Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications

Applied Geography 49 (2014) 18e23

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog

Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implicationsq Matthias Ruth a, b, Rachel S. Franklin c, d, * a

School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA c Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA d Population Studies and Training Center, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA b

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Livability Life course Climate adaptation Urban planning

Livability has risen, alongside sustainability, as a guiding principle for planning and policy. Promoted as the more tangible of the two concepts, livability shapes public perception and infrastructure investments in cities, as well as competition among cities for the attention of the public, investment communities, and potentially fickle and mobile human capital. This paper takes stock of the current discourse on livability, identifies two central elements that have yet to shape the assessments of livability and policies to promote it, and explores strategies for research and practice to transform the livability concept, and with it the places in which the lives and livelihoods of people unfold. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction The concept of “livability” has emerged alongside “sustainability” as a buzzword in public discourse and planning. City competitions and awards for both livability and sustainability abound. Governments, the popular press, and academics seem increasingly fixated with the concept of livability and the argument that individuals have a right to “livable” spaces. This notion is nowhere more prevalent than in the context of cities, in part because these are the places where, globally, the majority of people reside, where the bulk of economic activity and consumption takes place, where human impacts on the environment are highly concentrated and, conversely, where environmental impacts on society are most manifest, given the high density and large numbers of people and economic assets at risk. Planners and policymakers concerned with creating or maintaining livable cities have long invoked “livability” as a guiding principle for the investment and decision-making that shape the urban social, economic, physical and biological environment (Benzeval, Judge, & Whitehead, 1995; Hills, 1995; Pacione, 1982, 2003). Their propositions for the creation of livability presume that livability can be defined by fundamental or immutable

q This article belongs to New Urban Worlds: Application, Policy, & Change. * Corresponding author. Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. Tel.: þ1 401 863 1064. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Ruth), [email protected] (R.S. Franklin). 0143-6228/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.018

characteristics, many of which remain constant through time and across populations. In this paper, we offer a critical consideration of the characteristics of a livable city and explore the extent to which these characteristics would be desirable for many, if not all, individuals across locations. These are the so-called “First Principles” of livability, which are discussed in the second section of this paper. The notion of a livable city e in the sense of “fit to live in” or “inhabitable” e requires two elements to be, and remain, in synch with each other. One of these concerns the characteristics of the population that demands those goods and services, such as shelter, energy, water and food, waste management and assimilation, health and public safety, education and entertainment, social engagement, economic contributions, creativity, and much more. In short, from this vantage point livability is judged through the lens of the needs and wants of those who do or may live in cities. And since these needs and wants are most apparent in areas and times of deteriorating infrastructures, declining economic prosperity, and rising social discontent, much attention has historically been given to those places where the provision of services has been inadequate (Midgley & Livermore, 1998; Waste, 1998), and where, as a consequence, people have suffered. A second element of livability comprises the city’s environment, as defined by its physical and biological characteristics e the built infrastructures and ecosystems that provide the goods and services on which lives and livelihoods in the city depend. At a minimum, these ecosystem services stem from the green spaces and water bodies in and around cities that generate not only amenities, and through them economic value, but also provide valuable contributions, for example, to local climate regulation, air

