This study investigates the evolving landscape of urban livability research through a bibliometric analysis, addressing key research questions such as the development of thematic clusters and the identification of emerging trends in the field. Using advanced tools like VOSviewer and the bibliometrics R-package, we analyzed data from the Web of Science to uncover significant focus areas, influential authors, and collaboration networks. The findings reveal a marked increase in urban livability publications since 2011, highlighting the growing academic interest in this area. We identified four major thematic clusters—Motor Themes, Niche Themes, Emerging or Declining Themes, and Basic Themes—that provide a structured understanding of the research field. The study also emphasizes the prominent role of countries like the United States and China in advancing urban livability research. Additionally, emerging concepts such as “resilience” are highlighted as key areas for future exploration. This research offers valuable insights for scholars, policymakers, and urban planners, guiding future investigations and contributing to the ongoing discourse on urban livability.
AhmedN. O.El-HalafawyA. M.AminA. M.. 2019. “A Critical Review of Urban Livability.” European Journal of Sustainable Development8 (1): 165–82. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2019.v8n1p165.
2.
AriaM.CuccurulloC.. 2017. “bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis.” Journal of Informetrics11 (4): 959–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
3.
BörnerK.ChenC.BoyackK. W.. 2003. “Visualizing Knowledge Domains.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology37: 179–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370106
4.
CapitanioM.2018. “The Relativity of Liveability Rankings Examining the Japanese Case Against the Global Discourse.” World Journal of Social Science5 (1): 12–8. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjss.v5n1p12.
5.
ChenM.LiuW.LuD.ChenH.YeC.. 2018. “Progress of China’s New-Type Urbanization Construction Since 2014: A Preliminary Assessment.” Cities78: 180–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.012
6.
CoboM.López-HerreraA.Herrera-ViedmaE.HerreraF.. 2011a. “An Approach for Detecting, Quantifying, and Visualizing the Evolution of a Research Field: A Practical Application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory Field.” Journal of Informetrics5 (1): 146–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002
7.
CoboM.López-HerreraA.Herrera-ViedmaE.HerreraF.. 2011b. “Science Mapping Software Tools: Review, Analysis, and Cooperative Study Among Tools.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology62 (7): 1382–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
8.
CuccurulloC.AriaM.SartoF.. 2016. “Foundations and Trends in Performance Management. A Twenty-Five Years Bibliometric Analysis in Business and Public Administration Domains.” Scientometrics108 (2): 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1948-8
9.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2023. SDG Indicators. United Nations. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/
10.
EckN.WaltmanL.. 2010. “Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping.” Scientometrics84 (2): 523–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
11.
EwingR.HandyS.. 2009. “Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability.” Journal of Urban Design14 (1): 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800802451155
12.
GawlakA.MatuszewskaM.PtakA.. 2021. “Inclusiveness of Urban Space and Tools for the Assessment of the Quality of Urban Life—A Critical Approach.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health18 (9): 4519. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094519
13.
GhasemiK.2024. “Enhancing Urban Livability: Analyzing Tehran Through Equitable Land Use Distribution.” Journal of Urban Management13 (4): 596–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2024.06.005.
14.
GhasemiK.BehzadfarM.BorhaniK.NouriZ.. 2022. “Geographic Information System Based Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) Method for Exploring the Spatial Justice of Accessing Urban Green Spaces, a Comparative Study of District 22 of Tehran.” Ecological Indicators144: 109455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109455
15.
GhasemiK.NouriZ.. 2016. “Evaluation of Quality of Life in New Towns Using Subjective Quality Assessment (Case Study: Hashtgerd New Town).” Research and Urban Planning7 (25): 159–72.
HagertyM.CumminsR.FerrissA.LandK.MichalosA.Peterson,M. A. Sharpe, J. Sirgy and VogelJ.. 2001. “Quality of Life Indexes for National Policy: Review and Agenda for Research.” Social Indicators Research55 (1): 1–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010811312332
18.
HammersleyM.2001. “On ‘Systematic’ Reviews of Research Literatures: A ‘Narrative’ Response to Evans & Benefield.” British Educational Research Journal27 (5): 543–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120095726
19.
HosseiniM.MartekI.Kazimieras ZavadskasE.AibinuA.ArashpourM.ChilesheN.. 2018. “Critical Evaluation of off-Site Construction Research: A Scientometric Analysis.” Automation in Construction87: 235–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.002
20.
HuG. X. Li., B.-B. Zhou., Q. Ma., X. Meng., Y. Liu., and Y. Chen. 2020. “How to Minimize the Impacts of Urban Expansion on Farmland Loss: Developing a Few Large or Many Small Cities.” Landscape Ecology35 (11): 2487–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01073-x
21.
