Urban form and livability:

SPECIAL COLLECTION:
socioeconomic and built URBAN DENSIFICATION

environment indicators RESEARCH

NICHOLAS MARTINO
CYNTHIA GIRLING
YUHAO LU
*Author affiliations can be found in the back matter of this article

ABSTRACT CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:

Nicholas Martino
Spatial relations among urban elements (buildings, streets, etc.) constantly affect the elementslab, School of
quality of urban spaces, creating more or less livable cities. The study of urban form Architecture and Landscape
has been a way of objectively quantifying such relations to understand their dynamics. Architecture, University of
Urban livability is the ability of urban spaces to fulfill the expectations of its inhabitants British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,
Canada
for wellbeing and quality of life. Measurable spatial patterns underlie the emergence
nichmar@mail.ubc.ca
of livable cities. Still, few researchers have considered if and how these patterns affect
socioeconomic conditions across spatial scales. This paper explores the relationships
between indicators of socioeconomic livability and cross-scale patterns of demographic
and morphological densities within the Metro Vancouver (MV) region (Canada). Indicators KEYWORDS:
of accessibility, social diversity, affordability, and economic vitality were quantified and cities; densification; livability;
socioeconomic indicators;
compared among five population density clusters composed of 3450 census dissemination
spatial network analysis; urban
areas (DAs) in MV. Morphological indicators of intensity, centrality and diversity were form; urban morphology
aggregated at the DAs using spatial network analysis with five radii from 400 to 4800 m.
Socioeconomic indices were regressed on urban form variables to assess the importance
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
of the built environment on predicting livability-related qualities. Overall, indicators of the Martino, N., Girling, C., & Lu,
intensity of urban form were the most significant to predict the socioeconomic metrics. Y. (2021). Urban form and
livability: socioeconomic and
POLICY RELEVANCE built environment indicators.
Buildings and Cities, 2(1), pp.
Policies that aim to solve urban issues should consider nonlinear relations among 220–243. DOI: https://doi.
variables. In the case of MV, indicators of accessibility, social diversity and economic org/10.5334/bc.82
vitality are directly correlated with each other and inversely correlated with affordability.
Medium to high-density zones presented a fair equilibrium among the different livability
qualities analyzed. Attributes aggregated with the 4800 m radius were highly important
to predict the livability qualities within a 400 m radius, which potentially means that urban
interventions may affect the livability of spaces not immediately close to them. A higher
density of buildings with moderate height distributed among parcels with distinct sizes
 Martino et al. 221
Buildings and Cities
can potentially have a positive impact on economic vitality and housing affordability. The DOI: 10.5334/bc.82
intensity and diversity of the tree canopy was important to predict active accessibility and
social diversity. The inclusion of spatial diversity and network centrality measures on urban
planning and design practices potentially foster more livable densification processes.

1 LIVABILITY AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Cities are complex systems composed of a large number of interconnected elements. Relations
among the physical parts of these systems—blocks, plots, streets, buildings, trees, trails, furniture,
etc.—are constantly changing and reshaping urban life. Spatial patterns of urban form can be
identified from relations between the physical parts of cities. Such patterns affect the livability
of urban spaces. Although there is no consensus over an objective definition of urban livability,
it can be generally defined as the ability of cities to fulfill expectations of its inhabitants for
wellbeing and quality of life. Since urban form is a consequence and a driver of urban life at the
same time (Holanda 2013), urban livability is also dependent on urban form. According to Scarth
(1964), livability is essentially a property of the physical environment—also an assumption of this
paper—and densification should be designed to not disturb the livability of residential units. Thus,
it is important for decision-makers to understand how policies that affect urban form (such as
maximum allowed densities, spatial or land-use requirements for urban developments) will also
affect the livability of spaces. Furthermore, the higher complexity of large metropolitan areas
poses the challenge of cross-scale interactions when urban form patterns of different scales affect
distinct (and sometimes contradictory) qualities.

Relations between density, livability and urban form have been intensively explored. Most
researchers refer to density as a synonym of population density (the intensity of people living
or working in a certain area), but it can also mean morphological density (the intensity of the
built environment in a certain area). Higher population densities have been linked with economic
vitality due to the intense movement of people (Montgomery 1998), improved health (Carlson
et al. 2012) and lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Senbel et al. 2014) as a result of better
walkability. However, high population and building density might surge housing costs (Voith &
Wachter 2009), increase the susceptibility to spread diseases as a result of agglomeration (Florida
2020) and diminish the sense of human scale (Sim & Gehl 2019). Compact and dense urban design
has been widely acknowledged as an effective planning tool to decrease cities’ overall carbon
footprint while providing accessible amenities to urban dwellers (Senbel et al. 2014). Nevertheless,
such design decisions may come with a cost of urban overpopulation, less green space per capita,
traffic pollution, etc.

In order to find balances between distinct aspects of urban livability, it is relevant to understand
mechanisms by which different configurations of density indicators—population density, building
density, tree canopy density, etc.—and other attributes of the built environment affect various
socioeconomic qualities. This paper is focused on the social and economic dimensions of livability.
It investigates relations between densities of the built environment (based on metrics that describe
the concentration of entities within a spatial scale, such as density of people, dwellings, buildings,
floors, vegetation, parcels, floors and bedrooms) and indicators of four socioeconomic qualities of
livable cities:

• accessibility
• social diversity
• affordability
• economic vitality.

The case study of the Metro Vancouver (MV) region of Canada is presented. The analysis is in two
parts. The first section is focused on relations between clusters of population density and livability
indicators in order to understand how densification processes might affect such qualities. It was
found that population density enhances those qualities up until a certain threshold (around 3000 Martino et al. 222
Buildings and Cities
people/km2 in the case of MV). Above that, denser spaces start to become highly unaffordable DOI: 10.5334/bc.82
when compared with lower density areas. The second analytical section focuses on the importance
of spatial density (or intensity) of the built environment across multiple scales for predicting the
socioeconomic indicators, in contrast to spatial diversity and centrality. Indicators of intensity of
the built environment were more relevant to predict the qualities analyzed when compared with
indicators of diversity and centrality.

The idea that livability can be assessed by urban form indicators is backed by the literature. Szibbo
(2015: 32) highlights morphological attributes related to livability such as population density,
diversity of land use, availability of open spaces, walkability and affordability. She defines urban
livability as:

as a general measure of comfortableness, ‘neediness’ and suitability, including

freedom from intrusion. It specifically outlines ‘livability’ as the ‘suitability of a place for
comfortably meeting all of one’s daily and long term needs and desires’.

