It has long been recognised that urban form impacts on health outcomes and their determinants. There is growing interest in creating indicators of liveability to measure progress towards achieving a wide range of policy outcomes, including enhanced health and wellbeing, and reduced inequalities. This review aimed to: 1) bring together the concepts of urban 'liveability' and social determinants of health; 2) synthesise the various liveability indicators developed to date; and 3) assess their quality using a health and wellbeing lens. Between 2011 and 2013, the research team reviewed 114 international academic and policy documents, as well as reports related to urban liveability. Overall, 233 indicators were found. Of these, 61 indicators were regarded as promising, 57 indicators needed further development, and 115 indicators were not useful for our purposes. Eleven domains of liveability were identified that likely contribute to health and wellbeing through the social determinants of health. These were: crime and safety; education; employment and income; health and social services; housing; leisure and culture; local food and other goods; natural environment; public open space; transport; and social cohesion and local democracy. Many of the indicators came from Australian sources; however most remain relevant from a 'global north' perspective. Although many indicators were identified, there was inconsistency in how these domains were measured. Few have been validated to assess their association with health and wellbeing outcomes, and little information was provided for how they should be applied to guide urban policy and practice. There is a substantial opportunity to further develop these measures to create a series of robust and evidence-based liveability indices, which could be linked with existing health and wellbeing data to better inform urban planning policies within Australia and beyond.

Creating 'liveable' communities that are healthy and sustainable is an aspiration of policymakers in Australia and overseas. Indicators are being used at the national, state and local level to compare the liveability of cities and regions. Yet, there are challenges in the adoption of such indicators. Planning scholars see a challenge in creating indicators that measure something publicly valued, while public health researchers are concerned about scant systemic research on relationships between policies, the built environment, and health and well-being. This article provides an overview of liveability indicators used to date in Australia and internationally. It then outlines the results of consultations with Melbourne-based academics and decision-makers, on how to increase their utility and support the creation of healthy, liveable and sustainable cities.

Issue addressed: Growing evidence shows that higher-density, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods encourage active transport, including transport-related walking. Despite widespread recognition of the benefits of creating more walkable neighbourhoods, there remains a gap between the rhetoric of the need for walkability and the creation of walkable neighbourhoods. Moreover, there is little objective data to benchmark the walkability of neighbourhoods within and between Australian cities in order to monitor planning and design intervention progress and to assess built environment and urban policy interventions required to achieve increased walkability. This paper describes a demonstration project that aimed to develop, trial and validate a 'Walkability Index Tool' that could be used by policy makers and practitioners to assess the walkability of local areas; or by researchers to access geospatial data assessing walkability. The overall aim of the project was to develop an automated geospatial tool capable of creating walkability indices for neighbourhoods at user-specified scales. Methods: The tool is based on open-source software architecture, within the Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network (AURIN) framework, and incorporates key sub-component spatial measures of walkability (street connectivity, density and land use mix). Results: Using state-based data, we demonstrated it was possible to create an automated walkability index. However, due to the lack of availability of consistent of national data measuring land use mix, at this stage it has not been possible to create a national walkability measure. The next stage of the project is to increase useability of the tool within the AURIN portal and to explore options for alternative spatial data sources that will enable the development of a valid national walkability index. Conclusion: AURIN's open-source Walkability Index Tool is a first step in demonstrating the potential benefit of a tool that could measure walkability across Australia. It also demonstrates the value of making accurate spatial data available for research purposes. So what?There remains a gap between urban policy and practice, in terms of creating walkable neighbourhoods. When fully implemented, AURIN's walkability tool could be used to benchmark Australian cities against which planning and urban design decisions could be assessed to monitor progress towards achieving policy goals. Making cleaned data readily available for research purposes through a common portal could also save time and financial resources.

Background Creating ‘liveable’ cities has become a priority for various sectors, including those tasked with improving population health and reducing inequities. Two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities by 2050, with the most rapid urbanisation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). However, there is limited guidance about what constitutes a liveable city from a LMIC perspective, with most of the evidence relating to high-income countries, such as Australia. Existing liveability frameworks include features such as public transport, affordable housing, and public open space; however, these frameworks may not capture all of the liveability considerations for cities in LMIC contexts. Objectives This case study formed a multi-sectoral partnership between academics, policymakers (Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Victorian (Australia) Department of Health and Human Services), and a non-government organisation (UN Global Compact – Cities Programme). This study aimed to: 1) conceptualise and prioritise components of urban liveability within the Bangkok, Thailand context; 2) identify alignment to or divergence from other existing liveability tools; and 3) identify potential indicators and data sources for use within a Pilot Bangkok Liveability Framework. Methods The Urban Liveability Workshop involving technical leaders from the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and a rapid review of liveability literature informed the conceptualisation of liveability for Bangkok. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Working Group and key informants in Bangkok provided input into the liveability framework. Indicators identified for Bangkok were mapped onto existing liveability tools, including the UN Global Compact CityScan. Results Findings revealed commonalities with the Australian liveability definition, as well as new potential indicators for Bangkok. The resulting Pilot Bangkok Liveability Framework provides a structure for measuring liveability in Bangkok that can be implemented by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration immediately, pending appropriate data acquisition and licensing. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Working Group and key informants identified core issues for implementation, including limited spatial data available at the district-level or lower. Conclusions This study conceptualised urban liveability for Bangkok, a city in a LMIC context, with potential for adjustment to other cities. Future work should leverage opportunities for using open source data, building local capacity in spatial data expertise, and knowledge sharing between cities. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12992-019-0484-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.