Livability Dimensions and Sense of Community in a Developing Country

Introduction

The first lens of city analysis is the physical-spatial and morphological context, the topography, the occupation of spaces, the architecture, and social equipment. In the second moment, living in the city allows the understanding of historical, economic, social, and cultural contents (Talen, 1999; Tönnies, 2001). In this way, form, and content - urban design and way of dwelling - reinforce each other in the construction of everyday dynamics and exchanges. Most studies still refer to terms related to the meaning of community (Pacione, 2003; Perkins & Long, 2002) being the territorial and geographical notion of community (Moustafa, 2009) and relational that refers to human relationships without the need of a location (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

Urban design has the power to change the behavior of citizens: the way citizens occupy the spaces and the way citizens interact with it results from the urban design and way of dwelling (Gehl, 2013; Sarate, 2014). Citizens are conditioned to urban design, planned or spontaneous; this drawing guides us in the way of living and how we relate socially. Therefore, when more urban quality spaces are offered, their use will be encouraged, whether in different places, climates, cultures, economies, or social situations (Gehl, 2013; Khoshkam & Jaafar, 2016).

The constant transformation of cities brings challenges to research, even in the cases of longitudinal studies. Moreover, the mosaic of forms, spaces, and functions resulting from dwelling modes depends on subjective perception - impressions and ideas, considering the various actors who inhabit and transform it (Sarate, 2014). Under the lens of cities in transformation and development, the uniqueness of each urban cluster should receive attentive researchers with common sense and keen senses so that the context and location indicate which tools and methods should drive the studies (Gehl & Svarre, 2013).

The way citizenship is exercised and the existing meeting spaces – the livability - depend not only on questions of form but, above all, on the construction of a sense of belonging. These dimensions had already been observed in empirical studies (Riger & Lavrakas, 1981) through the concepts of social bonding and behavioral rootedness. The first consists of the citizens feeling part of the neighborhood with a readability of the space, and the second explains how space is appropriated (Arifwidodo & Chandrasiri, 2013).

Studies on urban life gained prominence in the 1980s, drawing attention to the observation, analysis, and discussion of how to create assertively functional cities with livability and quality of life. Research and initiatives to accompany the developments of urban evolution were carried out, observing whether the effects of these guidelines over time would make the cities more livable (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017; Gehl & Svarre, 2013).

Previous research has highlighted the importance of livability – the interaction between the community and its environment - to the development of social capital and sense of community (Perkins & Long, 2002; Keuschnigg & Wolbring, 2003; Hooper et al., 2018; Keuschnigg & Wolbring, 2015; Khoshkam & Jaafar, 2016; Hooper et al., 2018). Livability can be a crucial element of economic prosperity generation and sustainable development of cities because it reflects the real-world experiences of inhabitants (Arifwidodo & Chandrasiri, 2013; Keuschnigg & Wolbring, 2015; Leby & Hashim, 2010).