City-making and livability for quality of life

Authors: Dr. Saut Sagala, Associate Professor, School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development, Institute of Technology Bandung (ITB), Bandung, Indonesia.
Mirmanti Winursita, Abimanyu Abdullah, Akhirul Insan, and Michael Hutahaean, Regional and Urban Policy, Bandung, Indonesia.

In city-making, gross domestic product (GDP) is one of the value systems where a city is seen as an economic engine. Success is measured financially, with the fastest way to grow an economy through construction ^[1]. However, this can have negative consequences, e.g., pollution, lack of access to affordable housing, etc.

How can we ensure the creation of more livable cities? Livability itself means the quality of life, standard of living, or general well-being of a population in a particular area, including cities ^[2]. Rapid urbanisation has caused a myriad of harmful impacts on environmental amenities due to different ages of urbanisation (center to periphery), socio-economic characteristics, and different control and planning capabilities. Consequently, the quality of life also varies widely from one location to another ^[3].

Livability indicators

To define and calculate the livability of cities and evaluate the quality of life in urban areas, many organisations try to rank livability using multiple indicators, e.g., access to quality housing, transportation options, healthcare services, job opportunities, and safe and inclusive communities ^[4]. These development indicators should be centered in human well-being and environmental aspects ^{[2, 3, 5, 6]} that contribute to the overall enhancement of residents’ quality of life. This can be done by offering a conducive environment for work, leisure, and social interactions in urban areas ^{[7, 8]}. Securing essential resources related to quality of life should be at the forefront of the sustainable development agenda, which may include access to essential services, livestock, and internal resources. Access to transportation, communication, water and sanitation, energy, and other types of infrastructure, is vital for meeting basic needs, increasing economic growth, social development, and alleviating poverty ^[9]. Food security is also important to improving cities’ quality of life through securing livestock resources that can be used to produce nutritious food for the citizens. Accordingly, city planning should include sustainable livelihoods and food security programs. Increased risks of disaster and climate change may cause severe disruptions to the key resources of a city thereby exacerbating vulnerabilities and escalating threats. This could result in reduced habitability and also challenge access to basic services (e.g., food, clean water, etc.) ^[10]. Internal resources, such as personal strengths ^[11], sense of coherence ^[12], self-esteem ^[13], resilience ^[14], skills, knowledge, and abilities ^[15] that improve resilience and develop positive physical and emotional well-being are also crucial.

External variables that challenge livability: the case of Jakarta, Indonesia

In the context of creating a livable environment conducive to achieving a good quality of life, Jakarta, Indonesia exemplifies some of the challenges to fulfilling this goal. Aside from its high rate of urbanisation and population growth, Jakarta is threatened by natural resource depletion and a polluted environment. The rapid urbanisation creates demand surges and puts pressure on the city’s ecosystem, especially the provision of clean water which is an issue in North Jakarta. In addition, over-extraction of groundwater triggers sea water to intrude and therefore alter its quality. Moreover, Jakarta is one of the regions that are highly exposed to climate change risks (e.g., sea level rise, flooding, and temperature increase), which exacerbate existing threats due to urbanisation. On the northern coast of Jakarta, the local community is threatened by sea level rise to their settlement and damage to housing. Meanwhile, the urban poor community, who mostly live near the river, is also exposed to increased risk of floods. This correlates with poor drainage systems, poor spatial planning arrangements, and increased precipitation in the upstream area. Combined with climate change risks, rapid urbanisation is a threat to quality of life in cities.

Good practices in livability: the case of Vienna City, Austria

Recognising the urgency to update existing quality of life indicators that are more sustainable and climate-sensitive, the City of Vienna is a good example of how urban sustainability can be integrated into quality of life. The city has an efficient public transportation system and affordable housing initiatives, reflecting its belief that housing is a fundamental human right ^[16]. With green spaces covering half of Vienna’s land area, this not only enhances its aesthetic appeal but also promotes residents' well-being, especially during the recent pandemic. Access to green spaces has been linked to better mental health, lower stress levels, and increased social cohesion ^[17]. Moreover, Vienna excels at livestock and food production, emphasising sustainability and animal welfare with measures such as banning growth hormones and antibiotics to ensure high quality produce ^[18]. Wiener Gusto, part of the city's own farm, promotes sustainable consumption and locally sourced food, thereby lowering the carbon footprint and making  organic food available to most ^{[19, 20]}. This is consistent with Vienna's goal of incorporating more sustainable, regional, and seasonal foods into its system, promoting a climate-friendly approach to food production and consumption. Proactively addressing climate change, Vienna has implemented strategies to increase green space and promote eco-friendly transportation ^[21], as outlined in its comprehensive Urban Development Plan (STEP) 2025 ^[22]. These efforts not only reduce carbon emissions and maintenance costs but also safeguard the city's greenery, mitigating disaster risks associated with climate change.

Conclusion

Addressing the topic of quality of life, it is necessary to consider what is really needed by, and of interest to, the community and this can be different in different places. In the context of realising the quality of life in urban settings, the basic infrastructure provided by local government functions as an instrument to the fulfillment of a good quality of life amidst the challenges posed by climate change. Ensuring sophisticated, quality, accessible, and inclusive basic services and infrastructures could drive up people’s life quality. This can be attained by, for example, better spatial planning to accommodate a growing population and by providing platforms for knowledge sharing and collaboration. A fairer society is one in which quality of life is prioritised in cities
 

References

[1] Lennard, S.H.C. (2019). Livable cities: Concepts and role in improving health. Integrating Human Health into Urban and Transport Planning: A Framework, 51-71.
[2] Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. (2013). City life: Rankings (livability) versus perceptions (satisfaction). Social indicators research, 110, 433-451.
[3] Omuta, G.E. (1988). The quality of urban life and the perception of livability: A case study of neighbourhoods in Benin City, Nigeria. Social Indicators Research, 20, 417-440.
[4] ResearchGate figure: Selected indicators to assess cities livability tbl1 271922686
[5] ResearchGate: The Indicators and Methods used for Measuring Urban Liveability: A Scoping Review
[6] https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/files/resources/Liveability%20Standards.pdf
[7] https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10262/chapter/4
[8] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w14472/w14472.pdf
[9] https://typeset.io/questions/how-infrastructure-affect-the-lives-of-the-people-28rr0czmkm
[10] Sullivan, G. B. & Sagala, A. (2020). Quality of life and subjective social status after five years of Mount Sinabung eruptions: Disaster management and current sources of inequality in displaced, remaining and relocated communities." International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 49 (October 2020): 101629.
[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127680/
[12] https://academic.oup.com/af/article/3/1/6/4638645
[13] https://www.fao.org/3/v8180t/v8180t07.htm
[14] https://hcpbs.org/practical-resources-tools/resources-quality-of-life/
[15] https://www.ahrq.gov/patient-safety/settings/long-term-care/resource/quality.html
[16] https://www.eco-business.com/news/vienna-ranks-high-on-almost-every-urban-quality-of-life-list-heres-why/
[17] https://www.meduniwien.ac.at/web/en/ueber-uns/news/news-im-november-2021/staedtische-gruenflaechen-als-wichtiger-sozialer-faktor-in-krisenzeiten/
[18] https://www.tasteofaustria.org/animal-welfare
[19] https://pes.cor.europa.eu/article/2023-euorganic-award-vienna-europes-best-organic-city
[20] Vienna Business Agency. (2022). Urban Food Tech: adapting food to climate change - Technology Report
[21] https://www.leekuanyewworldcityprize.gov.sg/resources/features/vienna-climate-change/
[22] https://smartcity.wien.gv.at/en/urban-development-plan-2025/