M. Ruth, R.S. Franklin / Applied Geography 49 (2014) 18e23

quality, and flood control. Although it is conceivable that high levels of livability can be experienced temporarily while undermining ecosystem structure and function, over the long haul livability is intricately tied to environmental sustainability. The biophysical environment thus establishes the boundary constraints that affect the ability of urban populations to thrive, yet those constraints themselves are shaped in complex ways by the pressures that urban populations exert on infrastructures and ecosystems (Ruth & Coelho, 2007). In this paper we explore the roles of these two central elements of livability, individually and in their interrelationship, in order to inform assessments or definitions of livability and potential policies to promote it. Given the shortcomings of the currently rather static conceptualizations of livability, we explore strategies for research and practice to enrich and transform the livability concept, and with it the places in which the lives and livelihoods of people unfold. Specifically, since both the social and environmental elements that define livability vary across space and through time, any effort to promote livability must be based on an understanding of underlying geographic and dynamic behaviors of society and its biophysical environment, as well as their interactions. That such interactions between social and environmental dynamics in the urban realm can play a vital role in defining livability has long been established in the literature. There is extensive empirical evidence, for example, that architecture and planning can shape the economic and social profile of urban environments e from housing tenure and income mix to crime rates and pollution (e.g. Congreve, 2012, pp. 97e110; Helleman & Wassenberg, 2003; Hillier, Burdett, Peponis, & Penn, 1987) e and that, vice versa, changes in the social and environmental conditions affect access to goods and services, including those services that help maintain public health and safety, and thus influence migration decisions, morbidity and mortality rates of the urban population, as well as other demographic outcomes (de Hollander & Staatsen, 2003; Pranav, Blohm, & Ruth, 2011; Ruth, Amato, & Kirshen, 2006). Cities with very different economic and social profiles, and different cultural norms, may place different emphasis on economic efficiency and social welfare in achieving livability, yet may be perceived as ranking similarly with respect to their overall performance (see e.g. Holden & Scerri, 2013). Following our discussion of “First Principles” of livability, the third section of this paper turns to one component of the human element of livability. Here, we focus on livability from a life course perspective for two main reasons. First, individuals at various stages of the life course will potentially define livability differently, as their needs and preferences vary from those of younger or older age cohorts. Second, and as a corollary, geographic variation in population composition implies that the characteristics of places deemed livable by their inhabitants might also vary across space. Third, these varying preferences over time and space coupled with varying characteristics of space itself, will lead to individuals and households (who are able) sorting themselves according to those values and locations. They will move to the cities that they deem “livable.” This is, of course, the logical follow-on from the basic Tiebout, “vote with their feet” model (Tiebout, 1956). Finally, although there are many other social or demographic dimensions we could choose to focus on here (for example social class or race), we select the life course as a typical example of how definitions of livability may vary not only across space but also across population groups. Our goal is to highlight the difficulties inherent in propounding one definition of livability for all and to heighten sensitivity among researchers, planners, and policymakers of the dynamic constraints put on livability by society. In the fourth section we turn to the environmental element behind livability. Here we concentrate on the challenges associated

19

with maintaining an adequate and reliable supply of goods and services in light of the local and global environmental changes triggered by changes in demographic and economic conditions across space and time. Special attention is given to the dynamic constraints put on livability by society’s influence on both local and global climate conditions, and the adaptation needed to ensure livability in the light of increased frequency, severity, and duration of extreme events. The paper closes with summary remarks on the importance of potentially complex interactions between demographic and environmental changes that affect livability, the empirical and modeling challenges that lie ahead when trying to use “livability” as a guide in long-term planning, investment, and policymaking, and the governance approaches needed to maintain and promote livability. First principles Livability is perhaps best understood when juxtaposed against another popular, and similar, concept: sustainability. Sustainability is an elusive concept, hard to grasp by the individual, difficult to operationalize for the planner, and challenging to implement at local scales. It refers to the long run and, by definition, assumes a global perspective because, in an increasingly connected world, adverse impacts on social and environmental issues outside a particular region or time frame of interest will likely come back to haunt the place of concern in the form of unforeseen, often unintended consequences. There are no clear guidelines established by law or practice for sustainability and its implementation, other than broad principles that call, for example, for the use of nonrenewable resources at rates low enough to allow for their eventual replacement through renewable resources, emissions of waste products within environmental assimilation capacities, and social and economic development that is fair and just (Archibugi, Nijkamp, & Soeteman, 1989; Costanza, 1991; Daly, 2011). Livability, in contrast, is about the “now” or “about to be.” It also tends to be about the “here,” with standards for livability varying not only from country to country, but from city to city. Livability seems more immediate and tangible, and thus more achievable. Creating livable communities, rather than sustainable ones, also lies within the purview of local agencies, planners, architects, and policy and investment makers, who shape the environment within which people’s needs and aspirations unfold. In many instances, laws and regulations exist that help ensure the promotion and maintenance of safe buildings, reliable provision of water and energy, a clean environment, education, jobs, public health, and other elements of a livable city. As a consequence of established mandates, institutions and individuals can, at least in principle, be made responsible and held accountable for their lack of attention to livability. Once basic needs, such as food, shelter and security are fulfilled, higher-level wants and aspirations move into the forefront of planning and decision making both at the individual and community level (de Hollander & Staatsen, 2003; Maslow, 1968). However, as one moves from basic needs to other determinants of livability, subjective judgments of what constitutes livability are introduced. Recent discussions, particularly in the context of developed countries, have framed the notion of a “livable city” akin to a “desirable city.” This shift in emphasis from minimum requirements for livability to lifestyle choices has brought with it a cottage industry of national and international rankings that compare cities on the basis of material wellbeing, as well as social and environmental performance indicators. This shift is also the conceptual crack that allows the bogey of varying preferences to enter: we may agree, globally even, what minimum standards for livability might be, but there will be confusion about what constitutes a desirable city.

