Startseite The indicators and methods used for measuring urban liveability: a scoping review
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

The indicators and methods used for measuring urban liveability: a scoping review

  • Zahra Khorrami , Tingting Ye , Ali Sadatmoosavi , Moghaddameh Mirzaee , Mohammad Mehdi Fadakar Davarani und Narges Khanjani EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 18. Dezember 2020
Reviews on Environmental Health
Aus der Zeitschrift Reviews on Environmental Health Band 36 Heft 3

Abstract

Objectives

Liveability is a multi-dimensional and hierarchical concept which consists of various criteria and sub-criteria and may be evaluated in different ways. The aim of this study was to systematically review indicators and methods used for the evaluation of urban liveability in literature.

Content

The five-stage methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley was used to conduct this scoping review. A systematic search of electronic databases, including Scopus, Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Web of Science and EBSCO was done until May 29, 2019. Web searching, searching reference lists and hand searching was also conducted to retrieve more relevant articles. Two reviewers screened the papers for eligibility based on the inclusion criteria and extracted their key data and reported them descriptively.

Summary

Sixty seven (67) out of 3,599 papers met the selection criteria. This review showed five distinct domains considered to be important components of liveability. These were Economical, Environmental, Institutional, Social, and Governance (Political) domains. The most important subdomains (indices) which were frequently applied in various studies were Environmental friendliness and Sustainability, Socio-Cultural Conditions and Economic Vibrancy and Competitiveness. We also identified seven different methodologies and six ranking tools used for assessing urban liveability. Among the quantitative methods, three methods accounted for 89.6% of the articles. These methods were the Analytical hierarchy process and entropy (AHP; n=24; 50%), Factor analysis & Principle Component Analysis (FA & PCA; n=12; 25%) and Spatial Multi-criteria Decision-making Method (Spatial; n=7; 14.6%). Among the ranking tools used, three ranking tools accounted for 65.4% of the articles. These tools were the Livable City Scientific Evaluation Standards (LCSES; n=9; 34.6%), The Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI; n=4; 15.4%) and the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU; n=4; 15.4%).

Outlook

This paper discusses and summarizes the latest indicators and methods used for determining urban liveability. The information offered in the review can help future investigators to decide which method suits their purpose and situation better and measure urban liveability more systematically than before.

Keywords: index; indicators; indices; liveable; methods; urban; viable
Corresponding author: Prof. Narges Khanjani, Environmental Health Engineering Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran; Climate, Air Quality Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia; and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran, Tel./Fax: 034 3132 5102, E-mail:

Funding source: Kerman University of Medical Sciences

Acknowledgments

This study was a part of a PhD thesis by Zahra Khorrami, supported by Kerman University of Medical Sciences.

  1. Research funding: Authors state no funding involved.

  2. Author contributions: ZK conceived the study and every one authors identified key literature to be included within the review. ZK led the drafting of the manuscript and key discussion points with support from TY, NK and AM. NK managed the planning of the tables (with feedback from all authors), and management of references. All authors provided important intellectual contribution and guidance throughout the event of the manuscript. MM and MMF provided guidance on the presentation of the findings and guidance on final revisions. All of the authors contributed to criticism and revisions to the manuscript, agreeing on the ultimate version.

  3. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Informed consent is not applicable.

  5. Ethical approval: This study was approved and registered by the Code of Ethics (IR.KMU.REC.1398.232).

Appendix I The search strategy used in this study

Database Search strategy
PubMed (((Urban*[Text Word] OR city[Text Word] OR Citi*[Text Word] OR town*[Text Word]))) AND ((L ivabilit*[Text Word] OR liveabilit*[Text Word] OR Livable*[Text Word] OR viabilit*[Text Word]))
Web of Science (((urban* OR city OR citi* OR town*) NEAR/6 (liv$able* OR viabl* OR viabili*)))