Ahmed et al. (2019: 166) mention that livability varies from place to place due its dependency
on ‘community-specific values’, but claim that features of livability can be assessed by both
environmental and personal subjective characteristics. For example, the meaning of livability in the
US is closer to quality of life and wellbeing, but in the UK, it is more related to cleanness, safety and
greenness. In contrast, Ghasemi et al. (2018: 383) clearly define boundaries between objective
and subjective dimensions of livability by distinguishing them from the idea of quality of life:

quality of life is an abstract (subjective) theme pertaining to the general wellbeing of

individuals (Bérenger & Verdier-Chouchane 2007); while livability is defined as objective
conditions in which social; economic; physical; and environmental requirements are
fulfilled to provide the long-term comfort and wellbeing of the community.

The analysis of socioeconomic livability in the present paper is backed by Ghasemi et al.’s (2018)
definition. This research focuses specifically on how social and economic conditions of the
concept interrelate to the physical structure of the built environment in order to provide comfort
and wellbeing for the community. Specific qualities of the livability concept are recurrent in the
literature and were used to back the definition of livability adopted here. Overall, livable urban
places should facilitate access to economic vitality and social diversity (Smith et al. 1997), while
remaining affordable (Maschaykh 2013) and supportive of health and safety for residents and
visitors (Lihu et al. 2020).

Although ‘comfort’ and ‘wellbeing’ are subjective concepts, objective indicators of urban form are
especially useful to compare or predict scenarios in terms of the urban qualities they potentially
generate. Such analysis holds the potential to support urban form policies and the practice of
urban design since morphological attributes are present in most urban planning and design codes
and can be defined in the early stages of the design process.

However, the concept embraces multiple dimensions of urban life and thus it demands a relatively
large set of indicators to be analyzed, especially considering the complexity inherent to all urban
systems. One way to approach this intrinsic complexity of the city is by considering multiple
spatial scales in the analysis (Bourdic et al. 2012). The study of cross-scale interactions enhances
the predictability of complex systems since it helps to account for spatial nonlinearities (Peters
et al. 2004). Machine learning models (such as neural networks, random forests, agent-based
analysis, cellular automata, etc.) can also be used to model complex spatial systems accounting
for nonlinear effects of the built environment on local society, economy and environment. Such
models have been successfully used to predict or classify highly subjective aspects of places,
such as the beauty (Seresinhe et al. 2017), perception (Dubey et al. 2016) or meaning (Ros et al.
2016) of places. For the MV case study, a machine learning model was applied to find nonlinear
relations between attributes of the built environment aggregated across multiple spatial scales
and socioeconomic indicators of livability.
Another way to consider urban complexity is by using high-frequency data scraped from the Martino et al. 223
Buildings and Cities
web (Batty 2018). As interactions are constantly happening in complex systems, the highly DOI: 10.5334/bc.82
interconnected urban elements are constantly changing and adapting through local interactions.
Traditionally, the consideration of this fast adaptive character was limited by the little availability
of reliable data. Now, data from social networks and classified advertising pages have been used to
research urban systems by taking into account their intrinsic complexity. For this case study, high-
frequency information from housing and job listings webpages was combined with traditional
census data.

This paper explores socioeconomic dimensions of a vision of urban livability that is backed by
objective conditions (Ghasemi et al. 2018), as urban form is an objectively measurable aspect
of cities. Even though a degree of urban livability might be impossible to quantify, indicators can
measure the progress of cities towards specific visions of it. This study addresses livability from a
spatial perspective based on the assumption that relations among the physical parts of the city
can support or hinder urban livability. A broader vision of this spatial character of livability can be
further decomposed into spatially quantifiable qualities.

The paper is structured as follows. Sections 2.1–2.4 summarize the concepts and indicators
from the literature for the four above-mentioned socioeconomic qualities of livable cities. Non-
morphological indicators of accessibility, social diversity, affordability and economic vitality
(dependent variables) were spatialized and quantified according to the methods explained in
Section 2.5. Each quality is then represented by an index composed of normalized indicators.
Such indices were then used to compare different density zones within MV (Section 3.1)
and were later regressed on morphological indicators of intensity, diversity and centrality
(described in Table 2) aggregated across multiple spatial scales (Section 3.2). The results and
implications for policy guidelines are discussed in Section 4, and conclusions are presented in
Section 5.

2 SOCIOECONOMIC LIVABILITY
The four main elements that embrace social and economic dimensions of urban spatial livability
are shown in Figure 1. According to Ducas (2011: 147), ‘it is essential that the definition of livability
consist of factors that are universally agreed upon and non-negotiable’.

As cities are complex systems, these qualities are directly and indirectly interrelated by constant
nonlinear feedback loops. Spatial indicators themselves are not sufficient to define if a place is
livable or not. Nevertheless, they might provide a way of understanding which attributes support
or hinders the livability of certain places.

MV is one of the few cities in North America that is constantly assigned high livability rankings. The
city is bounded by mountains and waterfronts, but these features limit greenfield densification
processes. However, despite being highly ranked, it presents serious socioeconomic issues that
affects certain aspects of livability that might not be captured by such rankings. Population density
is highly concentrated around the central business district and a shortage of housing supply
contributes to affordability and homelessness crisis. Density is mainly concentrated along transit
corridors. However, there is still room for transit-oriented densification (especially in the northeast
side) (Figure 2) that should address multiple socioeconomic aspects of livability discussed in this
paper, especially the housing affordability crisis.

In order to assess relations between attributes of the built environment and livability, each
quality was represented by an index composed of normalized indicators represented in Table 1.
In order to understand how urban livability is influenced by morphological factors, such indices
were then used to compare different density zones within MV (Section 3.1) and were interpreted
as dependent variables (Table 1) in a regression model (Section 3.2) along with the explanatory
variables representing intensity, diversity and centrality of urban form (Table 2).
Martino et al. 224
Buildings and Cities
DOI: 10.5334/bc.82

Figure 1: Social and economic

qualities of spatial livability.

Figure 2: Population density

(census dissemination areas—
DAs) and the regional transit
network in Metro Vancouver
(MV).
2.1 ACCESSIBILITY Martino et al. 225
Buildings and Cities
Associations between spatial accessibility and other qualities of urban livability have been widely DOI: 10.5334/bc.82

studied in the literature. ‘Accessibility to essential services, such as employment, education, health
care, and recreation, is a key component of livability’ (Ducas 2011: 20). High accessibility usually
means greater vitality and walkability. It has been linked to better quality of life and health (Carlson
et al. 2012; Frank et al. 2010). Transit-oriented developments policies usually increase urban
livability since they significantly increase spatial accessibility of communities (Murakami 2010).

Accessibility has been a central concept in quantitative studies that relate urban form to social
behavior. Some approaches quantify it based on how much time is needed to reach a certain
number of destinations, others based on the proximity of elements along the street network
(intersection density; street to intersection ratio; proximity to services). Some non-morphological
indicators of accessibility are: frequency of public transit, travel demand, counts of pedestrians and
bikers along streets, and mode shares. Given that several studies have demonstrated that dwellers
of neighborhoods where people drive more seem to have a poorer quality of life (Frank et al. 2010),
active transportation mode shares (walk, bike) and frequency of public transit were analyzed as
non-morphological indicators (dependent variables) of accessibility for the MV case study (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Accessibility indicators

in Metro Vancouver (MV) (see
Table 1).
Note: Data were aggregated
within 400 m from the
centroids of dissemination
areas (DAs).
Sources: BC Transit (2019);
Statistics Canada (2016).