20

M. Ruth, R.S. Franklin / Applied Geography 49 (2014) 18e23

One notable such effort to include people’s perspectives on the degree to which their wants and aspirations are met includes The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index, which is based on a mix of objective measures such as material wellbeing, reflected by GDP per person, and subjective life satisfaction surveys across countries (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2007). The problems of measuring material wellbeing by GDP are well known and have been extensively addressed for some time (see, e.g., Daly & Cobb, 1994; Hueting, 1980), though not widely reflected in quality-oflife or many other such indices. How to go about selecting, combining, and perhaps weighting other aspects of livability alongside material wealth is a topic of discussion in the livability and quality-of-life literature that barely has started (Gabriel & Rosenthal, 2004; Khalil, 2012). Questions about how and why measures of livability may change over time have received even less attention (see, e.g. Blomquist, Berger, & Hoehn, 1988; Gyourko & Tracy, 1991; Kamp, Leidelmeijer, Marsman, & Hollander, 2003). While some have attempted to devise comprehensive measures of livability, others have more narrowly interpreted and assessed livability from singular perspectives, such as through the lens of transportation (Shamsuddin, Hassan, & Bilyamin, 2012), where: “the ‘success’ story in almost all city planning initiatives is [defined as] a ‘walkable’ area, with an array of shops, perhaps a hardware store, outdoor cafes, a library or post office, and an interesting mix of houses and people. Not all are high income; some are more modest working class areas” (Forsyth, Krizek, & Rodriguez, 2009, p. 174). Walkability then becomes the driver for changes in infrastructure, urban form, and institutions that promote cost savings, healthy living, and vibrant communities (Burton, 2003; Calthorpe, 1993; Duany, Plater-Zyber, & Speck, 2000; Haughton & Hunter, 2003; Levinson & Krizek, 2008; Mills & Lubuele, 1997) as well as preservation of rural areas for the production of food and the enjoyment of city dwellers (Gillham, 2002). Since livability is not just a tangible outcome of adequate and desirable urban conditions but also of the perceptions people have of urban life, one “must consider both the city on the ground and the city in the mind” as Michael Pacione so aptly observed (Pacione, 2003, p. 20). Of course, the extent to which a city should be walkable and the willingness of its inhabitants to forego, for example, expanded downtown parking in favor of wider sidewalks, depends on the characteristics of the people living there. A life course perspective on livability The history of urban planning and architecture is replete with visions of what constitutes livable places (for illustrations see, e.g., Dantzig & Saaty, 1973; Jacobs, 1961; Le Corbusier, 1935; Sir Howard, 1898, and for a thorough overview see, e.g., Mallgrave, 2009). These visions change with time, however, as well as with the preferences and needs of those for whom the planning and building takes place, and the social and cultural context within which both these visions and preferences are expressed (Mitchell, 2000). All too often, grand plans and designs for private space ultimately resulted in communities defined by anonymity, and public spaces were overtaken by trash and served as the staging grounds for groups of individuals expressing social discontent and threatening the safety of others (Blair & Hulsbergen, 1993; Helleman & Wassenberg, 2003). In short, many well-intended conceptualizations of livability have become outmoded shortly after their inception. Among the most universal patterns of changes in preferences and needs are the ones associated with the life course of individuals and households. For example, consumption patterns of the young and the old clearly differ from each other (e.g. Dietz & Rosa, 1994;