Indexes=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, ESCI Timespan=All years
Scopus (((TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( urban* OR city OR citi* OR town* ) W/6 ( liv*able* OR viable OR viabili* )))
Embase (((((urban* OR city OR citi* OR town* OR civil* OR civic*) NEAR/6 (liv$abl* OR viable* OR viabili*)):ab,ti) OR (((urban* OR city OR citi* OR town* OR civil* OR civic*) NEAR/3 (liv$abl* OR viable* OR viabili*)):kw) OR ((urban* OR city OR citi* OR town* OR civil* OR civic*) NEAR/6 (liv$abl* OR viable* OR viabili*)))))
Ebsco ( urban* OR city OR citi* OR town* ) AND ( liv*able* OR viable OR viabili* )

References

1. Ghasemi, K, Hamzenejad, M, Meshkini, A. The spatial analysis of the livability of 22 districts of Tehran Metropolis using multi-criteria decision making approaches. Sustain Cities Soc 2018;38:382–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.018.Suche in Google Scholar

2. Yassin, HH. Livable city: an approach to pedestrianization through tactical urbanism. Alexandria Eng J Front Archit Res 2019;58:251–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.02.005.Suche in Google Scholar

3. Kashef, M. Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries. Front Architect Res 2016;5:239–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2016.03.003.Suche in Google Scholar

4. Leach, JM, Lee, SE, Hunt, DV, Rogers, CD. Improving city-scale measures of livable sustainability: a study of urban measurement and assessment through application to the city of Birmingham, UK. Cities 2017;71:80–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.06.016.Suche in Google Scholar

5. Liu, J, Nijkamp, P, Huang, X, Lin, D. Urban livability and tourism development in China: analysis of sustainable development by means of spatial panel data. Habitat Int 2017;68:99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.02.005.Suche in Google Scholar

6. Badland, H, Whitzman, C, Lowe, M, Davern, M, Aye, L, Butterworth, I, et al.. Urban liveability: emerging lessons from Australia for exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of health. Soc Sci Med 2014;111:64–73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.003.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Qixian, C, Zheyu, F, Chunyan, Q, Ye, Z, Zihao, L, Hao, L. The urban livability research of Xinyang City based on analytic hierarchy process. Environ Dev 2019;31:19–23.Suche in Google Scholar

8. EIU. Liveability report-global liveability survey; 2019. Available from: https://www.eiu.com/topic/liveability [Accessed 4 Sep 2019].Suche in Google Scholar

9. Mercer. Vienna tops Mercer’s 21st quality of living ranking; 2019. Available from: https://www.mercer.com/newsroom/2019-quality-of-living-survey.html?_ga=2.30460095.148581697.1495746400-1918133401.1495743315 [Accessed 13 Mar 2019].Suche in Google Scholar

10. Onnom, W, Tripathi, N, Nitivattananon, V, Ninsawat, S. Development of a liveable city index (LCI) using multi criteria geospatial modelling for medium class cities in developing countries. Sustainability 2018;10:520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020520.Suche in Google Scholar

11. Zhan, D, Kwan, MP, Zhang, W, Fan, J, Yu, J, Dang, Y. Assessment and determinants of satisfaction with urban livability in China. Cities 2018;79:92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.025.Suche in Google Scholar

12. Wang, XY. Review of the research on evaluation of Livable City. In: Advanced materials research. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications Ltd.; 2012, vol. 476:383–387 pp. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.476-478.383.Suche in Google Scholar

13. Ibrahim, FI, Omar, D, Mohamad, NH. Theoretical review on sustainable city indicators in Malaysia. Proc Soc Behav Sci 2015;202:322–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.236.Suche in Google Scholar

14. Kraushaar, R. Urban theory and/or action? Community Dev J 1985;20:58–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/20.1.58.Suche in Google Scholar

15. Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, O’Brien, K, Colquhoun, H, Kastner, M, et al.. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016;16:15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

16. Arksey, H, O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.Suche in Google Scholar

17. Tan, IY, Tan, KG, Lim, TO, Zhang, Y. Global liveable and smart Cities Index: ranking analysis, simulation and policy evaluation. Singapore: World Scientific Publishers; 2019.10.1142/11587Suche in Google Scholar