Some morphological approaches rely on an abstraction of the street network to assess potential
movement patterns. Hillier et al. (1993) claim that the configuration of the street network is the
main driving force behind pedestrian movement in urban settlements. The extent to which this
configuration can predict such movement flows is what they call ‘natural movement’. Hillier et
al. propose to decompose spaces into smaller elements to assess the topological relationships
among them. By dividing the street network into a series of straight axial lines, it is possible to
derive a network graph based on the interconnectivity of these lines. Each axial line is represented
by a node in the network, and the intersections between axial lines become the links between
such nodes (Figure 4). Network centrality measures calculated based on this technique have been Martino et al. 226
Buildings and Cities
found to be correlated with pedestrian movement (Hillier & Iida 2005), walkability (Koohsari et al. DOI: 10.5334/bc.82
2016), and bikeability (Liu et al. 2016; Manum 2013).

Figure 4: Axial line graph

process: from empty space (a)
to axial lines map (b) to graph
(c).
Source: Jiang (2006).

Centrality measures commonly calculated are: closeness centrality, which measures the proximity
of nodes to the network as a whole and highlights central places in the system; and betweenness
centrality, which measures the overlapping of shortest paths among nodes and highlights the
main transportation corridors of the system (Figure 5). Recently, other network measures have
been applied to the study of street networks, such as eigenvector (Agryzkov et al. 2019), hits
and Katz centrality (Akbarzadeh et al. 2018), which measures the influence of nodes in the
overall network.

Accessibility can have negative effects on other livability qualities, such as affordability or Figure 5: Spatial network
measures in Metro Vancouver
environmental comfort. Diversity is a quality that might help to mitigate some of these negative
(MV).
externalities of accessibility. A higher diversity of dwelling types or plot shapes, for example, tends
Note: Calculated based on
to make urban land more affordable (Marcus et al. 2019; Talen 2008). Talen (2008: 115) states graph-tool (Peixoto 2015).
that, ‘housing mix is needed to ensure that social mobility does not require geographic mobility’.

2.2 SOCIAL DIVERSITY

Social diversity is the quality of being composed of different people. Places can be socially diverse
based on its composition of ages, genders, income categories, etc. Jacobs (1961) was one of the
pioneers in identifying morphological indicators of livable neighborhoods, and diversity is in the Martino et al. 227
Buildings and Cities
core of her ideas. Jacobs indicates four conditions for diverse vibrant cities: diversity of functions DOI: 10.5334/bc.82
at different times of day and night; short urban blocks; diversity of buildings, in terms of ages and
forms; and a good concentration of people and buildings (150–151). According to Jacobs, ‘big
cities are natural generators of diversity’ (145), and the diversity of land uses is the upholder of
urban civilization itself. Furthermore, diversity also supports a set of urban qualities, such as safety,
vitality, economic activity and public contact (144). The more diverse a city is, the more diversity
it generates. This natural generation of urban diversity should be stimulated and not constrained
by forces that shape the character of urban spaces, such as governments and developers. Netto
et al. (2012) found correlations between pedestrian movement and the morphological indicators
pointed by Jacobs. Sung et al. (2015) also provide statistical correlations between Jacobs’
morphological patterns and pedestrian activity, finding that Jacobs’ conditions of diversity play
a key role in pedestrian activity. De Nadai et al. (2016) also confirm Jacobs’ theory based on the
tracking of mobile phone data.

Diversity plays a key role in the livability of spaces. Rastegar et al. (2014) interviewed residents of
cities in Malaysia and found that a significant number of residents think that diversity is a critical
element of the area’s livability. Rastegar et al. also point out that ‘both diversity and accessibility
are the effective parameters to have a livable area’ (373). Rosner & Curtin (2015: 32) suggest that
‘mixed-use and dwelling density are perhaps the most important of the four individual parameters
in terms of their contribution to the overall livability of the built environment’. Ruth & Franklin
(2014: 22) point out how diversity is a character that makes systems more resilient and thus more
livable, but this same character is also one of the main reasons why it is so difficult to grasp a
global definition of urban livability.

Thus, even though there is this assumption that morphological diversity leads to social diversity,
authors point out the challenges in prescribing a set of defined urban characteristics that enhances
diversity. Talen (2008: 194) summarizes the difficulties in defining normative goals for diversity.
Even though ‘attention to design seems to be particularly relevant in areas struggling to hold
on their diversity’, it is actually impossible to have a precise design plan that is able to maintain
the diversity of a community in the long run. The diversity mentioned by Jacobs is a result of
spontaneous and voluntary interactions among individuals. In order to maintain the character
of cities as natural generators of diversity, a certain degree of spontaneity is necessary, so that
each urban settlement organizes itself around its own local needs. Thus, there is no such thing
as a global prescription of what should be the form of diverse cities and neighborhoods. Different
societies at different times have different needs. For the analysis of MV, four non-morphological
indicators (dependent variables) of diversity based on census data were analyzed: diversity of
education degree, of ages, of income category and of ethnic origins (Figure 6).

Accessibility and diversity encompass a social dimension of livability. As these urban qualities
are intrinsically interrelated, diversity is also related to the urban economy. Marcus (2010: 32)
also found correlations between accessibility, diversity and land price reinforcing that social and
economic effects of space are affiliated:

urban form generates variations in spatial accessibility and diversity with direct effects
on social accessibility and diversity, which are possible to measure, whereby, in turn, it is
possible to measure variations in urbanity as a socio-spatial category.

2.3 AFFORDABILITY
Affordability means the quality of a place to be financially affordable to live for the majority of
citizens. It has become a significant issue in most big cities across the world. Specifically, in MV,
households have increasingly been priced out of the ownership market for the past years, which
also increased the demand for rented housing (Coriolis & Wollenberg Munso 2019). Authors
have found significant correlations between the configuration of spatial networks and land price
(Chiaradia et al. 2013; Marcus et al. 2019). Generally, there is a high demand for living in central
places and a small supply of buildable land. Marcus et al. (2019: 14) argue that, ‘the reflection of
relative location in the housing market is causal, not only correlational’.
Studies have been using multiple spatial variables and machine learning models to predict housing Figure 6: Social diversity
prices (Chen et al. 2017; Yoo et al. 2012). Chen et al. (2017: 278) predict housing price based indicators in Metro Vancouver
on ‘district characteristics, transportation infrastructure and neighborhood amenities’. Yoo et al. (MV) (see Table 1).
(2012) perform a similarly successful, but more detailed, analysis based on the distance to urban Note: Data were aggregated
amenities, such as schools, parks, etc. within 400 m from the
centroids of dissemination
However, indicators of housing affordability should consider not only the cost of buying or renting areas (DAs).
a piece of land, but also how it relates to other socioeconomic aspects. Stone (2006) explains that Data source: Statistics Canada
housing affordability is not a characteristic of housing per se, but a relationship between the cost (2016).
of housing and people’s income. Building maintenance, taxes and capital costs are other factors
that can affect the financial accessibility of urban housing and some of the reasons why it is
problematic to discuss affordability solely based on land price (Leishman & Rowley 2012). The ratio
of a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing and building maintenance
costs is measured by the census of the population in Canada (Statistics Canada 2016), and was
considered as a non-morphological (dependent) indicator of affordability in this research.