Dietz, Rosa, & York, 2007) and so do their reasons to migrate, and their propensities to do so (e.g. Champion, 2012, pp. 287e293). Both consumption and migration reshape societies. With this reshaping come new demands for institutions and the infrastructures that help deliver desired goods and services e from food and shelter, to education and health, to jobs and entertainment, and beyond. An example of the tight link between life course stage and preferences is documented in Florida’s (2008) rankings of “best cities” according to one’s place on the life course. The extent to which preferences, or demands, are reliably met contributes to the livability of the place. As just one example, as the number of individuals aged 80 and above continues to increase in many countries e with more rapid changes occurring in Asia compared to Europe and the US e urban planners and architects face new demands for infrastructures and institutions. Requirements for and uses of public and private spaces do change with age as individuals transition out of raising children and structuring their daily activities around their professional lives, as they face higher risks of declining health and become less mobile, and as growing numbers of them will be living alone (Olsberg, 2012, pp. 143e149). The implications of these changes are perhaps nowhere more pronounced than in Asian cities, which are experiencing rapid aging at earlier stages of their economic development than western cities and thus face daunting financial constraints when trying to manage their growth. At the same time, their megacities suffer from traffic congestion, high real estate prices, and rising air and water pollution. The rapidly changing social and environmental conditions collectively tend to drive industry from the core city to peripheral and previously rural locations (Bai, 2003; Dahiya, 2012). As a consequence the infrastructures and institutions put in place for enhanced livability in a city with rapid growth of a young population and growing economic activity supported by the local workforce will likely be inadequate as aging takes place. At the same time, the associated changes in employment and tax revenue may result in reduced abilities of cities to meet new demands for infrastructure services and institutions. On the earlier end of the life course come the more well-known desires for increased housing and green space, as well as quality schooling, for example, that accompany household and family formation and growth. In many postwar American urban areas much of this growth (and its attendant quality of life requirements) shifted outside of central cities. The ideal of a “livable” place for families with a choice about where to live was defined, in stereotype at least, in terms of the automobile and suburban housing developments. The renaissance of the citydas concept as well as actual and desirable place of residencedhas placed new demands on these urban areas as young professionals increasingly prefer the city both before and after household formation. Ehrenhalt (2012) offers an insightful perspective on such changes in location preferences over time. Cities are eager to attract these individuals and compete for this human capital. From that standpoint, it makes sense that cities would seek to create the type of living environment preferred by this demographic. Moreover, where for decades disposable income and tax dollars were spent outside the urban core, there is now both financial and political wherewithal to provide the services, amenities, and infrastructure (e.g. bike lanes or public transportation) that will allow places to retain these individuals. But just as yesterday’s young families expressed little desire for familyfriendly public transportation or co-located childcare and work locations, there is no guarantee that the next generation, when it reaches the same stage of the life course, will continue to want these things, either. How life course changes manifest themselves in demands on the infrastructures and resources in the local environment is also in

M. Ruth, R.S. Franklin / Applied Geography 49 (2014) 18e23

part a function of the standard of living and expectations shaped earlier in the lives of individuals. For example, while the generation of the Great Depression in North America and of WWII Europe experienced hardship and curtailed their consumption during the early years of reconstruction, with savings rates and investments in infrastructure high, the subsequent baby boom generation, which now constitutes a major part of demographic change in North America and Europe, has seen a near steady expansion of personal consumption during their lifetime (Franklin & Ruth, 2011). Both experiences brought, and continue to bring, with them drastically different consumption behaviors and mobility patterns during later parts of their lives, and different perspectives on the adequacy of urban infrastructure systems and services, local environmental quality and amenities, social networks, personal independence, and feelings of safety and belonging e all of which shape how livability is conceptualized (Olsberg, 2012, pp. 143e149). One challenge this continuous reorganization of urban lifedin terms of both shifting preferences and the migration resulting from individuals acting on those preferencesdpresents for policymakers and planners is that definitions of livability therefore change not only across the life course but across generations: the preferences of young families yesterday are different from today and will likely be different again tomorrow. In addition, varying population composition across space and time, since we expect migration to result in sorting across urban areas, means that some cities are younger and some older than others. The combination of different urban spatial structures and population compositions, along with generational shifts in livability preferences over the life course, suggests that any development of a single and spatially and temporally constant standard of livability will be difficult to come by. From the cities’ perspective, adaptation to new livability requirements is difficult to accomplish, as infrastructures tend to be lumpy and costly, and the institutions managing those infrastructures tend to become entrenched. Of course, it is not just the cities that adapt to life course changes of their populations. Individuals and households, too, can make adjustments, for example, by voting with their feet for what they perceive to be more livable places. Empirical evidence suggests, for example, that people moving into high-density areas harbor long-term plans for lower density living (Howley, Scott, & Redmond, 2009). When, in time, residents act on those preferences because of perceived livability differentials (Barcus, 2004; Senior, Webster, & Blank, 2004) they put in question the abilities of planners and architects to deliver livability over the live course and over the long term. However, changes in the boundary constraints on residential choice e such as fuel prices, quality and density of service provision outside the urban area, and competition for land and living space elsewhere e may restrict movement, and thus impact real and perceived urban livability. Sustaining demographic, cultural, and economic diversity, and maintaining a concomitant diversity in institutions and infrastructure in a city, may thus be key to enhancing livability. That is, if the urban population values such diversity (Putnam, 2007; Talen & Ellis, 2009; Wilson & Taub, 2006). But even if all these conditions are fulfilled, changes in the physical and biological circumstances may challenge the operation, and thus livability of the city. Environmental constraints on livability Apart from the definitional issues with livability laid out above with respect to life course and other demographic influences, a broad set of other constraints affect how cities operate, and thus how livable they are e from food security to global economic cycles and beyond. Among these developments are changes in climatic

