1.2 Literature Review

The ideology of liveability was conceptualised by an urban reform party in Canada during the late 1960s. The key elements were focused on“participation, aesthetics, pollution control, more parks, neighbourhood preservation, and mixed land use” (Ley 1980). Since the 1970s, various groups have adopted different concepts of liveability, but with a common goal which is to “[compete] for power to define the quality of urban life” (Ley 1990; Hastings 1999; McCann 2004; Uitermark 2005; Hankins and Powers 2009). These studies often reflect the interest of elite group in society. In contrast, Friedmann (2000), Amin (2006) and Uitermark (2009) argue that liveability should cover the needs of those marginalised by the prevailing urban discourses.

Broadly speaking, liveability should include human requirement for social amenity, health and wellbeing (Newman et al. 1998; Newman 1999). Zanella et al. (2015) further elaborated the human wellbeing as Housing Quality, Accessibility and Transportation, Human health, Economic Development, Education as well as Culture and Leisure. They have also considered environmental impact factors, Solid Waste and Air Pollutants. Thus, their liveability index consists of eight categories.

Khoo (2012) envisages a liveable city to achieve three outcomes including competitive economy, sustainable environment, and high quality of life, while West and Jones (2009) claim that “the achievement of liveability requires conditions which enhance social, environmental, economic, cultural, and governance goals and outcomes”. Vuchic (1999) provides a working definition for urban liveability that is “generally understood to encompass those elements of home, neighbourhood, and metropolitan area that contribute to safety, economic opportunities and welfare, health, convenience, mobility, and recreation.”

Liu, Zhang, and Yu (2019) apply a factor analysis method to study the liveability of cities in Shaanxi Province and find that Xi'an is the most liveable city. There are six dimensions in their framework: urban economic level, urban traffic conditions, urban ecological environment, urban cultural environment, urban living conditions and urban survival guarantee.

A number of empirical studies ranking the liveability of cities in different geographical regions have been conducted based on their respective definitions of liveability. Mercer's 2017 Quality of Living Reports was “conducted to help multinational organisations compensate employees fairly when placing them on international assignments”(Mercer 2017). Hence, Mercer's definition of quality of living was crafted from the perspective of a narrow group of well-remunerated expatriates. Mercer's study was primarily based on their proprietary surveys, where 39 indicators under 10 categories were collected to generate the ranking results. As listed in Table 1, the 10 categories include political & social environment, medical & health consideration, socio-cultural environment, schools & education, economic environment, public services & transport, recreation, consumer goods, housing, and natural environment.

The EIU's 2017 Global Liveability Index similarly “benchmark(ed) the perceptions of development levels” in order to “assign a hardship allowance as part of expatriate relocation packages” (The Economist Intelligence Unit 2017). The index was calculated from 30 indicators under five categories, which are stability, healthcare, culture & environment, education, and infrastructure. However, 26 out of the 30 indicators in EIU's index were subjective indicators labelled as “EIU rating” or “EIU field rating”. This shows that the accuracy of the index was predicated on the opinions provided by EIU's designated analysts located in each city.

Monocle Magazine's 2017 Most Liveable Cities Index was geared towards the magazine's readers who are wealthy, mobile, and interested in global affairs, business, culture, and design (Monocle Magazine 2017). Akin to EIU's study, Monocle Magazine's index also involved a considerable amount of subjective judgement since most of the indicators were based on expert opinions. The index was derived from 11 indicators, which covers safety/crime, medical care, climate/sunshine, international connectivity, public transportation, quality of architecture, environmental issues and access to nature, urban design, business conditions, pro-active policy development, and tolerance.

The Mori Memorial Foundation's Institute of Urban Strategy also publishes the Global Power City Index (GPCI). The GPCI evaluates 44 major cities around the world and ranks them based on their “magnetism”, which they define as their “comprehensive power to attract people, capital, and enterprises from around the world” (Institute for Urban Strategy 2018). Similarly, the Global Cities Index is released every year by AT Kearney and is directed at ranking cities on how well they attract human capital, foreign investment, and multinational companies.

The 2017 Liveability Ranking of Chinese Cities by CASS was part of their study on the competitiveness of Chinese cities. The concept of liveability in the study was defined with a narrow scope of criteria that only covers a few factors, namely, human capital development, social environment, natural environment, living conditions, and infrastructure. Whereas, other important aspects like economic development, safety conditions, the stability of the society, and efficiency of the government were left out. On the other hand, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences has also published two studies: one on “Global City Informatization” as well as an E-commerce Capacity Processing Index. The former index measures how well 20 major global cities in the developing and developed world have integrated information-based systems into their city and its netizens. The later measures how well small and medium-sized enterprises in 69 countries have adapted to the age of digitalisation.

The definition of these aforementioned indices and the number of indicators included in their studies are summarised in the Table 1.1 below.