The availability of high-frequency datasets tends to facilitate the assessment of housing costs,
and thus of affordability, more accurately. Boeing & Waddell (2017) used 11 million posts scraped
from Craigslist, a classified advertising webpage popular in North America, to contrast the rental Martino et al. 229
Buildings and Cities
housing markets in different US cities. Such fine-grained data enable an assessment of urban DOI: 10.5334/bc.82
affordability that allows decision-makers to better adapt their decision to the constant adaptations
intrinsic to the urban dynamics. For the analysis of MV, more than 200,000 real estate rental posts
were collected and cleaned in an attempt to measure housing affordability. Census data were also
used to consider land market value and maintenance housing costs. Figure 7 displays the non-
morphological affordability indicators (dependent variables) analyzed at the DA level.

Figure 7: Affordability indicators

2.4 ECONOMIC VITALITY
in Metro Vancouver (MV) (see
Most of the value of a land is not given by the material estate of the property itself, but by its Table 1).
location. The vitality in the vicinity of a property, in terms of urban life, also tends to affect land Note: Data were aggregated
prices. Economic vitality means the capacity of a place to facilitate the exchange of small- within 400 m from the
centroids of dissemination
scale goods and services generating local wealth and jobs. Vitality is frequently linked to urban
areas (DAs).
livability. Rastegar et al. (2014) state that vitality in streets is a prerequisite to create livable urban
Data sources: Craigslist (2020);
environments. Cui & Mao (2018) claim that vitality is an indicator of a city’s livability.
Statistics Canada (2016).
Montgomery (1998: 97) indicates that density and mixture of uses are essential ingredients to Martino et al. 230
Buildings and Cities
generate urban vitality: ‘Vitality is what distinguishes successful urban areas from the others.’ DOI: 10.5334/bc.82
Jacobs (2016) also mentioned the role of cities as generators of wealth and indicated urban form
attributes that might contribute to this vitality, such as block size and mixed use. Long & Huang
(2017: 1) analyzed some of the urban form attributes mentioned by Jacobs and found, ‘that these
urban design indicators have a significant and positive relationship with levels of economic vitality
for cities at every administrative level’.

High-frequency data about where and when jobs are located help to compare different urban Figure 8: Economic vitality
indicators in Metro Vancouver
regions in terms of their economic vitality. Job listings webpages have been proven to be a good
(MV) (see Table 1).
resource for this type of urban analysis. Mayaud & Nuttal (2019) gathered around 5000 job posts
Note: Data were aggregated
for Vancouver, Portland and Seattle to evaluate disparities between the accessibility to jobs on
within 400 m from the
different income groups. Posts from Craigslist and Indeed, a popular job listings webpage in North centroids of dissemination
America, were used as non-morphological indicators of affordability and vitality, respectively, for areas (DAs).
the analysis of MV. Data from the census and BC Assessment (2019) on land use and employment Data sources: Census (2016),
rate were also used. Figure 8 shows the economic vitality indicators analyzed. Indeed (2020), BC Assessment
(2019).
2.5 MEASURING LIVABILITY AND URBAN FORM ACROSS SCALES Martino et al. 231
Buildings and Cities
Morphological attributes have been frequently used as indicators of urban qualities. Methods in DOI: 10.5334/bc.82

machine learning that grasp some of the non-linear relations between form and character might
help one to understand the effects of urban form on human behavior and bridge the gap between
humanistic and positivistic urban studies. A broad vision of socioeconomic livability defined as
the ability to facilitate access to diversity by remaining affordable and economically lively can be
decomposed into spatially measurable qualities to assess which attributes of the built environment
affect urban livability. This paper is focused on finding spatial attributes of the built environment
that correlate with social and economic indicators.

The analysis was divided into two parts: (1) Section 3.1 shows a clustering analysis aiming to
assess to extent to which large-scale density clusters (aggregated at 4800 m radius) perform
in terms of local (400 m) livability qualities; and (2) Section 3.2 describes a statistical analysis to
find which morphological attributes aggregated at multiple scales (Figure 9) can influence local
livability qualities. The non-morphological livability indicators (dependent variables) (Table 1) were
used in both analyses. Data were aggregated at a 400 m radius from the centroid of each DA (the
red network on Figure 9) and summed into indices according to the metrics described in Table 1.
Simpson and Shannon indices were applied to calculate the diversity of categories. Indicators
were chosen based on the literature about urban form and livability and on the availability of clean
datasets (Table 1).

Figure 9: Network buffer radii

for a sample dissemination
area (DA) in Vancouver.
Data sources: Census (2016);
OSMF (n.d.).

Morphological attributes at the surroundings of spaces tend to affect the behavior of urban dwellers
and passersby. Although a relatively large body of the literature applies spatial network analysis
to aggregate data that potentially represent behavioral patterns (Frank et al. 2017; Manum 2013),
there is no consensus over a defined set of parameters (such as radius or distance-decay function)
to which such attributes become more or less relevant to assess livability-related qualities. For
the statistical analysis (Section 3.2) the indices (as described in Table 1) were regressed on the
explanatory variables of urban form (as described in Table 2) aggregated across multiple spatial
scales (as exemplified in Figure 9) to understand the extent which morphological attributes are
able to predict and thus represent such qualities. Attributes of intensity, diversity and centrality
were analyzed (Table 2).
 QUALITY NON-MORPHOLOGICAL INDICATORS INDEX DATA SOURCE

Accessibility Average frequency of public transit in trips/10 min (freq) z(freq)+ z(walk) + z(bike) BC Transit (2020)

Ratio of people who walk to work (walk) Statistics Canada

(2016)
Ratio of people who bike to work (bike)

Diversity Shannon index of diversity of education degree categories: z(ed) + z(inc) + z(eth) + z(use)
education, arts, humanities, social, business, natural sciences,
information, engineering, agriculture and health (ed)

Shannon index of diversity of income categories: < 10,000 per

year, 10,000–19,000, 20,000–29,999, 30,000–39,999, 40,000–
49,999, 50,000–59,999, 60,000–69,999, 70,000–79,999 and >
80,000 (inc)

Shannon index of diversity of ethnic origins: North America,

Europe, South America, Caribbean, Oceania and Asia

Shannon index of diversity of land use: residential, retail, office,

civic, entertainment, hospitality and other

Affordability Ratio of the population that spends more than 30% of income on 1
housing (inc)
z  inc  + z  cost  + z  val  + z  price 
Average monthly shelter costs (cost)