21

conditions triggered both by global environmental change as well as local land use, transportation, and energy consumption patterns (Stone, 2012). These conditions affect the abilities of cities to maintain their infrastructures, provide reliable supply of services, and support the lives and livelihoods of people. Much like our discussion of life course influences as an important dynamic element of livability, we concentrate here on urban climate impacts as an example of a broader suite of environmental constraints on livability that render a static definition of the concept, and its associated planning and policy implications, inadequate. The following three interrelated issues are at play that affect environmental constraints on livability: First, growing urbanization rates mean that ever more people and assets are geographically concentrated and exposed to risks associated with external shocks to the system e be those a hurricane, drought, ice storm, or heat wave. Urban infrastructures are already strained to or beyond their capacities to meet growing demands for water, energy, transportation, communication, and other services. The aging of infrastructure, especially when combined with systemic underinvestment, further undermines the reliability of service provision under normal operating conditions. A single climate event, such as hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, in 2005, or tropical storm Sandy drenching in 2012 much of the US American Mid-Atlantic and New England regions, then can seriously undermine livability, even under the most basic, minimum requirements definition. In each of these cases, infrastructures have sustained lasting damage, and perceptions of the vulnerability of cities in one of the world’s most affluent countries have irrevocably changed. Second, the frequency, duration, and intensity of extreme weather events will increase with climate change (Wagner, 1999), adding to the increases in risks that stem from the growth in urban populations. Among the most vulnerable cities are those in Asia, in large part because of their relatively low adaptive capacity (Ruth, 2009; WWF, 2009). And while cities are subject to external climate impacts, they also change their own climate through choices of land use and consumption patters that trigger changes in air quality, wind speeds and direction, heat flux, and precipitation, as well as altered conditions for water runoff and flood control (Ruth & Baklanov, 2012). Growing efforts to curtail climate impacts e such as through the expansion of air conditioning to combat rising temperatures e combined with rising standards of living have also made cities major emitters of greenhouse gases (IEA, 2008, chap. 8). In short, cities have increasingly become both victims and perpetrators of climate change. Third, globalization has not only made the economic base of many cities more footloose, but has also led to increasingly fragile supply chains and international interdependencies. As a consequence, adverse climate impacts in far-flung places can directly affect the livability of any individual city (O’Brien & Leichenko, 2000). The city’s adaptation to climate change must therefore include preparation for impacts outside its own jurisdiction, which requires strategic assessments of existing and emerging vulnerabilities, anticipatory steps in designing and building new infrastructures, investment in redundancies of infrastructures to enhance reliability of service provision, and improved disaster management (Blanco & Alberti, 2009; Kirshen, Ruth, & Anderson, 2008; Titus, 1990). The environmental constraints on livability are intricately tied to social issues. When extreme events affect cities either directly by disrupting livelihoods and lives in the city, or indirectly by affecting the provision of goods and services from affected cities, different sectors of the economy and society are impacted differently. Existing environmental justice concerns can thus be magnified, potentially challenging the social fabric that contributes to livability

22

M. Ruth, R.S. Franklin / Applied Geography 49 (2014) 18e23

in a city (Ruth & Ibarraran, 2009). However, not only the impacts but also the adaptation strategies can have differential impacts on the people and economic sectors in cities. Building a seawall to hold back rising tides and storm surges may not only limit access to seashores and thus impact tourism, it may also affect property values, ecosystem functions, and community identity, not to mention divert resources needed to maintain, for example, social programs for marginalized parts of urban society (Douglas et al., 2012). In an increasingly globalized world, promoting local agriculture and indigenous businesses, urban parks and forests, ecosystem integrity, and social cohesion not only enhances livability, via the associated material and intangible benefits to society. These activities also may help the city, for example, to foster resilience in the light of food shortages, provide shading and water retention during extreme heat events, and enhance society’s ability to cope with disasters. What may be “trendy” elements of urban livability e the farmers’ market and locally owned corner shop, the tree-lined street and the summer festival celebrating the many cultures found in the city e thus may also turn out to be essential to adaptation when environmental changes place ever tighter constraints on the functioning of urban systems. Summary and conclusions As urbanization and globalization lead to ever more diverse populations in cities, as their living conditions are ever more rapidly shaped by the emergence of new technologies and new environmental constraints, and as their needs, wants, and aspirations evolve, it is becoming increasingly challenging to provide generally acceptable and applicable definitions of livability. Without clear understanding of the basic elements that define the concept, its use for planning and policymaking is considerably curtailed. But planning and policymaking are not just about addressing existing deficiencies in meeting needs and wants but also about laying the footprint for future developments. Changes along the life course of people and their communities, as well as changes in the physical and biological environment within which they live, are therefore fundamental aspects of any principles of livability. What does it imply for planning and policymaking if not only the “here and now” is relevant to a city’s livability, but also the “there and later?” The discussion above highlights the following five issues at the intersection of socioeconomic and environmental dynamics as critical in defining and shaping livability: First, the history of architecture and planning abounds with well-intended examples of efforts to create livability that have proven ephemeral at best. The plans of visionaries have rarely lived up to expectations, when the plans and visions were not grounded in dialog with the people for whom the planning took place and when the execution of plans e in the forms of buildings, infrastructures and institutions e did not foreshadow changes in personal preferences and future socioeconomic and environmental conditions. Second, the concept of livability has received growing attention, and ever more data are collected and synthesized on the urban condition. Missing, however, are theoretically grounded models that can help planners and decision-makers scope out the potential “livability implications” of alternative investments in infrastructures and institutions. In addition, the distinction between required and desired aspects of livable places is murky. Recent advances in agent based modeling, systems dynamics, and serious gaming, however, hold much promise for engaging a broader public in structured thought experiments and for learning from these experiments about the perceptions of future conditions held by today’s urbanites. Thoughtful integration of futures research may