JenksM.BergessR.. 2000. Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries. London: Spon.
22.
KaalH.2011. “A Conceptual History of Livability: Dutch Scientists, Politicians, Policy Makers and Citizens and the Quest for a Livable City.” City15 (5): 532–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2011.595094
23.
KashefM.2016. “Urban Livability Across Disciplinary and Professional Boundaries.” Frontiers of Architectural Research5 (2): 239–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2016.03.003
24.
Kovacs-GyöriA.Cabrera-BaronaP.ReschB.MehaffyM.BlaschkeT.. 2019. “Assessing and Representing Livability Through the Analysis of Residential Preference.” Sustainability11 (18): 4934. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184934
25.
LinB.MeyersJ.BarnettG.. 2015. “Understanding the Potential Loss and Inequities of Green Space Distribution with Urban Densification.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening14 (4): 952–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.09.003
26.
McCannE. J.2007. “Inequality and Politics in the Creative City-Region: Questions of Livability and State Strategy.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research31 (1): 188–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00713.x
27.
MehaffyM.HaasT.. 2020. New Urbanism in the New Urban Agenda: Threads of an Unfinished Reformation. https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2022/02/28/newurbanism-new-urban-agenda-threads-unfinished-global-reformation
28.
MehoL.YangK.. 2007. “Impact of Data Sources on Citation Counts and Rankings of LIS Faculty: Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar.” Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology58 (13): 2105–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677
29.
MerigóJ.Gil-LafuenteA.YagerR.. 2015. “An Overview of Fuzzy Research with Bibliometric Indicators.” Applied Soft Computing27: 420–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.10.035
30.
MeshkiniA.GhasemiK.. 2012. “Classification of Zanjan Cities Based on Cultural Development Indicators Using TOPSIS Model.” Regional Planning2 (7): 1–11.
31.
MeshkiniA.GhasemiK.HamzenejadM.. 2015. “The Evaluation of the Residents Sense of Attachment to Place in the New Towns (Case Study: Hashtgerd New Town).” Geographic Space14 (48): 41–56.
32.
MouratidisK.2018. “Rethinking how Built Environments Influence Subjective Well-Being: A new Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Urbanism11 (1): 24–40.
33.
MouratidisK.2020. “Commute Satisfaction, Neighborhood Satisfaction, and Housing Satisfaction as Predictors of Subjective Well-Being and Indicators of Urban Livability.” Travel Behaviour and Society21: 265–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.006
Okulicz-KozarynA.ValenteR.. 2019. “Livability and Subjective Well-Being Across European Cities.” Applied Research in Quality of Life14 (1): 197–220.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9587-7
38.
MarkoulliM.LeeC.ByingtonE.FelpsW.. 2017. “Mapping Human Resource Management: Reviewing the Field and Charting Future Directions.” Human Resource Management Review27 (3): 367–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.10.001
39.
PaulA.SenJ.. 2018. “Livability Assessment Within a Metropolis Based on the Impact of Integrated Urban Geographic Factors (IUGFs) on Clustering Urban Centers of Kolkata.” Cities74: 142–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.11.015
SheikhW. T.Van AmeijdeJ.. 2022. “Promoting Livability Through Urban Planning: A Comprehensive Framework Based on the “Theory of Human Needs”.” Cities131: 103972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103972
42.
TabriziJ.Ghasemi, andK.MoazzenS.. 2013. “Analysis of Spatial Inequality of Economic and Social Services in Cities of Zanjan Province.” Research and Urban Planning4 (13): 19–34.
Van KampI.LeidelmeijerK.MarsmanG.HollanderA.. 2003. “Urban Environmental Quality and Human Well-Being: Towards a Conceptual Framework and Demarcation of Concepts; a Literaturestudy.” Landscape and Urban Planning65 (1–2): 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00232-3
45.
WheelerS.2001. Livable Communities: Creating Safe and Livable Neighborhoods, Towns, and Regions in California. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California.
46.
WuniI.ShenG.Osei-KyeiR.. 2019. “Scientometric Review of Global Research Trends on Green Buildings in Construction Journals from 1992 to 2018.” Energy and Buildings190: 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.02.010
47.
XiaoY.LiY.TangX.HuangH.WangR.. 2022. “Assessing Spatial–Temporal Evolution and key Factors of Urban Livability in Arid Zone: The Case Study of the Loess Plateau, China.” Ecological Indicators140: 108995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108995
48.
ZhanD.KwanM.-P.ZhangW.FanJ.YuJ.DangY.. 2018. “Assessment and Determinants of Satisfaction with Urban Livability in China.” Cities79: 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.025.
49.
ZupicI.ČaterT. 2015. “Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization.” Organizational Research Methods18 (3): 429–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