Average value of dwellings (val)

Average price per square foot (price) Craigslist

Economic vitality Unemployment ratio (unemployment) z  hous   z  job   z  retail 

Number of housing posts (hous) z  unemployment 

Number of job posts (job) Indeed

Number of retail, office and entertainment uses (retail) BC Assessment (2019)

3 URBAN FORM AND SOCIOECONOMIC LIVABILITY Table 1: Socioeconomic

3.1 LIVABILITY ON DENSITY CLUSTERS indicators.
Note: Non-morphological
To understand how different density zones perform in terms of socioeconomic livability, DAs with indicators (dependent
a minimum density of 300 people/km2 were clustered into five density categories using the Jenks variables) are aggregated at a
natural breaks method (Chen et al. 2013). To maintain the spatial continuity of clusters, the breaks 400 m radius from the center
were based on the average density within 4800 m from each DA and not only on the density of of each dissemination area
(DA) and the metrics used to
the DA itself.
calculate the indices.
In order to assess contrasts between different densities and spatial relations between form,
society and economy, non-morphological indicators were aggregated at 400 m radius into
four indices (dependent variables) representing local qualities of social and economic livability
(Figures 10 and 11).

To compare the performance of each density group in terms of non-morphological indicators, the
average index of each cluster was calculated (Figures 12 and 13). Results were normalized between
0.2 and 1 for visualization purposes. Figure 13 indicates the livability indicators on each density
cluster from the lowest density cluster (0) to the highest (4). The blue bars represent the number
of DAs in each density category. DAs within the second lowest density category are the majority.

Accessibility, diversity and vitality indicators are correlated with population density and among
themselves. Affordability is inversely correlated with density and to the other indicators. Higher
densities seem to support these three aspects of urban livability whereas lower densities also
present low accessibility, diversity and vitality. Lower densities are more affordable in contrast with
higher density clusters. The highest density cluster performs well in almost all indicators, except
for age diversity, rent price/ft2 and population that spends more than 30% of its income on rent.

Accessibility rises as density increases, potentially because people tend to walk more in denser
areas, and investments in frequent/rapid transit are planned in conjunction with densification
 Martino et al. 233
TYPE INDICATOR SOURCE Buildings and Cities
DOI: 10.5334/bc.82
Density Impervious surfaces Metro Vancouver (2019)

Tree canopy cover

Potential planting area

Number of stories BC Assessment (2019)

Number of dwellings

Number of bedrooms

Number of bathrooms

Total parcel area

Gross building area

Total finished area

Year built

Diversity Diversity of parcel sizes categories Statistics Canada (2016)

Dwelling diversity (number of rooms)

Dwelling diversity (number of bedrooms)

Diversity of building ages

Centrality Intersection count OSMF (n.d.)

Street density

Street length

Intersection closeness centrality

Street segment betweenness centrality

Table 2: Morphological
Axial line length attributes (explanatory
variables): the type, description
Axial graph closeness, analogous to integration (Hillier et al. 1993)
and data source for each
Axial graph betweenness, analogous to choice (Hillier et al. 1993) attribute are analyzed.

Axial graph Katz centrality (Peixoto 2015)

Sources: The axial line graph for
centrality was built based on
Axial graph hits centrality (Peixoto 2015) Martino (2020). Measures were
processed using graph-tool
Axial graph eigenvector centrality (Peixoto 2015)
(Peixoto 2015).

processes. On average social diversity is lower on medium-density clusters. It is possible this Figure 10: Distribution of
is because it was hard to find spatial patterns for the educational diversity indicator (Figure 6). indices aggregated at the
Affordability and vitality being inversely correlated confirms the findings from the literature that dissemination areas (DAs).

the housing market is fairly efficient in pricing neighborhood amenities.

 Martino et al. 234
Buildings and Cities
DOI: 10.5334/bc.82

Figure 11: Indices mapped at

the dissemination area (DA)
level.
Note: Yellow represents the
highest and purple the lowest
values.

Figure 12: Map of Metro

Vancouver (MV) showing the
location and density range of
each cluster.

Relationships between accessibility, vitality and affordability seems to corroborate with the
hypothesis that accessibility tends to generate vitality and increase costs, thus diminishing housing
affordability. Medium to high densities (clusters 2 and 3 in Figure 13, around 2500 inhabitants/km2
on average) tend to balance different aspects of socioeconomic livability.
Martino et al. 235
Buildings and Cities
DOI: 10.5334/bc.82

Figure 13: Density clusters in

Metro Vancouver (MV).
Note: Left-hand scale = number
of dissemination areas (DAs)
in each cluster; and right-hand
scale = calculated livability
index score for each quality.

Figure 14: Prediction results for

the testing set.
Note: Scatter plots compare the
actual value of each index (x)
and the value predicted by the
model (y).
3.2 PREDICTING LIVABILITY FROM URBAN FORM Martino et al. 236
Buildings and Cities
Random forest is a machine learning method that uses multiple decision trees to improve predictive DOI: 10.5334/bc.82

performance while avoiding overfitting (Ho 1995). It has been successfully applied to predict
livability-related qualities (Sarram & Ivey 2018). A random forest model was trained on 80% of the
dataset to predict each index based on urban form attributes. All relations analyzed had p < 0.05
using linear ordinary least squares regression. The importance of each attribute was assessed using
the Gini importance index. Figure 14 summarizes the predictions of the 20% testing set.

The Accessibility and Vitality indices were the most accurate predictions. Figure 15 represents the
sum of the importance index for all the livability predictions broken down by type of morphological
attribute (density/intensity, diversity or centrality), by the attribute itself, by the radius in which
was aggregated (400, 800, 1600, 3200 or 4800 m), and by the type of distance-decay function
analysed (flat or linear).

Overall, morphological indicators of intensity had the most statistically significant correlation Figure 15: Statistical
with the indices, especially parcel area, number of rooms and number of dwellings. Centrality importance of the indicators
indicators were highlighted by the model, which means that the influence of certain streets in the used for predictions.
regional network were important for local qualities. Among the diversity indicators, the Simpson Note: Values are grouped
index of building age diversity had the highest importance index. In terms of scale, the indicators by: type of socioeconomic
aggregated at the 4800 m scale were more statistically significant than the indicators aggregated indicator; type of morphological
attribute; morphological
at smaller scales. Indicators aggregated with no distance-decay function were more important
attribute; aggregation radius;
than those aggregated with a linear distance-decay function. and distance-decay function.
Although random forests can be deemed as black box models, the analysis of partial dependence
plots can help to identify relations assessed by the model (Goldstein et al. 2014). Zhang et al.
(2017) used this type of plot to analyze the power of user-generated data from OpenStreetMap.
For the analysis of MV, the dependencies of the most important features to achieve the prediction
results were plotted (Figure 16).

