This work aims to compare the indicators of the western liveability concept to concepts from developing countries. In this case at least one liveability study from each continent (Latin America, Asia and Africa) that is underrepresented in these classical liveability rankings was chosen.
Liveability is a widely used and popular term nowadays, but it is hard to quantify and compare liveability. The most used and prominent attempts to compare liveability on a worldwide scale are the liveability list. These annual rankings sort big cities according to the score in certain parameters that are weighted and then summed together. Usually cities from the industrialized countries are found at the top of these lists whereas cities of developing countries form the bottom. Maybe there are different concepts of liveability in different parts of the world and these rankings are only the western view on liveability.
Table of Contents
1 Abstract
2 Introduction
3 Liveability Rankings
3.1 CRITERIA OF LIVEABILITY RANKINGS
3.2 LIVEABILITY RANKING OF 2018
3.3 CRITICISM ON LIVEABILITY LISTS
4 Liveability in developing countries
4.1 BHUTAN AND THE GROSS NATIONAL HAPPINESS
4.2 LIVEABILITY AS A CONCEPT IN INDIA
4.3 LIVEABILITY- AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE
4.4 LIVEABILITY IN LATIN AMERICA ON THE EXAMPLE OF NICARAGUA
4.5 COMPARISON OF LIVEABILITY BETWEEN TEHRAN AND TARTU
5 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This work explores the existing disparity in the perception of "liveability" between industrialized and developing nations, challenging the dominance of western-centric ranking models. The study aims to investigate whether alternative concepts of liveability exist in developing countries and how they compare to the standardized indicators used in global indices.
- Analysis of western-centric liveability ranking methodologies (EIU, Mercer).
- Critique of the limitations and cultural bias inherent in classical liveability lists.
- Examination of alternative regional liveability frameworks (Bhutan, India, Africa, Latin America).
- Comparative analysis of environmental and social indicators across diverse cultural contexts.
Excerpt from the Book
4.3 LIVEABILITY- AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE
Lawanson et al. (2013: 575) criticises the liveability rankings “that are obviously skewed towards western concepts of what is pleasant and acceptable urban living.” In their study they asked 453 Africans, that are living in Africa but also in the Diaspora, about their perspective on a liveable city in the African context. The following key elements for a liveable city could be identified:
• economic vibrancy, provision of jobs/incomes for all
• equitable access to education, healthcare, daily requirements and housing
• a liveable city is capable of dealing with cultural differences in a positive manner, creates a feeling of belonging, feeling of oneness in a city
• good infrastructures, good governance system, security, standards
• without fear/terror and is secure, run by a relatively fair and just government, no corruption
• participation of residents in decisions
Furthermore, Lawanson et al. (2013) emphasises the differences between the Western concept and the African concept that he found during the study. The African perspective of liveability is much more tied to the basic needs and affordability and good infrastructure mainly due to bad eg in the African concept whereas individuality, freedom, anonymity and modernity are preferred characteristics of a liveable Western city. The common liveability rankings in general focus much more on the global relevance of a city, democratic structures and economic strength instead of socio-cultural wellbeing.
Summary of Chapters
1 Abstract: Summarizes the difficulty of quantifying liveability and outlines the study's goal to compare western metrics with non-western perspectives.
2 Introduction: Establishes the theoretical background of liveability and argues that current metrics neglect the diverse needs of developing nations.
3 Liveability Rankings: Reviews the methodology of major providers like EIU and Mercer, highlighting their focus on objective parameters.
3.1 CRITERIA OF LIVEABILITY RANKINGS: Breaks down the specific weighting factors (stability, healthcare, etc.) used by major ranking agencies.
3.2 LIVEABILITY RANKING OF 2018: Presents the 2018 rankings and discusses why western/industrialized cities consistently dominate these lists.
3.3 CRITICISM ON LIVEABILITY LISTS: Critiques the western bias and lack of representation for smaller cities and rural areas in global rankings.
4 Liveability in developing countries: Introduces case studies from Asia, Africa, and Latin America to show diverse approaches to urban quality of life.
4.1 BHUTAN AND THE GROSS NATIONAL HAPPINESS: Examines how Bhutan integrates happiness and cultural resilience into its governmental concept of development.
4.2 LIVEABILITY AS A CONCEPT IN INDIA: Analyzes the six domains of liveability identified in a survey conducted in Bhopal.
4.3 LIVEABILITY- AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE: Outlines the African context, emphasizing economic vibrancy and basic infrastructure over western ideals of modernity.
4.4 LIVEABILITY IN LATIN AMERICA ON THE EXAMPLE OF NICARAGUA: Details survey results from Nicaragua, showing a prioritization of basic necessities and public space.
4.5 COMPARISON OF LIVEABILITY BETWEEN TEHRAN AND TARTU: Compares environmental preferences between two culturally distinct cities to find universal commonalities.
5 Conclusion: Concludes that while some commonalities exist, western rankings often miss essential social and cultural indicators valued in developing countries.
Keywords
Liveability, Urban Development, Western Centricity, Quality of Life, Developing Nations, Gross National Happiness, Infrastructure, Urban Planning, Sustainability, Social Cohesion, Cultural Perception, Public Policy, City Rankings, Globalization, Environmental Resilience.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper examines whether the western-centric concept of "liveability" as used in global rankings is universally applicable, specifically questioning its relevance for developing nations.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Central themes include the methodology of global liveability indices, the disparity between western and non-western urban needs, and alternative indicators such as happiness and community cohesion.
What is the core research objective?
The goal is to analyze whether alternative concepts of liveability in developing regions offer a more accurate or inclusive representation of local needs compared to traditional western metrics.
Which scientific methodology does the author employ?
The author performs a comparative qualitative analysis, reviewing existing literature and case studies from various global regions to contrast them with standard quantitative ranking models.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body critiques major rankings like EIU and Mercer, then explores regional case studies in Bhutan, India, Africa, and Latin America, before comparing urban environmental preferences in Iran and Estonia.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include liveability, urban development, cultural perception, western bias, and sustainability, among others.
How does Bhutan approach liveability differently from western nations?
Bhutan integrates liveability into a broader governmental framework centered on "Gross National Happiness," which prioritizes psychological well-being, cultural diversity, and ecological resilience over simple infrastructure statistics.
What did the study in Nicaragua reveal about residents' priorities?
The study found that residents prioritized basic necessities such as clean water, electricity, and reliable public transport, reflecting an emphasis on foundational services rather than the more diverse interests found in industrialized countries.
- Citar trabajo
- Philipp Straßer (Autor), 2019, Liveability concepts. Differences in the interpretation of liveability in developed and industrialized countries, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/584716