18. Tan, KG, Woo, WT, Tan, BS. A new instrument to promote knowledge-led growth: the global liveable cities index. Int J Bus Compet Growth 2014;3:174–88. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbcg.2014.060304.Suche in Google Scholar

19. Fu, C. The evaluation of urban resi-dential quality and satisfac-tion [J]. City Plann Rev 2000;7. CNKI:SUN:CSGH.0.2000-07-005.Suche in Google Scholar

20. Balsas, CJ. Measuring the livability of an urban centre: an exploratory study of key performance indicators. Plann Pract Res 2004;19:101–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269745042000246603.Suche in Google Scholar

21. Li-Ping, LI, Guo, BH. Basic issues regarding livable cities. J Chongqing Technol Bus Univ 2006. CNKI:SUN:CQSY.0.2006-03-013.Suche in Google Scholar

22. Wenzhong, ZH. Study on intrinsic meanings of the Livable City and the evaluation system of Livable City [J]. Urban Plan Forum. Beijing: Urban Planning Forum; 2007;3:30–34.Suche in Google Scholar

23. Chen, L, Zhang, W, Li, Y. Urban residential suitability evaluation of Dalian’s residents. Acta Geograph Sin 2008;63:1022–32.Suche in Google Scholar

24. Huang, Y, Luo, Z-Y, Yang, W-N. Urban dwelling feasibility evaluation research based on GIS [J]. Sci Surv Mapp 2008;1. https://doi.org/10.3771/j.issn.1009-2307.2008.01.039.Suche in Google Scholar

25. Ren, X-H, Lin, X, Zhang, HJ, Zhang, WZ. The spatial evaluation of urban residential suitability in Dalian [J]. Geogr Res 2008;3:23.Suche in Google Scholar

26. Zhi-yuan, Y. Research on the livability assessment for the city agglomeration in Shandong Peninsula [J]. J Anhui Agric Sci 2008;9. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2008.09.157.Suche in Google Scholar

27. Luo, LJ, Hu, Y, He, Z. The method of livable environmental evaluation based on remote sensing Technology. In: QH Zhou, editor. 2009 International forum on information technology and applications, Proceedings. Los Alamitos: Ieee Computer Soc; 2009, vol. 1. 144-9.Suche in Google Scholar

28. Dong, X, Guo, C, Liu, X, Liu, L. Livability of Chinese cities based on statistical data. J Lanzhou Univ 2009;45:41–7.Suche in Google Scholar

29. Zhao, Y, Zhang, H, Chen, X. Evaluation of city inhabitable environment quality by objective index system. J Arid Land Resour Environ 2009;23:1–5.Suche in Google Scholar

30. Lucang, W, Zhaochen, L. The city livable evaluation standard construction in Gansu Province. J Arid Land Resour Environ 2009;23:77–81. CNKI:SUN:GHZH.0.2009-07-014.Suche in Google Scholar

31. Lei, Z, Zhang, X. Retracted article: comparative study of livable city and ecological city construction. In: 2010 2nd Conference on environmental science and information application technology: ESIAT 2010; Tianjin; 2010.Suche in Google Scholar

32. Dong, X-F, Liu, X-G, Liu, L-C. Public participatory survey evaluation of urban livability of Lanzhou City [J]. Arid Land Geogr 2010;1:CNKI:SUN:GHDL.0.2010-01-024.Suche in Google Scholar

33. Xiu-mei, X. Evaluation on livability of urban residence based on RS and GIS [J]. J Anhui Agric Sci 2010;32. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2010.32.162.Suche in Google Scholar

34. Yan, W, Han, Z. Study on assessment index of livable eco-city. Res Environ Sci 2010;23:237–41. CNKI:SUN:HJKX.0.2010-02-017.Suche in Google Scholar

35. Shuai, L, Guo, S. Evaluation research of climate and environment livability in North-Central citys of Jiangxi province. China: Meteorology & Disaster Reduction Research; 2010.Suche in Google Scholar

36. Li, H, Zhang, A. Principal component analysis and assessment of livable cities:——Taking main city of Chongqing as an example. Chin Agric Sci Bull 2010;CNKI:SUN:ZNTB.0.2010-24-063.Suche in Google Scholar