The plots display the marginal effect of the most important features on the predictions. Figure 16
how much the prediction changes when a predictor is changed. Thus, the x-axis represents the
independent datasets (urban form attributes) sorted from smallest to largest, and the y-axis
displays the change in the predicted result. When y increases as x does, it means that this
relationship is positively related, as the urban form attribute (x) increases in value, the prediction
(y) increases as well. Correspondingly, if y decreases as x gets higher, the relationship is negative. Figure 16: Partial dependence
Table 3 summarizes the relations between dependent and independent variables assessed by plots.
the model. Note: The x-axis represents
the independent variables of
The plots confirm some of the results from the literature, such as centrality measures being each feature from smallest
positively related to economic vitality (Marcus 2010; Martino et al. 2019; Ribeiro & Holanda 2015). to highest; and the y-axis
However, building age diversity, a feature commonly mentioned as an indicator of affordability displays the dependency of the
prediction for that section of
and diversity, was inversely related to social diversity and affordability. Parcel area was positively
the independent dataset.
 ACCESSIBILITY SOCIAL DIVERSITY AFFORDABILITY ECONOMIC VITALITY

Positive relationship Impervious surfaces, tree Tree canopy cover Parcel area, diversity of parcel Katz centrality, year built, parcel area
canopy cover, dwelling sizes
diversity, street length

Negative relationship Number of rooms Building age Building age diversity, number Total finished area
diversity, parcel area of stories, total finished area

related to affordability and vitality and negatively related to social diversity. While the density Table 3: Influence between
of buildings had a positive influence on economic vitality, other density indicators, such as the livability qualities and urban
‘number of stories’, had a negative impact on affordability. Diversity of parcel sizes was also form attributes.
positively related to affordability. Densification processes should be planned to deal with trade-
offs between different effects of urban form.

4 DISCUSSION: URBAN FORM, SCALE AND SOCIOECONOMIC

LIVABILITY
Indicators of intensity of the built environment were found to be statistically more significant for
socioeconomic livability indicators than indicators of centrality and diversity. This result highlights
the importance of considering the socioeconomic effects of urban form when planning urban
densification processes. Density is a positive characteristic for generating economic vitality, but
it needs careful consideration in relation to other livability aspects. Results from both clustering
(Section 3.1) and regression (Section 3.2) analyses show that density can have a considerable
negative impact on housing affordability—an aspect usually neglected in global livability
rankings. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that relationships between urban form and
socioeconomic qualities are bidirectional. This is, if a certain morphological attribute were correlated
with a socioeconomic quality, it does not necessarily mean it is causing it. Socioeconomic qualities
may also affect urban form.

The same morphological indicator might have distinct socioeconomic effects and it is necessary
to balance trade-offs among them. As the density of buildings contributes to economic vitality,
parcel diversity contributes to affordability and number of stories had a negative impact on
affordability, policymakers and planners in MV might consider a higher density of buildings with
moderate height distributed among parcels with distinct sizes. This can potentially have a positive
impact on both economic vitality and housing affordability.

Those trade-offs should be carefully discussed with all urban stakeholders. Public consultation and
transparency are necessary when planners and designers address such challenges.

The model also revealed that attributes aggregated at the 4800 m radius were more important
to predict local livability indices than those aggregated at smaller radius. This result seems to
corroborate with the thesis that global attributes of the built environment have a significant
influence over local qualities (Hillier et al. 1976). Furthermore, the network centrality indicators
were highly important to predict the accessibility index, which also reflects Hillier et al.’s (1976)
idea that the configuration of the street network is highly related to movement patterns.

The idea that spatial diversity is related to socioeconomic indicators is commonly found in the
literature (Rosner & Curtin 2015; Talen 2008), but still to be examined in depth. For this case
study, attributes of morphological diversity were important to predict both social diversity and
affordability. The model revealed that building age diversity had a negative influence on predicting
social diversity, which goes against the hypothesis that creating a mix of building ages leads to
social diversity (Talen 2008: 25).

5 CONCLUSIONS
The research shows that it is feasible to link morphological attributes with livability outcomes.
However, the transferring of this knowledge to policymaking may take into account the ease with
which such morphological attributes are affected by decision-makers. Street network and building Martino et al. 239
Buildings and Cities
age indicators are harder to manipulate and it thus should be directed towards large-scale long- DOI: 10.5334/bc.82
term planning processes. The number of stories and parcel area are relatively easy to control in
areas that are in their early stages of densification. On the other hand, impervious surfaces and
tree canopy indicators are easy to control even in already densified areas. In this case, as parcel
area was shown to be a highly important feature to predict affordability, for example, it could
be relevant to municipalities or developers to consider how parcel assembling processes may
affect the overall urban livability. Further studies could look in more detail at how local-specific
densification processes perform among different aspects of socioeconomic livability.

Models hold the potential to support policymaking by assessing the socioeconomic impact of
changes in urban form. Intensity indicators were the most important influence on socioeconomic
qualities. Intensity indicators are already frequently used in the urban design processes involving
density control, maximum footprints, maximum height, etc. However, spatial diversity and
network centrality indices are relatively underused. The inclusion of such features on urban
decision-making could support design solutions that potentially foster the emergence of livable
densification processes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was not possible without the support from elementslab.

AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS
Nicholas Martino    orcid.org/0000-0001-5524-4684
elementslab, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC, Canada
Cynthia Girling    orcid.org/0000-0002-0651-8244
elementslab, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC, Canada
Yuhao Lu    orcid.org/0000-0001-8574-1999
elementslab, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC, Canada

COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors have no competing interests to declare.

DATA AVAILABILITY
Data sourced from OpenStreetMap are open data, licensed under the Open Data Commons Open
Database License (ODbL n.d.) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF, n.d.). Census data are
open data, licensed under the Statistics Canada Open Licence (Government of Canada, Statistics
Canada 2012). Data sourced from BC Assessment are private and conceded under the Commercial
Data License Agreement Number [One (1)] between the British Columbia Assessment Authority
and the University of British Columbia.

FUNDING
This research was partially funded by the University of British Columbia.