complement modeling and community engagement to enrich a perspective that would otherwise be unduly skewed towards what is currently known and valued. Third, infrastructures and institutions are usually long-lived and difficult to change. Yet urban systems characterized by rapid demographic, socioeconomic, and environmental changes must be increasingly flexible to adjust to unforeseen and often unforeseeable future conditions. Engineering solutions that facilitate deconstruction and re-use of materials have captured the imagination of researchers and practitioners tasked with building infrastructures in earthquake and other potential disaster zones. Such solutions may become of increased relevance to a wider array of cities, especially as they attempt to cope with climate impacts. The design criteria and standards, choices for building materials, and other attributes may need to rapidly change, making it increasingly cost-effective to retrofit and adjust the existing capital stock. Similarly, institutions may need to be re-designed and re-tooled more rapidly. In fast-moving fields of research it is not uncommon to implement sunset clauses for academic centers and institutes. Using similar approaches to institutional design at the urban scale may bring with it new opportunities to redefine the mandates for those charged with maintaining and improving livability in an environment of rapid social and biophysical changes. For adaptive management to be successful also requires better engagement of local communities in planning and policymaking. The traditional model of expert advice to decision makers falls far short in tapping local expertise and in giving ownership to citizens over the decision making process and its results. It also significantly limits the development of use-inspired research that may be needed to enhance livability. Fourth, growing national and global interconnections among cities gives them new market opportunities and a broader knowledge base for action. It also creates the danger that adverse impacts on a select set of cities ripple through to affect others. For the benefits from tighter coupling of cities to be sustained requires commensurate efforts in generating “back-up systems” and other redundancies. Putting one foot on the global stage while strengthening their stance on the local provision of water, food, materials and energy may be essential to making globalization, and by extension livability, work. The diversity thus generated in the socioeconomic and environmental space that defines cities may well become a hallmark of their livability. Fifth, and finally, diversity is both the scourge and banner of livability. It is the banner or hallmark of livability in the sense that diverse economies, populations, and responses to social and environmental challenges strengthen cities and make them more resilient and, arguably, more livable. Diversity is the scourge of livability because it is precisely this diversitydwhether in terms of age structure, class, race, or some other aspect of the populationdthat undermines the premise of a uniform definition of livability for all. Moreover, by allowing for the possibility that what is considered “livable” and desirable will vary over space, we allow for the likelihood that individuals and households will migrate to the cities that offer the range of amenities, goods, and services they prefer. This migration, or sorting, is likely to have a detrimental effect on all aspects of diversity, as cities and neighborhoods become more homogenous over time. The notion of a livable city has not yet outlived its usefulness. It is slowly maturing to embrace the dynamics that for so long plagued its various definitions and applications. Along the way, new approaches for data collection, analysis and visualization, modeling and stakeholder engagement, technology development and deployment, and institutional design and policy will help planners and decisionmakers connect what is here and now with what is still lacking in order to meet people’s needs and wants, now and in the future.