37. Jia-Jun, L, Guan-Bo, W, Guang-Xia, J. Research on the livability assessment for Zhgongyuan urban agglomeration. China Min Mag 2010;19:73–7.Suche in Google Scholar

38. Wang, J, Su, M, Chen, B, Chen, S, Liang, C. A comparative study of Beijing and three global cities: a perspective on urban livability. Front Earth Sci 2011;5:323–9.10.1007/s11707-011-0182-1Suche in Google Scholar

39. Newton, PW. Liveable and sustainable? Socio-technical challenges for twenty-first-century cities. J Urban Technol 2012;19:81–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.626703.Suche in Google Scholar

40. Liu, BZ, Wang, DW. Research on the complexity of livable city standards and the construction of livable city. In: 24th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC). IEEE; 2012:1788–1792 pp.10.1109/CCDC.2012.6244287Suche in Google Scholar

41. Bo, F. Evaluation of environmental livability of changchun based on GIS and RS. Adv Mater Res 2012;610–613:3642–5. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.610-613.3642.Suche in Google Scholar

42. Wang Xiao-Shuang, ZX-H, Zhe, L. Tianjin ecological livable city construction index and evaluation research. China population. Resources and Environment;China 2013;S1.Suche in Google Scholar

43. Chiang, C-L, Liang, J-J. An evaluation approach for livable urban environments. Environ Sci Pollut Control Ser 2013;20:5229–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1511-6.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

44. Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. City life: rankings (livability) versus perceptions (satisfaction). Soc Indicat Res 2013;110:433–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9939-x.Suche in Google Scholar

45. Li, WY, Yao, CC. Trends of livability in the capital region of Taiwan. J Asian Architect Build Eng 2013;12:293–300. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.12.293.Suche in Google Scholar

46. Safavi Sohi, M, Taghi Razavian, M, Kohestani Faruj, G. What kinds of cities are “livable?” (Case study: Tehran, Neighborhood Darake). Adv Environ Biol 2014;572–89.Suche in Google Scholar

47. Pandey, RU, Garg, YK, Bharat, A. Understanding qualitative conceptions of livability: an Indian perspective. Int J Renew Energy Technol 2013;2:374–80.10.15623/ijret.2013.0212064Suche in Google Scholar

48. Saitluanga, BL. Spatial pattern of urban livability in Himalayan region: a case of Aizawl city, India. Soc Indicat Res 2014;117:541–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0362-3.Suche in Google Scholar

49. Jomehpour, M. Assessing the livability of the new and old parts of Tehran, municipality districts 22 and 10 of Tehran. OIDA Int J Sust Dev 2015;8:87–96.Suche in Google Scholar

50. Marsal-Llacuna, ML, Colomer-Llinàs, J, Meléndez-Frigola, J. Lessons in urban monitoring taken from sustainable and livable cities to better address the smart cities initiative. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;90:611–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.012.Suche in Google Scholar

51. Norouzian-Maleki, S, Bell, S, Hosseini, SB, Faizi, M. Developing and testing a framework for the assessment of neighbourhood liveability in two contrasting countries: Iran and Estonia. Ecol Indicat 2015;48:263–71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.033.Suche in Google Scholar

52. Jones, C, Newsome, D. Perth (Australia) as one of the world’s most liveable cities: a perspective on society, sustainability and environment. Int J Tour Cities 2015;1:18–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijtc-08-2014-0001.Suche in Google Scholar

53. Pampanga, DG, Majid, MR, Johar, F. Appropriate urban livability indicators for Metropolitan Johor, Malaysia via expert-stakeholder approach: a Delphi technique. Int J Built Environ Sustain 2015;2:301–16. https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v2.n4.98.Suche in Google Scholar

54. Lowe, M, Whitzman, C, Badland, H, Davern, M, Aye, L, Hes, D, et al.. Planning healthy, liveable and sustainable cities: how can indicators inform policy? Urban Policy Res 2015;33:131–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2014.1002606.Suche in Google Scholar