REFERENCES
Agryzkov, T., Tortosa, L., Vicent, J. F., & Wilson, R. (2019). A centrality measure for urban networks based on
the eigenvector centrality concept. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(4),
668–689. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317724444
Ahmed, N. O., El-Halafawy, A. M., & Amin, A. M. (2019). A critical review of urban livability. European Journal Martino et al. 240
Buildings and Cities
of Sustainable Development, 8(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2019.v8n1p165
DOI: 10.5334/bc.82
Akbarzadeh, M., Memarmontazerin, S., & Soleimani, S. (2018). Where to look for power laws in urban road
networks? Applied Network Science, 3(1), 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-018-0060-9
Batty, M. (2018). Inventing Future Cities. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11923.001.0001
BC Assessment. (2019). BC Assessment—Independent, uniform and efficient property assessment. https://
www.bcassessment.ca/; https://www.bcassessment.ca/Property/AssessmentSearch
BC Transit. (2019). Open Data | BC Transit. https://www.bctransit.com/open-data
BC Transit. (2020). Open Data | BC Transit. https://www.bctransit.com/open-data
Bérenger, V., & Verdier-Chouchane, A. (2007). Multidimensional measures of well-being: Standard of living
and quality of life across countries. World Development, 35(7), 1259–1276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2006.10.011
Boeing, G., & Waddell, P. (2017). New insights into rental housing markets across the United States: Web
scraping and analyzing craigslist rental listings. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(4),
457–476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16664789
Bourdic, L., Salat, S., & Nowacki, C. (2012). Assessing cities: A new system of cross-scale spatial indicators.
Building Research & Information, 40(5), 592–605. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.703488
Carlson, C., Aytur, S., Gardner, K., & Rogers, S. (2012). Complexity in built environment, health, and
destination walking: A neighborhood-scale analysis. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine, 89(2), 270–284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9652-8
Chen, J., Yang, S., Li, H., Zhang, B., & Lv, J. (2013). Research on geographical environment unit division based
on the method of natural breaks (Jenks). ISPRS/IGU/ICA Joint Workshop on Borderlands Modelling and
Understanding for Global Sustainability 2013, XL-4/W3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-
4-W3-47-2013
Chen, J.-H., Ong, C. F., Zheng, L., & Hsu, S.-C. (2017). Forecasting spatial dynamics of the housing market
using support vector machine. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 21(3), 273–283.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2016.1259190
Chiaradia, A., Hillier, B., Schwander, C., & Barnes, Y. (2013). Compositional and urban form effects on
residential property value patterns in Greater London. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—
Urban Design and Planning, 166(3), 176–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.10.00030
Coriolis, C., & Wollenberg Munso, C. (2019). Reducing the barrier of high land cost: Strategies for facilitating
more affordable rental housing construction in Metro Vancouver. http://www.metrovancouver.org/
services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/ReducingBarrierHighLandCost.pdf
Craigslist. (2020). Craigslist: Housing for rent. Craigslist. https://vancouver.craigslist.org/
Cui, B., & Mao, M. (2018). Quantifying vitality of Dashilanr: An experiment conducting automated human-
centered observation. In Z. Shen & M. Li (Eds.), Big data support of urban planning and management: The
experience in China (pp. 389–413). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51929-6_20
De Nadai, M., Staiano, J., Larcher, R., Sebe, N., Quercia, D., & Lepri, B. (2016). The death and life of great
Italian cities: A mobile phone data perspective. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on
World Wide Web—WWW ’16, 413–423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2872427.2883084
Dubey, A., Naik, N., Parikh, D., Raskar, R., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2016). Deep learning the city: Quantifying urban
perception at a global scale. ArXiv:1608.01769 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01769. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-46448-0_12
Ducas, C. R. (2011). Incorporating livability benefits into the federal transit administration new starts project
evaluation process through accessibility-based modeling (master’s dissertation, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology). https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/66861
Florida, R. (2020, April 3). What we know about density and the spread of coronavirus. Bloomberg.com.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-03/what-we-know-about-density-and-covid-19-s-
spread
Frank, L. D., Fox, E. H., Ulmer, J. M., Chapman, J. E., Kershaw, S. E., Sallis, J. F., Conway, T. L., Cerin, E., Cain,
K. L., Adams, M. A., Smith, G. R., Hinckson, E., Mavoa, S., Christiansen, L. B., Hino, A. A. F., Lopes, A. A.
S., & Schipperijn, J. (2017). International comparison of observation-specific spatial buffers: Maximizing
the ability to estimate physical activity. International Journal of Health Geographics, 16(1), art. 4. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-017-0077-9
Frank, L. D., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E., Leary, L., Cain, K., Conway, T. L., & Hess, P. M. (2010). The
development of a walkability index: Application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. British Journal
of Sports Medicine, 44, 924–933. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.058701
Ghasemi, K., Hamzenejad, M., & Meshkini, A. (2018). The spatial analysis of the livability of 22 districts of
Tehran Metropolis using multi-criteria decision making approaches. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38,
382–404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.018
Goldstein, A., Kapelner, A., Bleich, J., & Pitkin, E. (2014). Peeking inside the black box: Visualizing statistical Martino et al. 241
Buildings and Cities
learning with plots of individual conditional expectation. ArXiv:1309.6392 [Stat]. http://arxiv.org/
DOI: 10.5334/bc.82
abs/1309.6392
Government of Canada, Statistics Canada. (2012, February 1). Statistics Canada Open Licence. https://www.
statcan.gc.ca/eng/reference/licence
Hillier, B., & Iida, S. (2005). Network effects and psychological effects: A theory of urban movement. COSIT
2005: Spatial Information Theory, 475–490. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11556114_30.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11556114_30
Hillier, B., Leaman, A., Stansall, P., & Bedford, M. (1976). Space syntax. Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design, 3(2), 147–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/b030147
Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T., & Xu, J. (1993). Natural movement: Or, configuration and
attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20(1),
29–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/b200029
Ho, T. K. (1995). Random decision forests. AT&T Bell Laboratories.
Holanda, F. (2013). 10 Mandamentos da Arquitetura. FRBH.
Indeed. (2020). Job Search Canada. Indeed. https://ca.indeed.com/
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13398-014-0173-7.2
Jacobs, J. (2016). Economy of cities. Vintage. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1280726
Jiang, B. (2006). Ranking space for predicting human movement in an urban environment. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 23(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2177752_
Ranking_Space_for_Predicting_Human_Movement_in_an_Urban_Environment
Koohsari, M. J., Owen, N., Cerin, E., Giles-Corti, B., & Sugiyama, T. (2016). Walkability and walking for
transport: Characterizing the built environment using space syntax. International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13(1), art. 121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-016-0448-9
Leishman, C., & Rowley, S. (2012). Affordable housing. In The SAGE handbook of housing studies
(pp. 379–396). SAGE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446247570.n20
Lihu, P., Xiaowen, L., Shipeng, Q., Yingjun, Z., & Huimin, Y. (2020). A multi-agent model of changes in urban
safety livability. SIMULATION, 96(6), 519–535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0037549719898762
Liu, Z., Chen, A., & Ryu, S. (2016). Exploring bicycle route choice behavior with space syntax analysis.