M. Ruth, R.S. Franklin / Applied Geography 49 (2014) 18e23

References Archibugi, A., Nijkamp, P., & Soeteman, F. J. (1989). The challenge of sustainable development. In F. Archibugi, & P. Nijkamp (Eds.), Economy and ecology: Towards sustainable development (pp. 1e12). Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bai, X. (2003). The process and mechanism of urban environmental change: an evolutionary view. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 19(5), 528e541. Barcus, H. R. (2004). Urbanerural migration in the USA: an analysis of residential satisfaction. Regional Studies, 3(6), 643e657. Benzeval, M., Judge, K., & Whitehead, M. (1995). Tackling inequalities in health. London, England: Kings Fund. Blair, T. L., & Hulsbergen, E. D. (1993). Designing renewal on Europe’s multi-ethnic urban edge: the case of Bijlmermeer. Cities, 10(4), 293e298. Blanco, H., & Alberti, M. (2009). Building capacity to adapt to climate change through planning (Chpt. 2)H. Blanco, M. Alberti, A. Forsyth, K. J. Krizek, D. A. Rodriguez, E. Talen, et al. (Eds.).. Progress in Planning (Vol. 71; pp. 153e205). Blomquist, G., Berger, M., & Hoehn, J. (1988). New estimates of the quality of life in urban areas. American Economic Review, 78(1), 89e107. Burton, E. (2003). Housing for an urban renaissance: implications for social equity. Housing Studies, 18(4), 537e562. Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press. Champion, A. G. (2012). Migration and population mobility. In International encyclopedia of housing and home. Congreve, A. (2012). Sustainable communities. In International encyclopedia of housing and home. Costanza, R. (Ed.). (1991). Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press. Dahiya, B. (2012). Cities in Asia, 2012: demographics, economics, poverty, environment and governance. Cities, 29, S44eS61. Daly, H. E. (2011). Ten policies for a steady-state economy. In AAAS annual meeting, 17e21 February 2011, Washington, DC, session, “If a culture of growth is unsustainable, what should change?”. Daly, H. E., & Cobb, J. B. (1994). For the common good (Appendix). Boston: Beacon Press. Dantzig, G. B., & Saaty, T. L. (1973). Compact city. A plan for a livable urban environment. San Francisco: Freeman. Dietz, T., & Rosa, E. A. (1994). Rethinking the environmental impacts of population, affluence and technology. Human Ecology Review, 1, 277e300. Dietz, T., Rosa, E. A., & York, R. (2007). Driving the human ecological footprint. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 5, 13e18. Douglas, E. M., Kirshen, P. H., Paolisso, M. J., Watson, C., Wiggin, J., & Ruth, M. (2012). Coastal flooding, climate change, and environmental justice: identifying obstacles and incentives for adaptation in two metropolitan Boston Massachusetts communities. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 17(5), 537e562. Duany, A., Plater-Zyber, E., & Speck, J. (2000). Suburban nation: The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. New York, NY: North Point Press. Ehrenhalt, A. (2012). The great inversion and the future of the American city. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Florida, R. (2008). Who’s your city?: How the creative economy is making where to live the most important decision of your life. New York: Basic Books. Forsyth, A., Krizek, K. J., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2009). Non-motorised travel research and contemporary planning initiatives. In H. Blano, & M. Alberti (Eds.), Progress in Planning: Vol. 71. Hot, congested, crowded and diverse: Emerging research agendas in planning (pp. 153e205). Franklin, R. S., & Ruth, M. (2011). Growing up and cleaning up: the environmental Kuznets curve redux. Journal of Applied Geography, 32, 29e39. Gabriel, S. A., & Rosenthal, S. S. (2004). Quality of the business environment versus quality of life: do firms and households like the same cities? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 438e444. Gillham, O. (2002). The limitless city: A primer on the urban sprawl debate. Washington, DC: Island Press. Gyourko, J., & Tracy, J. (1991). The structure of local public finance and the quality of life. Journal of Political Economy, 99(4), 774e806. Haughton, G., & Hunter, C. (2003). Sustainable cities. London: Routledge Press. Helleman, G., & Wassenberg, F. (2003). The renewal of what was tomorrow’s idealistic city. Amsterdam’s Bijlmermeer highrise. Cities, 21(1), 3e17. Hillier, B., Burdett, R., Peponis, J., & Penn, A. (1987). Creating life: or, does architecture determine anything? Architecture and Comfort/Architecture and Behavior, 3(3), 233e250. Hills, J. (1995). Inquiry into income and wealth (Vol. 2). York, England: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Holden, M., & Scerri, A. (2013). More than this: liveable Melbourne meets liveable Vancouver. Cities, 31, 444e453. de Hollander, A. E. M., & Staatsen, B. A. M. (2003). Health, environment and quality of life: an epidemiological perspective on urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 53e62. Howley, P., Scott, M., & Redmond, D. (2009). An examination of residential preferences for less sustainable housing: exploring future mobility among Dublin central city residents. Cities, 26, 1e8. Hueting, R. (1980). New scarcity and economic growth: More welfare through less production? Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Company.

