Measuring Urban Liveability

Cities can use liveability data to build better spaces for all, measuring factors from housing to community life (Redbean)

Indicators that track and measure a city’s performance have emerged as powerful tools to benchmark progress against other cities and guide evidence-based policymaking. These indicators serve as a reflection of urban liveability, offering quantifiable insights into residents’ quality of life. Liveability indices measure critical aspects of urban life, from housing affordability to green space accessibility, enabling comparisons between cities worldwide.  

These tools do more than just evaluate — they can inform policy decisions and shape public perceptions. City leaders and policymakers can also utilise indices to guide strategic planning, identify areas needing improvement, and learn from successful initiatives in other cities through global benchmarking. However, as concepts of urban attractiveness and liveability evolve, approaches to measuring liveability must likewise evolve to capture both tangible metrics and intangible qualities. This will ensure that what truly matters to residents, based on their lived experiences, is tracked.   

The Business of Benchmarking Cities 

Urban data collection demands a high level of resource investment from cities–from sensor networks and data infrastructure to skilled personnel and maintenance of smart systems (Unsplash)

While there is no universally agreed definition of what makes a city “liveable”, numerous organisations have developed their own methods of measurement. This has resulted in a diverse range of indices and ranking systems that often measure different aspects of city living, reflecting the complexity of urban environments and the range of priorities to consider in assessing overall liveability. 

Liveability indices, while informative, often favor economically developed cities by emphasising GDP-linked factors like healthcare and infrastructure, potentially overlooking other important aspects of urban life not tied to economic output. Additionally, to enable cross-city comparisons, index houses tend to converge on a similar set of metrics or indicators, which may overlook local nuances and realities.  

The ability to determine causality between indices and the outcomes of interventions and policies is also limited and could lead to misinterpretation of data or oversimplification of urban dynamics. Moreover, resource-intensive data collection can burden cities with limited infrastructure, often leading to underrepresentation in global rankings. Therefore, while indices offer useful benchmarks, it is important to view them as complementary tools that supplement, rather than replace, the context-specific metrics curated by each city. 

Emerging Aspects of Liveability 

Singapore's Light to Night Festival is an annual event that transforms the Civic District into an immersive canvas of light and art, reflecting the growing importance of fostering cultural vibrancy and emotional attachment to place (Unsplash)

The evolving nature and perceptions of liveability add complexity to capturing the intricacies of urban life. Traditional metrics must be reimagined to reflect contemporary values and lifestyles. Wellness, for example, has become a central concern, extending beyond healthcare access to holistic well-being. As such, cities are increasingly assessed on their support for physical and mental health through green spaces, work-life balance, and community-focused design.  

Meanwhile, the rise of remote work and digital nomadism has changed how people engage with cities—favouring those with strong lifestyle offerings and digital infrastructure over physical proximity to work. This shift has prompted cities to compete on new fronts to appeal to a more footloose workforce, including cultural vibrancy, family-friendly design and intergenerational spaces. 

At the same time, the idea of “loveability” has emerged, moving beyond traditional quantifiable output indicators, like crime rates or transport networks, towards the emotional and psychological connections between people and their cities. Elements like public art, creative placemaking, and cultural programming transform spaces into meaningful places, enhance the character of neighbourhoods, and foster a sense of belonging. 

Measuring What Matters – Urban Liveability Outcomes 

The widespread adoption of mobile devices and social media generates useful data for cities to better understand movement patterns, service usage and community needs (Unsplash)

Advancements in technology and data capabilities—ranging from social media analytics to sensor networks—are enabling cities to capture previously hard-to-measure aspects of urban life. Hence, measurement approaches should adapt accordingly, depending on the city’s aspirations and goals. For example, frameworks and global indices now assess both cultural consumption and production to better understand cultural vitality. Some cities have started to broaden their approach towards assessing their creative ecosystems by recognising the value of informal cultural networks, which often thrive beyond traditional institutions.  

Digital technologies and social media now enable cities to gather unprecedented real-time data on how residents interact with their urban environment, offering deeper insights into how people engage with their surroundings. For instance, WeChat location data helped researchers assess demand and supply of cultural resources across Beijing, providing insights for future planning and financial decisions.  

Measuring what matters may also require looking beyond conventional metrics of urban liveability. For instance, the “Latte Index” and “Big Mac Index” each offer a relatable metric for cost of living, while the “Popsicle Index” reflects neighbourhood safety and trust through the lens of a child’s independent mobility—showcasing how subjective perceptions also matter in assessing urban well-being. Cities must also complement output-based metrics with outcome-focused measurements. While it is important to track quantifiable outputs— like the number of parks or cycling paths built—it is important to capture how these translate into societal benefits such as if parks enhance mental health and social cohesion. This shift helps policymakers evaluate not just what has been built, but how effectively these interventions serve their intended purposes. 

The Next Bound – Balancing Global Standards with Local Realities

Liveability indices hold significant potential for cities: they provide a basis for benchmarking in policy design and for citizen engagement. However, establishing consistent definitions and methods that enable meaningful comparisons while respecting local contexts continues to be a challenge. In this respect, data sharing and collaboration between cities could expand the pool of indicators available.  

Indicators also need to acknowledge diverse lived experiences and move beyond one-size-fits-all approaches. Ultimately, indices cannot be viewed as authoritative “truths”; doing so will only constrain perspectives of liveability. Rather, to more fully appreciate the value of indices, they should be treated as an evolving suite of instruments that can guide and enable cities towards more liveable futures.