Transportation Research Center Reports. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/transportation-reports/15
Long, Y., & Huang, C. (2017). Does block size matter? The impact of urban design on economic vitality for
Chinese cities. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 2399808317715640. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317715640
Manum, B., & Nordstrom, T. (2013). Integrating bicycle network analysis in urban design: Improving
bikeability in Trondheim by combining space syntax and GIS-methods using the place syntax tool.
In Proceedings of the 9th International Space Syntax Symposium, 028:2–028:14. https://brozed.files.
wordpress.com/2009/07/manum-nordstrc3b6m-space-syntax-symposium-2013.pdf
Marcus, L. (2010). Spatial capital: A proposal for an extension of space syntax into a more general urban
morphology. Journal of Space Syntax, 1(1), 30–40. http://joss.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/journal/index.php/joss/
article/view/12
Marcus, L., Heyman, A., Hellervik, A., & Stavroulaki, I. (2019). Empirical support for a theory of spatial
capital: Housing prices in Oslo and land values in Gothenburg. In Proceedings of the 12th Space Syntax
Symposium. 12th International Space Syntax Symposium, Beijing. https://research.chalmers.se/en/
publication/511321
Martino, N. (2020). Nicholas-martino/elementslab [Python]. https://github.com/nicholas-martino/elementslab
Martino, N., Trigueiro, E., Girling, C., Martins, M. P., & Lira, F. (2019). Urban and suburban legacies: Space,
form and vitality in two LEED-ND certified neighborhoods. In Proceedings of the 12th Space Syntax
Symposium, 244:1–244:18.
Maschaykh, U. (2013). Affordability and livability in 21st-century Canadian dwelling architecture (doctoral
dissertation, University of Bonn). https://core.ac.uk/display/304638355
Mayaud, J. R., & Nuttall, R. (2019). A job, indeed! Accessibility equity to advertised employment in Cascadia.
Transport Findings. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32866/10791
Metro Vancouver. (2019). Open data catalogue. http://www.metrovancouver.org/data
Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1),
93–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809808724418
Murakami, J. (2010). The transit-oriented global centers for competitiveness and livability: State strategies
and market responses in Asia (doctoral dissertation, University of California—Berkeley).
Netto, V. M., Vargas, J. C., & Saboya, R. T. de. (2012). (Buscando) Os efeitos sociais da morfologia Martino et al. 242
Buildings and Cities
arquitetônica. Urbe. Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana, 4(2), 261–282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7213/
DOI: 10.5334/bc.82
urbe.7400
ODbL. (n.d.). Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL)—Open Data Commons: Legal tools for open
data. https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
OSMF. (n.d.). OpenStreetMap [Map]. OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). openstreetmap.org
Peixoto, T. (2015). graph-tool: An efficient python module for manipulation and statistical analysis of graphs.
(2.11) [C++, Python; MacOS :: MacOS X, POSIX :: Linux, POSIX :: Other, Unix]. http://graph-tool.skewed.de
Peters, D. P. C., Pielke, R. A., Bestelmeyer, B. T., Allen, C. D., Munson-McGee, S., & Havstad, K. M. (2004).
Cross-scale interactions, nonlinearities, and forecasting catastrophic events. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 101(42), 15130–15135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403822101
Rastegar, N., Ahmadi, M., & Malek, M. (2014). Factors affecting the vitality of streets in downtown Johor
Bahru. Indian Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1), 14.
Ribeiro, M., & Holanda, F. (2015). Urbanity in Brasilia’s superblocks. In Proceedings of the 10th International
Space Syntax Symposium, London, 56:1–56:15. http://www.sss10.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2015/07/SSS10_Proceedings_056.pdf
Ros, G., Sellart, L., Materzynska, J., Vazquez, D., & Lopez, A. M. (2016). The SYNTHIA Dataset: A large
collection of synthetic images for semantic segmentation of urban scenes. 2016 IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 3234–3243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.352
Rosner, T., & Curtin, K. M. (2015). Quantifying urban diversity: Multiple spatial measures of physical, social,
and economic characteristics. In M. Helbich, J. Jokar Arsanjani, & M. Leitner (Eds.), Computational
approaches for urban environments (pp. 149–181). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
11469-9_7
Ruth, M., & Franklin, R. S. (2014). Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Applied
Geography, 49, 18–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.018
Sarram, G., & Ivey, S. S. (2018). Investigating customer satisfaction patterns in a community livability
context: An efficiency-oriented decision-making approach. International Conference on Transportation
and Development 2018, 191–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481561.019
Scarth, D. S. C. (1964). Privacy as an aspect of the residential environment (master’s dissertation, University
of British Columbia). https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0106004
Senbel, M., Giratalla, W., Zhang, K., & Kissinger, M. (2014). Compact development without transit: Life-cycle
GHG emissions from four variations of residential density in Vancouver. Environment and Planning A,
46(5), 1226–1243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/a46203
Seresinhe, C. I., Preis, T., & Moat, H. S. (2017). Using deep learning to quantify the beauty of outdoor places.
Royal Society Open Science, 4(7), 170170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170170
Sim, D., & Gehl, J. (2019). Soft city: Building density for everyday life. Island. https://islandpress.org/books/soft-
city
Smith, T., Nelischer, M., & Perkins, N. (1997). Quality of an urban community: A framework for
understanding the relationship between quality and physical form. Landscape and Urban Planning,
39(2–3), 229–241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00055-8
Statistics Canada. (2016). 2016 Census of population: Journey to work (Census of Population Statistics
Canada Catalogue No. 98-501-X2016013). Statistics Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-
recensement/2016/ref/98-501/98-501-x2016013-eng.cfm
Stone, M. E. (2006). What is housing affordability? The case for the residual income approach. Housing Policy
Debate, 17(1), 151–184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2006.9521564
Sung, H., Lee, S., & Cheon, S. (2015). Operationalizing Jane Jacobs’s urban design theory: Empirical
verification from the great city of Seoul, Korea. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(2),
117–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X14568021
Szibbo, N. A. (2015). Livability and LEED-ND: The challenges and successes of sustainable neighborhood
rating systems (master’s dissertation, University of California—Berkeley).
Talen, E. (2008). Design for diversity: Exploring socially mixed neighborhoods. Architectural Press.
Voith, R. P., & Wachter, S. M. (2009). Urban growth and housing affordability: The conflict. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 626(1), 112–131. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/0002716209344839
Yoo, S., Im, J., & Wagner, J. E. (2012). Variable selection for hedonic model using machine learning
approaches: A case study in Onondaga County, NY. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3), 293–306.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.009
Zhang, Y., Li, Q., Huang, H., Wu, W., Du, X., & Wang, H. (2017). The combined use of remote sensing and
social sensing data in fine-grained urban land use mapping: A case study in Beijing, China. Remote
Sensing, 9(9), 865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9090865
Martino et al. 243
Buildings and Cities
DOI: 10.5334/bc.82

TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:

Martino, N., Girling, C., & Lu,
Y. (2021). Urban form and
livability: socioeconomic and
built environment indicators.
Buildings and Cities, 2(1), pp.
220–243. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.5334/bc.82

Submitted: 06 October 2020

Accepted: 12 February 2021
Published: 02 March 2021

COPYRIGHT:
© 2021 The Author(s). This is an
open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (CC-BY
4.0), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author
and source are credited. See
http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
Buildings and Cities is a peer-
reviewed open access journal
published by Ubiquity Press.