55. Tan, KG, Nie, T, Baek, S. Empirical assessment on the liveability of cities in the Greater China Region. Compet Rev 2016;26:2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/cr-11-2015-0087.Suche in Google Scholar

56. Md Dali, N, Abdullah, A, Sarkawi, AA. Liveability planning for cities: within the islamic framework of Maqasid Al-Shari’Ah. Plann Malaysia 2016;14:197–208.10.21837/pmjournal.v14.i4.158Suche in Google Scholar

57. Antognelli, S, Vizzari, M. LISAM: an open source GIS-based model for liveability spatial assessment. Peer J Preprint 2016. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2133v2.Suche in Google Scholar

58. Huang, L, Yan, L, Wu, J. Assessing urban sustainability of Chinese megacities: 35 years after the economic reform and open-door policy. Landsc Urban Plann 2016;145:57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.09.005.Suche in Google Scholar

59. Wei, D, Zhang, K. Study of ecological livable city in Henan based on AHP. For Econ 2016;4. https://doi.org/10.13843/j.cnki.lyjj.2016.04.013.Suche in Google Scholar

60. Hongbao, L, Guoquan, X. The survey & evaluation and the improvement countermeasures of urban ecological livable degree in Suzhou: form the perspective of residents’ satisfaction. Ecol Econ 2016;32:159–62.Suche in Google Scholar

61. Tan, KG, Kaur, S. Measuring Abu Dhabi’s liveability using the global liveable city index (GLCI). World J Sci Technol Sustain Dev 2016;13:205–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/wjstsd-11-2015-0054.Suche in Google Scholar

62. Jun, L, Yi, R. A case study in Xianning to evaluate the livability of small and medium-sized cities. In: 2016 international conference on industrial informatics - computing technology, intelligent technology, industrial information integration. ICIICII 2016. China: IEEE; 2017.10.1109/ICIICII.2016.0086Suche in Google Scholar

63. Zhang, W, Zhan, D. Study on connotation and evaluation index of World-class Metropolis of Harmony and Livability. Urban Dev Stud 2017;16.Suche in Google Scholar

64. Jia, Z, Guofeng, GU. Urban livability and influencing factors in Northeast China: An empirical study based on panel data, 2007–2014, 9th ed. China: Progress in Geography; 2017, vol 36:1058–66 p.Suche in Google Scholar

65. Zi-yan, T. Livability evaluation of Wuhan urban area based on multi-source data. Territ Nat Res Stud 2017;3. https://doi.org/10.16202/j.cnki.tnrs.2017.02.003.Suche in Google Scholar

66. Han, J, Yuan, K, Huang, L.X, Meng, X. Evaluation and forecast of livability for the global city: a case study of Shanghai. J East China Normal Univ 2017;01:80–90. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-5641.2017.01.010.Suche in Google Scholar

67. Zhong-Cheng, WU, Zhu, JM, Deng, ZH. Study on comprehensive evaluation of urban livability based on fuzzy C clustering. J Harbin Univ Commer 2017;33:755–9.Suche in Google Scholar

68. Sofeska, E. Understanding the livability in a city through smart solutions and urban planning toward developing sustainable livable future of the city of Skopje. Procedia Environ Sci 2017;37:442–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2017.03.014.Suche in Google Scholar

69. Tan, KG, Chuah, HY, Luu, NTD. A case study on Malaysia and Singapore: Nexus amongst competitiveness, cost of living, wages, purchasing power and liveability. Compet Rev 2018;28:172–93. https://doi.org/10.1108/cr-09-2017-0062.Suche in Google Scholar

70. Yin, Z, Wu, Y, Jin, Z, Zhang, X. Research on livable community evaluation based on GIS. In: IOP conference series: Earth and environmental science. China: IEEE; 2018, vol 108:042075 p.10.1088/1755-1315/108/4/042075Suche in Google Scholar

71. Yuan-bo, C, Xian-hui, F. The satisfaction evaluation of livable communities by urban residents: a case study of livable communities in Guangdong. City Govern 2018;02:141–7.Suche in Google Scholar