23

International Energy Agency. (2008). World energy outlook. In Energy use in cities. Paris, France: IEA. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of Great American cities. New York: Vintage Books. Kamp, I. V., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., & Hollander, A. D. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being: towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 5e18. Khalil, H. A. E. E. (2012). Enhancing quality of life through strategic urban planning. Sustainable Cities and Society, 5, 77e86. Kirshen, P., Ruth, M., & Anderson, W. (2008). Interdependencies of urban climate change impacts and adaptation strategies: a case study of Metropolitan Boston USA. Climatic Change, 86, 105e122. Le Corbusier. (1935). La ville radieuse: éléments d’une doctrine d’urbanisme pour l’équipement de la civilisation machiniste. Paris: Éditions Vincent, Fréal & Cie. Levinson, D., & Krizek, K. J. (2008). Place and plexus. New York: Routledge. Mallgrave, H. F. (2009). Modern architectural theory e A historical survey, 1673e1968. Cambridge University Press. Maslow, A. (1968). Towards a psychology of being. New York: Wiley. Midgley, J., & Livermore, M. (1998). United States of America. In J. Dixon, & D. Macarov (Eds.), Poverty: A persistent global reality (pp. 229e247). London: Routledge. Mills, E. S., & Lubuele, L. S. (1997). Inner cities. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(2), 727e756. Mitchell, G. (2000). Indicators as tools to guide progress on the sustainable development pathway. In R. J. Lawrence (Ed.), Sustaining human settlement: A challenge for the new millennium (pp. 55e104). Urban International Press. O’Brien, K. L., & Leichenko, R. M. (2000). Double exposure: assessing the impacts of climate change within the context of economic globalization. Global Environmental Change, 10, 221e232. Olsberg, D. (2012). Older people: Well-being. In International encyclopedia of housing and home. Pacione, M. (1982). The use of objective and subjective measures of quality of life in human geography. Progress in Human Geography, 6(4), 495e514. Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeingda social geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 19e30. Pranav, V., Blohm, A., & Ruth, M. (2011). Temperature-mortality relationships in urban areas: methods and applications to Boston, Massachusetts and Baltimore, Maryland, USA. In S. P. Saikia (Ed.), Climatic change. Derhadun, India: International Book Distributors (Chpt. 14). Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus Unum: diversity and community in the twentyfirst century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137e174. Ruth, M. (2009). Promoting sustainability under a changing climate in Asia. In Asia Development Bank Institute (Ed.), Asia’s contribution to global economic development and stability (pp. 179e212). Tokyo, Japan: Asia Development Bank Institute. Ruth, M., Amato, A., & Kirshen, P. (2006). Impacts of changing temperatures on heat-related mortality in urban areas: the issues and a case study from Metropolitan Boston. In M. Ruth (Ed.), Smart growth and climate change (pp. 364e392). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishers. Ruth, M., & Baklanov, A. (2012). Urban climate science, planning, policy and investment challenges. Urban Climate, 1(1), 1e3. Ruth, M., & Coelho, D. (2007). Understanding and managing the complexity of urban systems under climate change. Climate Policy, 7, 317e336. Ruth, M., & Ibarraran, M. (Eds.). (2009). Distributional impacts of climate change: Social and economic implications. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishers. Senior, M. L., Webster, C. J., & Blank, N. E. (2004). Residential preferences versus sustainable cities: quantitative and qualitative evidence from a survey of relocating ownereoccupiers. Town Planning Review, 75(3), 337e358. Shamsuddin, S., Hassan, N. R. A., & Bilyamin, S. F. I. (2012). Walkable environment in increasing the liveability of a city. Procedia e Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 167e178. Sir Howard, E. (1898). Tomorrow: A peaceful path to real reform, London. Stone, B. (2012). The city and the changing climate: Climate change in the places we live. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talen, E., & Ellis, C. (2009). Compact and diverse: The future of American urbanism (Chpt. 4)H. Blanco, M. Alberti, A. Forsyth, K. J. Krizek, D. A. Rodriguez, E. Talen, et al. (Eds.).. Progress in Planning (Vol. 71; pp. 153e205). The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). (2007, September). The economist intelligence unit’s quality-of-life index, the world in 2005. retrieved from The Economist http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITYOFLIFE.pdf. Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. The Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416e424. Titus, J. G. (1990). Strategies for adapting to the greenhouse effect. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(3), 311e323. Wagner, D. (1999). Assessment of the probability of extreme weather events and their potential effects in large conurbations. Atmospheric Environment, 33, 4151e4155. Waste, R. (1998). Independent cities. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Wilson, W. J., & Taub, R. P. (2006). There goes the neighborhood: Racial, ethnic and class tensions in four Chicago neighborhoods and their meaning for America. New York: Alfred A Knopf. WWF. (2009). Mega-stress for mega cities: A climate vulnerability ranking of major coastal cities in Asia. Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund.