The Relativity of Liveability Rankings Examining the Japanese Case against the Global Discourse

Despite numerous lists ranking cities’ or nations’ liveability, and publications boasting comprehensive and sensibleassessment methods, the assumption that liveability can be exhaustively defined, measured and compared is highlydubious. Despite a lack of academic consensus on a theoretical definition of liveability, at an operational level anumber of liveability rankings are being used worldwide as benchmarking tools, often employed to promote theattractiveness of cities. In this research, we attempt to show the inconsistencies and biases behind the use ofliveability rankings by examining how and by whom they are compiled. Three global and five Japanese liveabilityrankings will be analyzed, highlighting how assessment methods and liveability factors reflect the value system ofthe compiling institutions. By examining global and local liveability assessments, we show that the objectiveappraisal of quality of life is unfeasible, and that local characteristics, value systems etc. have to be taken intoaccount when compiling and interpreting liveability rankings. They are, therefore, to be understood as relative andarbitrary benchmarking tools, in a global race of competitive urbanism.