Urban Governance and Livable City Development: Concepts and Case Studies
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Rapid urbanization, climate change, and widening social inequalities have significantly increased the complexity of managing cities worldwide. By 2050, an estimated 68% of the global population will reside in urban areas, creating unprecedented demands on housing, transportation, infrastructure, and public services. These trends demand effective urban governance frameworks that can support sustainable, equitable, and livable development while addressing environmental resilience and social inclusion challenges. While numerous studies focus on urban governance in individual contexts, few offer systematic comparative investigations into how different governance models translate into diverse livability outcomes across varying socio-economic conditions. This study addresses this research gap by exploring the extent to which urban governance models contribute to livability improvements across multiple global contexts. It aims to elucidate the interrelationships between governance configurations, procedural mechanisms, and the contextual factors influencing implementation effectiveness.
Methodology: This study employs a qualitative approach, utilizing thematic analysis grounded in systematic document review and comparative case studies of six cities: Vienna, Melbourne, Rotterdam, Kolkata, Tehran, and Cheongju. These cities were selected based on their diversity in governance models, socio-economic conditions, and environmental challenges. The analytical framework comprises three governance dimensions—institutional, procedural, and outcome—along with their interrelations and contextual influences. Data sources include peer-reviewed literature, official policy documents, and international assessments spanning 2010 to 2024.
Main Results: Cities with well-coordinated institutional structures and robust monitoring systems—such as Vienna and Rotterdam—achieved exceptional performance with 90-95% coverage rates and 80-90% implementation success across multiple governance domains. Environmental pressures served as key catalysts of governance innovation, particularly evident in climate-adaptive cities like Rotterdam and Cheongju, where environmental challenges drove institutional transformation and cross-sectoral coordination. In contrast, cities facing significant resource constraints, like Kolkata, demonstrated remarkable adaptability by attaining 35-55% implementation rates through strategic prioritization, incremental
capacity building, and community-driven initiatives. The study reveals that while governance models vary widely across different contexts, locally adapted strategies can produce convergent livability outcomes through diverse pathways. Performance gaps between high-integration and limited-integration governance patterns highlight the critical importance of aligning institutional ambitions with available capacities and resources.
Discussions: The results highlight the fundamental importance of aligning governance ambitions with institutional and resource capacities, challenging assumptions about universal governance models. Cities that succeeded did so by carefully tailoring implementation strategies to local conditions, institutional legacies, and resource availability, regardless of whether they operated in high-capacity or resource-limited settings. The findings demonstrate that effective governance emerges through context-sensitive adaptation rather than standardized approaches, with successful cities developing hybrid models that combine global best practices with local innovations. Environmental challenges emerged as particularly powerful catalysts for governance transformation, driving innovation and cross-sectoral coordination.
Conclusions: Effective urban governance requires careful synchronization between governance structures, implementation mechanisms, and local realities. The study supports a staged, capacity-based approach to governance development that prioritizes institutional strengthening and adaptive management. Future research should focus on longitudinal analysis of governance transitions, capacity-building mechanisms, and the integration of emerging technologies across diverse urban environments to enhance understanding of governance evolution and livability outcomes.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Alijani, S., Pourahmad, A., Hatami Nejad, H., Ziari, K., & Sodoudi, S. (2020). A new approach of urban livability in Tehran: Thermal comfort as a primitive indicator. Urban Climate, 33, 100656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100656
Anciaes, P. R., & Jones, P. (2020). Transport policy for liveability – Valuing the impacts on movement, place, and society. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.11.009
Antognelli, S., & Vizzari, M. (2016). Ecosystem and urban services for landscape livability: A model for quantification of stakeholders' perceived importance. Land Use Policy, 50, 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.023
Asian Development Bank. (2019). Creating livable cities: Regional perspectives. https://doi.org/10.22617/TCS190465-2
Badach, J., & Dymnicka, M. (2017). Concept of “Good Urban Governance” and its application in sustainable urban planning. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 245(8), 082017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/245/8/082017
Baud, I. S. A., Jameson, S., Peyroux, E., & Scott, D. (2021). The urban governance configuration: A conceptual framework for understanding complexity and enhancing transitions to greater sustainability in cities. Geography Compass, 15(5), e12562. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12562
Birkmann, J., Garschagen, M., Kraas, F., & Quang, N. (2010). Adaptive urban governance: New challenges for the second generation of urban adaptation strategies to climate change. Sustainability Science, 5(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0111-3
Brovarone, E. V., Scudellari, J., & Staricco, L. (2021). Planning the transition to autonomous driving: A policy pathway towards urban liveability. Cities, 108, 102996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102996
da Cruz, N. F., Rode, P., & McQuarrie, M. (2019). New urban governance: A review of current themes and future priorities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1499416
Hooper, P., Boruff, B., Beesley, B., Badland, H., & Giles-Corti, B. (2018). Testing spatial measures of public open space planning standards with walking and physical activity health outcomes: Findings from the Australian national liveability study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 171, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.12.001
Ioan-Franc, V., Ristea, A.-L., & Popescu, C. (2015). Integrated urban governance: A new paradigm of urban economy. Procedia Economics and Finance, 22, 699–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00287-7
Kaal, H. (2011). A conceptual history of livability: Dutch scientists, politicians, policy makers and citizens and the quest for a livable city. City, 15(5), 532–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2011.595094
Lange, F. E. (2010). Urban governance: An essential determinant of city development? World Vision Institute for Research and Development.
Mahmoudi, M., Ahmad, F., & Abbasi, B. (2015). Livable streets: The effects of physical problems on the quality and livability of Kuala Lumpur streets. Cities, 43, 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.11.016
Meijer, A. J., Lips, M., & Chen, K. (2019). Open governance: A new paradigm for understanding urban governance in an information age. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 1, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2019.00003
Norouzian-Maleki, S., Bell, S., Hosseini, S.-B., & Faizi, M. (2018). A comparison of neighbourhood liveability as perceived by two groups of residents: Tehran, Iran and Tartu, Estonia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 35, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.08.004
Pamer, V. (2019). Urban planning in the most livable city: Vienna. Urban Research & Practice, 12(3), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2019.1635728
Paul, A., & Sen, J. (2018). Livability assessment within a metropolis based on the impact of integrated urban geographic factors (IUGFs) on clustering urban centers of Kolkata. Cities, 74, 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.11.015
Sasanpour, F. (2017). Livable city: One step towards sustainable development. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 1(3), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3673
Skalicky, V., & Čerpes, I. (2019). Comprehensive assessment methodology for livable residential environment. Cities, 94, 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.020
Sochacka, B. A., Kenway, S. J., & Renouf, M. A. (2021). Liveability and its interpretation in urban water management: A systematic literature review. Cities, 113, 103154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103154
Southworth, M. (2016). Learning to make livable cities. Journal of Urban Design, 21(5), 570–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1220152
Stanislav, A., & Chin, J. T. (2019). Evaluating livability and perceived values of sustainable neighborhood design: New Urbanism and original urban suburbs. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47, 101517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101517
Wang, Y., Chen, Y., Hewitt, C., Ding, W., Song, L., Ai, W., Han, Z., Li, X., & Huang, Z. (2021). Climate services for addressing climate change: Indication of a climate livable city in China. Advances in Climate Change Research, 12(5), 744–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2021.07.006
Yim, K. H., Ha, M. C., Jo, C. J., Han, K. M., Baek, J. I., & Ban, Y. U. (2015). Strategic planning for the smart-green city through urban governance. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 2(3), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v2.n3.81