 1964; Banerjee & Southworth, 2003). Appleyard and Craik used video simulations to examine changes in perceptions related to densification (Appleyard, 1969, 1976; Bosselmann, 1984; Bosselmann & Craik, 1987). Today, Google Maps, Street View, and augmented reality have become part of the way users navigate and experience the city” (Ruggeri et al., 2018).
Category 3: application considerations of Livable City [idea 3.4]	“The attention now being given to the idea of "livable cities" stems from the perception that cities throughout the world are being degraded as living spaces due to excessive attention given to intercity economic competition and the use of urban space and resources for purposes of accumulation (Evans, 1999). From a more positive view there is an emerging understanding that the economic sustainability of cities will, in fact, depend on making them more livable” (Douglass, 2000).
Category 3: application considerations of Livable City [idea 3.5]	“Although there are certainly a number of aesthetic problems of urban Japan, such as the jumble of badly designed and maintained buildings, the extraordinary tangle of electrical wires hanging over most streets, and serious shortages of green space in extensive urban areas, these are undoubtedly counterbalanced by a number of other truly positive aspects of Japanese cities, such as the many really interesting, well-designed buildings, the urban vitality and eclectic mix of land uses, the superb public transit facilities, and the wonderful urbaneness of Japanese citizens, who display their ability to get along in tight spaces though their impeccable politeness, lack of litter, careful tending of potted plants, and impressive organizing abilities” (Sorensen, 2006).
Category 3: application considerations of Livable City [idea 3.6]	“A considerably more optimistic interpretation of the imperative to create globally competitive locations for investment suggests that a key ingredient in the competitiveness of cities is urban quality of life and amenities. Perhaps most famously argued by Richard Florida (2002, 2005), the idea is that in advanced post-industrial economies an increasing share of the economy, and the most lucrative growth industries, are in high technology, communications, culture, pharmaceuticals, and producer services such as legal, finance, and marketing (Sassen, 1991). All these industries require highly skilled workers, who have multiple employment options, and tend to value quality of life and quality of urban environment highly (Florida’s “creative class”)” (Sorensen, 2006).
Category 3: application considerations of Livable City [idea 3.7]	“Livability indices rank cities in terms of their ‘‘livability’’. Webster dictionary defines livability as ‘‘suitability for human living’’. Livability means quality of life, standard of living or general well-being of a population in some area such as a city. …  How do we measure livability? There are many ratings/rankings of the cities: • http://whosyourcity.com, •http://www.gallup.com/poll/145913/city-wellbeing-tracking.aspx, • http://www.gallup.com/poll/146645/Boulder-Colo-Leads-Metro-Areas-Wellbeing.aspx • http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/02/liveability_ranking • http://www.mercer.com • and so forth” (Okulicz-Kozaryn, 2013).

 

Table 1 is a collection of a number of academic ideas on Livable City, grouped into three categories: the nature of Livable City (category 1), the ingredient concepts of Livable City (category 2), and the application considerations of Livable City (category 3). A summary of these ideas is provided as follows:

On the “nature of Livable City”, the Livable City notion is conceived as a holistic, albeit fuzzy, approach on standard of living assessment; to do so, it primarily studies the physical-environmental and cultural dimensions of spaces so as to understand the impacts on individual and community wellbeing.

On the “ingredient concepts of Livable City”, the Livable City theme comprises a number major concepts, which are: (i) the Partnership for Sustainable Communities [PSC]’s six livability principles, (ii) transdisciplinary orientation, (iii) urban livability measurement 9ULM), (iv) the objective and subjective urban livability evaluation approaches, (v) the four cornerstones of livable cities, (vi) livability potential, (vii) the physical system and organizational failure modes, (viii) neighbourhood satisfaction, (ix) compact-city, (x) urban competitiveness, (xi) sustainability, (xii) people happiness, (xiii) development of policy frameworks around designing and building livable communities, and (xiv) walkability and pedestrianization.

On the application considerations of Livable City, the main topics of study include: (i) declining and leaving inner cities, (ii) new technologies for learning urban experience quality, (iii) intercity economic competition, and (iv) the improvement of quality of urban life, and (v) the new technologies potential to learn urban experience quality, (vi) intercity competition and (vii) livability indices.

 Overall, the academic literature on livable city (re: Table 1) offers a rich, lively and stimulating knowledge base. It is a fruitful city image theme to study in the subject of Geographical Imagination.

 

Concluding remarks

As demonstrated by the literature review exercise, the agile literature review is able to support intellectual learning and produce useful literature review findings on chosen topics of study. Part-time undergraduate degree students learning the topic of Livable City, e.g., in the subject of Geographical Imagination [in the Degree programme of Housing Studies, for example] should find the method and the specific findings here (re: Table 1) useful. So should students interested in learning the topic of Literature Review in the subject of Research Methods.

 

 

References

Douglass, M. 2000.”Globalization and the Pacific Asia Crisis – toward economic resilience through livable cities” Asian Geographer 19(1-2): 119-137, DOI: 10.1080/10225706.2000.9684066.

Liu, J.X, Bi, H. and Wang, M.L. 2020. “Using multi-source data to assess livability in Hong Kong at the community-based level: A combined subjective-objective approach” Geography and Sustainability 1: 284–294.

Mellon, J.G. 2009. “Visions of the Livable City: Reflections on the Jacobs–Mumford Debate” Ethics Place and Environment (Ethics, Place & Environment (Merged with Philosophy and Geography)) 12(1): 35-48, DOI: 10.1080/13668790902753047.

Mouratidis, K. 2018. “Is compact city livable? The impact of compact versus sprawled neighbourhoods on neighbourhood satisfaction” Urban Studies 55(11): 2408–2430.

Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. 2013. “City Life: Rankings (Livability) Versus Perceptions (Satisfaction)” Soc Indic Res 110: 433–451.

Paul, A. 2020. “Developing a methodology for assessing livability potential: An evidence from a metropolitan urban agglomeration (MUA) in Kolkata, India” Habitat International 105 102263.

Reinera, M. and Rouse, R. 2018. “Dependency model: reliable infrastructure and the resilient, sustainable, and livable city” Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 3(3): 103–108.

Ruggeri, D., Harvey, C. and Bosselmann, P. 2018. “Perceiving the Livable City” Journal of the American Planning Association 84(3-4): 250-262, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2018.1524717.

Sepe, M. 2010. "Liveability, quality and place identity in the contemporary city: How to monitor and mitigate the impact of globalization on urban spaces" Journal of Place Management and Development 3(3): 221 - 246.

Sorensen, A. 2006. “Liveable Cities in Japan: Population Ageing and Decline as Vectors of Change” International Planning Studies 11(3-4): 225-242, DOI: 10.1080/13563470701231703.

Weia, Z. and Chiu, R.L.H. 2018. “Livability of subsidized housing estates in marketized socialist China: An institutional interpretation” Cities 83: 108-117.

Yang, S., Eyler, A., Brownson, R., Samuels, L., Kyung, G. and Reis, R. 2020. “Developing livable cities: do we have what it takes?” Cities & Health 4(3): 321-335, DOI: 10.1080/23748834.2019.1636514.

Yassin, H.H. 2019. “Livable city: An approach to pedestrianization through tactical urbanism” Alexandria Engineering Journal 58, 251–259.

Notice: about Facebook ac: Joseph KK Ho