72. Fengqi, C, Haiping, T, Qin, Z. Urban livability and influencing factors in Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei: an empirical study based on panel data from 2010–2016. J Beijing Normal Univ (Nat Sci) 2018. https://doi.org/10.16360/j.cnki.jbnuns.2018.05.017.Suche in Google Scholar

73. Huang, J, Chunjiang, LU, Weishen, XU. Building livable city index system based on the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory and evaluating the livable level of Beijing. China: Urban Development Studies; 2018.Suche in Google Scholar

74. Ning, M, Yu, Y, Jiang, H, Gao, Q. Research on dynamic evaluation of urban community livability based on multi-source spatio-temporal data. 26th International conference on geoinformatics. Kunming, China: Geoinformatics 2018, IEEE; 2018:1–6 p.10.1109/GEOINFORMATICS.2018.8557086Suche in Google Scholar

75. Paul, A, Sen, J. Livability assessment within a metropolis based on the impact of integrated urban geographic factors (IUGFs) on clustering urban centers of Kolkata. Cities 2018;74:142–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.11.015.Suche in Google Scholar

76. Xin-lin, L, Zi-wei, Y. Evaluation of livable level of cities in Huaihe eco-economic belt based on factor and cluster analysis. J Shanxi Normal Univ Nat Sci Ed 2019;33:106–10.Suche in Google Scholar

77. Lina, T, Fang, F. An empirical research on livable level of Anhui province based on factor analysis. J Anhui Electr Eng Prof Tech Coll 2019;24:5–10.Suche in Google Scholar

78. Chen, L, Minhua, G, Simayi, Z. Livability evaluation of five provincial capitals in Northwest China. J Hunan City Univ (Nat Sci) 2019;28:22–7.Suche in Google Scholar

79. Tan, KG, Tongxin, N, Baek, S. Empirical assessment on the liveability of cities in the Greater China Region. Competitiv Rev 2016;26:2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-11-2015-0087.Suche in Google Scholar

80. Davis, R, Campbell, R, Hildon, Z, Hobbs, L, Michie, S. Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review. Health Psychol Rev 2015;9:323–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.941722.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Received: 2020-08-01
Accepted: 2020-10-25
Published Online: 2020-12-18
Published in Print: 2021-09-27

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Mini Reviews
  3. Home environmental interventions for prevention of respiratory tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  4. Water and wastewater as potential sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission: a systematic review
  5. Review Articles
  6. The role of sensory and olfactory pathways in multiple chemical sensitivity
  7. Temporal assessment of municipal solid waste management in Nigeria: prospects for circular economy adoption
  8. Knowledge, attitude, practice and clinical recommendations of health care workers towards COVID-19: a systematic review
  9. Drinking water heavy metal toxicity and chronic kidney diseases: a systematic review
  10. A systematic review report on tobacco products and its health issues in India
  11. Possible role of Unani Pharmacology in COVID-19 – a narrative review
  12. The indicators and methods used for measuring urban liveability: a scoping review
  13. Complementary and alternative medicine therapies and COVID-19: a systematic review
https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2020-0097
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
index; indicators; indices; liveable; methods; urban; viable

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Mini Reviews
  3. Home environmental interventions for prevention of respiratory tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  4. Water and wastewater as potential sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission: a systematic review
  5. Review Articles
  6. The role of sensory and olfactory pathways in multiple chemical sensitivity
  7. Temporal assessment of municipal solid waste management in Nigeria: prospects for circular economy adoption
  8. Knowledge, attitude, practice and clinical recommendations of health care workers towards COVID-19: a systematic review
  9. Drinking water heavy metal toxicity and chronic kidney diseases: a systematic review
  10. A systematic review report on tobacco products and its health issues in India
  11. Possible role of Unani Pharmacology in COVID-19 – a narrative review
  12. The indicators and methods used for measuring urban liveability: a scoping review
  13. Complementary and alternative medicine therapies and COVID-19: a systematic review
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 23.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2020-0097/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen