The Future of Liveable Cities

What is the definition of a “liveable city”? Although the concept is not new and plenty of particular descriptions of liveable cities exist, a baseline and widely agreed-upon definition is still elusive. In addition, the recent introduction of the “big-data” era opened a plethora of exciting research avenues that, sometimes, seem to be only loosely grounded in solid urban theories. This chapter suggests a conceptual approach to the liveability of cities: liveable cities are places where people want to live and to which they choose to migrate. Following this suggested approach and drawing on the conclusions obtained using an endogenous growth model of an urban system, a basic theory of liveable cities is suggested. The endogenous urban growth model simulates several scenarios related to urban dynamics and policies, that consistently result in one of three dynamics for individual cities. In a nutshell, liveable cities are characterized by a steady population growth accompanied by a continuous improvement of the overall quality of living of its dwellers. The precondition for a liveable city is sustainable growth of the city’s “software” (products, services, technologies, norms, government, etc.) able to match, or surpass, the increasing demands of the city’s “hardware” (growing population and its associated housing and service needs). This condition allows the city to overcome the diseconomies of agglomeration. Only a few cities in a given urban system can become steadily liveable. Other cities are liveable at times, following successive cycles of growth and decadence, while a third group remains trapped in steady stagnant dynamics. The characterization of the three resulting urban dynamics through the lens of the joint development of the “hardware” and “software” offers a conceptual approach able to guide current and future empirical work based on big data and machine learning approaches.

Processes of urbanization and trends of densification and enlargement of cities are very often accompanied by economic re-structuring, social polarization and increasing environmental problems. As a consequence, cities have to cope with growing challenges of sustainable development, and climate change causes new forms of menaces through extreme weather events. Both intraurban trends and climate change impacts increasingly threaten the liveability of cities and metropolises. There are two opposite approaches which both aim at influencing and steering urban development in a strategic way: First, Smart City policy is targeted at implementing new technologies for a more efficient management of sustainable urban development. Secondly, the Resilient City policy aims at mitigating the negative effects of external crises by reducing urban vulnerabilities and strengthening adaptability and transformability in potentially affected urban areas. Evidently, these two policy concepts support urban transformation processes from different perspectives, but they both pursue a place-based approach for steering urban development processes in a sustainable way. Both policies try to influence the liveability of cities in various fields of action by implementing projects and interventions. Hence, liveability can be regarded as the outcome of two different place-based policies, which consider urban performances in a multidimensional way. In this context, this chapter  briefly discusses the socio-economic, environmental, technological and governing components based on Smart City and Resilience literature and suggests groups of potential factors, which are supposed to be more or less important for urban liveability. These factors are characterized by relevant dimensions reflecting a city’s recent performance and activities in its path of transformation and representing existing conditions and resources for strategic projects. In order to give an idea of relevant indicators and to make the concept more precise, adequate types of indicators are introduced. Considering selected indicator systems, two methodologies are introduced for the implementation of the indicator concept: the first approach is based on the concept of benchmarking cities by a comparative analysis of values. The second way follows the idea of monitoring a city’s development over time from a path perspective, which allows to show specific changes and trends. Both approaches, however, clearly follow place-based concepts, which are able to provide empirical evidence on the liveability of cities on the base of local and regional data. In that way, they are both suited to provide an evidence-based contribution to acedemic discussion and to be practically applied in strategic urban development planning. A final discussion of both methodologies suggests recommendations not only for practical implementation but also for future research.

This paper looks into three conditions that are present in most discourses on urban liveability, namely geographical inclusion and poverty, carbon neutrality and climate change, and urban transport. We start with poverty and inclusion, which have been considered as the most important factors that shape liveabilty in cities over time, determining what people do for a living, their income level, the distribution of wealth, and well-being. Then, we discuss environmental sustainability and net-zero city districts, which are now at the centre of concern for cities due to risks associated with climate change and carbon emissions. We look into current trends of post-covid mobility and transport, which play also a decisive role in the way cities are structured and operate and affect how people live and organize their activities in cities. We approach these three conditions of urban liveability as a complex system with a high level of interdependency and we search for common solutions to address these challenges comprehensively. Also, we examine how disruptive innovations, introduced by digital technologies and new infrastructures in cities, such as novel means for electric transport, smart grid, and energy optimization systems, sharing platforms, data and analytics, offer new solutions to those long-standing challenges of urban living.

In recent years, there has been a growing international governmental focus on the emergencies of climate change and biodiversity, in relation to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. There is a strict relationship between climate change and the city. All the activities that take place in an urban context contribute to climate change. In fact, a large amount of resources is consumed in cities with negative external effects in terms of pollutants and climate-altering emissions. In this scenario, the construction sector is considered one of the fields that contributes more to environmental depletion and climate change due to the continuous use of materials, energy and manufacturing technologies. Governments are striving to find new sustainability solutions and strategies both for the construction of new buildings and for the redevelopment/reuse of existing ones, including historic buildings. This contribution aims to identify strategies and tools for historic buildings renovation and energy retrofit to reach climate targets in the perspective of a more circular and sustainable building stock. A review of recent literature was developed to explore innovative materials and technologies that can be employed for energy retrofit of historic heritage buildings, including the analysis of exemplary case studies, taking into consideration the needed balance between cultural values conservation and climate change-related objectives. An abacus of suitable materials and technologies was developed and overall recommendations are proposed to enhance policies on historic buildings retrofit regulations.

This chapter identifies nature-based solutions and their possible implementation in the urban system. It discusses the numerous health benefits that result from applying the concepts of urban renaturalisiation and regreening, and explores the question: How can cities best integrate nature-based solutions to confront the challenges posed by unhealthy conditions, including decreasing air quality, the loss of biodiversity, and excessive urban heat? The chapter discusses the opportunities and benefits of applying the concept of renaturalisiation through nature-based solutions (NBS) in urban planning with the aim to enhance urban resilience and curb species extinction, which can be applied in two areas: through the conception of new green neighbourhoods; and the regeneration and regreening of existing but neglected parts of the city, such as postindustrial brownfields or economically weak districts. The chapter is structured in three parts. Firstly, it consists of a brief critical review of the literature and examples of urban planning conducted in this sense. Given the renewed interest in green space in cities—for physical and mental health, sport, enjoyment, relief from extreme high temperatures (moderating heat islands) and improving air quality, the chapter then articulates the definition of the specific problem. Finally, it introduces a strategic planning approach for NBS through proposals for action to solve the problem and apply best practices. Urban greenery has the potential to improve the environmental performance of public space and neighbourhoods; however, choosing the most effective specimen of trees and vegetation is important as it contributes to the resilience of urban green spaces and to the general health and well-being in cities.

Liveable cities depend on environmental, technological and socioeconomic assets and on the institutional allocation of property rights that allow their mobilization by citizens and for citizens. The aim of this chapter is to understand whether the allocation of property rights for transit and land use relates to the sustainability and liveability of Functional Urban Areas. To do that, we formulate and apply a spatial interaction model to the Lisbon Metropolitan Region and assess the impact of changes in the property rights for land use, transit, land value and transport costs, more specifically on the impacts of spatially uniform transport tariffs. Simulation results of the spatial interaction model and the analysis of the evolution of housing prices in urban areas indicate that uniform pricing reduces competition, increases real estate prices in the periphery and promotes urban sprawl. Summing up, beyond environmental, technological and socioeconomic assets of Functional Urban Areas, property rights on land use and transit do play an important role in the urban form and liveability of Functional Urban Areas.

Post-socialist European countries have followed a long path from communist urbanisation within a centralised economy, which praised collective values over individual opportunities, through a complicated transition process. It was oriented towards the return of the economy, institutions and society to capitalist values that increased welfare in most cities but also created inequalities and injustice. The current study provides a theoretical overview and an empirical exploratory assessment of liveability in Central and Eastern European (CEE) cities in the current change of paradigms that promote new concepts such as sustainable/green, smartness or resilience. We critically assess the state and dynamics of CEE cities’ liveability dimensions (nature and ecology, basic living conditions, urban security, culture and education) by differentiating between them and comparing them with cities from other regions of Europe. In doing so, we consider an objective statistical indicator-based approach and a subjective, complementary perspective that evaluates the degree of satisfaction of the population and individuals that live in cities. We also discuss the outcomes (both positive and negative) of adopting new approaches implemented worldwide, such as sustainability, resilience and smartness as the main concepts in urban development in post-socialist cities. Finally, we pay attention to the potential contributions of the capabilities theory of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum as “a missing link” in this framework. This is essential, as it places at the centre of urban development human freedoms and opportunities as well as planning policies for a more individualised approach focussed on liveability conditionalities and peoples’ happiness.

The objective of this paper is to discuss the emergence of land use conflicts in the maintenance or support of agricultural land near large urban agglomerations. These conflicts are potentially the greatest limiting factors for food production under the influence of urban centers. For this, we take the example of the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo (RMSP) and the Greater Paris Region (Île-de-France), which despite being the largest urban areas in their countries, are territories that address the importance of farmland preservation both in their peri-urban spaces, focused on contributing to local food security, and in their more densely urbanized spaces where other dynamics such as social relations around food issues are more prominent. Initially, we briefly go over the issues and concepts related to peri-urban agriculture, to then address the notions of land use conflicts and their implications on agricultural production spaces. Afterward, we report on the methodology used, based on interviews with experts, analysis of the regional daily press, and the presence of blogs and websites about the local realities for each of these regions. Subsequently, we discuss and compare the results obtained for each locality, its relations with local actors, public policies, agrarian issues, and other forms of occupation of space. We conclude with some ideas about the maintenance of peri-urban agriculture in these territories, despite prevailing conflicts.

The pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated problems already prevalent in cities. It has also provided us with the opportunity to re-evaluate what cities are for and how they could be in the future. Many utopian visions have been posited. It is not the intention of this chapter to merely add to this literature. Instead, the chapter discusses how circular development, which had already emerged in some European cities pre-pandemic, might help to address the problems which have been highlighted by the pandemic. These include: the poor health of urban inhabitants; urban reliance on imported resources and unreliable, long supply chains; limited adaptability in the built environment, vacant buildings and spaces; lack of space for more sustainable activities in cities; lack of diverse economic opportunities in cities; and social inequalities (especially poor access to resources—food, energy and housing and green spaces—for the urban poor). The chapter begins with a definition of circular development. It demonstrates how five circular development strategies could address the problems outlined, thus creating more resilient and liveable post-pandemic cities. The analysis draws from Western European examples. For each strategy, the chapter also reflects upon the challenges in implementing circular development. Thus, it goes beyond the rhetoric of many papers written about urban utopias’ post-pandemic, as it is evidence-based and considers the factors influencing the potential for implementation.

The coronavirus, which emerged in December 2019 in China, caused a global pandemic and serious consequences for human health. It has produced—and is still producing three years later—negative impacts not only on the health sector but also on other sectors, including real estate. For cities, the COVID-19 pandemic represents a moment of transformation in terms of health, the economy and social behaviour, some of which are capable of inducing structural and sometimes permanent changes. Due to the health emergency, many people have started to spend much more time in often inadequate housing. There has been a change in the demand and, consequently, in the supply of housing due to the emergence of new needs. Through filling the gap between the COVID-19 city perspective and the people’s needs in relation to domestic spaces, this paper analyses changes in cities and in the trend of the housing market through a case study of the metropolitan area of Naples, Italy, following the national crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, a survey was conducted through a questionnaire submitted to real estate agencies operating in this area to understand how the real estate market has evolved in recent years. The analysis revealed changes in the demand for residential properties in the metropolitan area of Naples due to new requirements emerging from the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As part of a large study, coordinated by the International Society for Urban Health (ISUH) for the World Health Organization (WHO), to define the future urban health agenda, we conducted a comparative study of health issues trends in cities around the world including their involved actors. By extending the web exploration into both scientific and general domains, our objective was to highlight emerging health topics in urban contexts that are not or not well covered by actors by national, regional, or local governments, international or national organizations or associations (such as NGOs), health institutions or private companies. This comparison was based on a broad web-based data mining including both scientific and web-based sources. The analysis required powerful analytical tools to collect, codify, store, analyze, and represent the information. The data processing required machine learning and network approaches. We used keywords associations of “health outcomes” with “urban contexts” to collect all publications related to urban health (in total nearly 125,000 documents could be processed). In total, with a topic modeling method of classification, we were able to identify by continent the topics that are discussed in general, and actors involved with these topics. In this broad vision, we situate urban actions linked to planning and environment, evaluating their systemic integration in the perspective of “health in all policies.” We also highlight continental topics that receive little attention from actors outside the academic world, which underlies the lack of political reflection or attention.

Most cities exhibit a rise in socio-economic heterogeneity and cultural diversity. Is there a common future perspective for a balanced development of liveable cities? Adopted at Habitat III in Quito, the New Urban Agenda envisages future cities as inclusive places for sustainable development. However, if people’s conceptions of liveability are very diverse or even contradictory, the Agenda is nothing more than a pipe dream. At the same time, inequality is on the rise, both globally and locally, and cities are no exceptions to this. In view of this, this study examines to what extent perceptions of city liveability vary across different socio-economic groups. Due to the focus on gender, age and economic status in the Agenda, this study compares individual views on liveability across these three social strata, with a focus on cities in Europe. It also looks at how these cities differentiate themselves to meet the multi-faceted demands of the inhabitants. The empirical part of the study uses multivariate techniques (e.g. Shapley values, multidimensional scaling analysis) to extract information on liveability perceptions in many cities in Europe. Our study provides a unique insight into what domains are most closely related to urban well-being. It also identifies, at the domain level, relevant interventions that could build more liveable and sustainable cities in Europe and elsewhere. Our findings suggest that, relative to other public amenities, improvement in qualities of the natural environment (e.g. air quality, green spaces) can be a key to enhance urban liveability in Europe.