Assessing Liveability in Copenhagen

To what extent

is

Copenhagen a liveable city?

A critical assessment of the targets and techniques employed in Copenhagen to achieve its vision of the liveable city

Author: 1731417

Word Count*: 3290

May 2020

Cover image: Dronning Louise's Bridge, Copenhagen (VisitCopenhagen, [no date])

* Word count excludes cover page, contents, headings & references

Executive Summary

Copenhagen frequently ranks highly amongst global liveability rankings, and has gained a world-wide reputation for its cyclability, high quality public space and citizen-orientated development. Integral to Copenhagen’s “dynamic urban transition process” to become a more liveable city are liveability targets and monitoring techniques. This report aims to assess the role and success of liveability targets and their associated monitoring to gain a deeper insight into the true level of liveability in Copenhagen

Section 1 will introduce the complex concept of liveability, followed by presenting the origins of liveability in Copenhagen. The city has grown to become an increasingly liveable place, despite a mid-century ‘car boom’ and resistance to pedestrianisation. This section will also describe Copenhagen’s key liveability foci today, evidencing Copenhagen’s current level of liveability

Section 2 will discuss the key targets and associated monitoring techniques employed in Copenhagen to promote and encourage greater levels of liveability. Their contribution in aiming to increase the standard of liveability in the city will be assessed, alongside their associated monitoring techniques, and how useful these are in informing target achievement.

Section 3 will review the targets and monitoring techniques discussed to assess whether they promote true, inclusive and city-wide liveability. The report will end with a conclusion and recommendations.

Abbreviations

CoC City of Copenhagen

DB Deutsche Bank

EIU Economist Intelligence Unit

1. Liveability in Copenhagen: an introduction

1.1. What is ‘liveability’ and how can it be assessed?

1.1.1. ‘Liveability’ has become an increasingly important term. Its growing use is not just the preserve of academics and town planners, but increasingly used by the media and citizens to refer to how well a city provides for and responds to human life – including its healthfulness, friendliness, accessibility and enjoyability These are just a few indicators of the complex and often-debated subject of liveability, which “encompasses many aspects of urban life” (Southworth, 2003, p. 344).

1.1.2. The phrase “the life-sized city” brilliantly expresses the core ethos of liveability Urban designer and Copenhagener Mikael Colville-Andersen uses this expression to advocate the designing of cities that ‘fit’ us as humans – cities that respond to our needs, are at an appropriate scale and give us enjoyment (Colville-Andersen, 2018). Liveable cities must also be inclusive, accommodating a diverse range of users and uses. Liveable places should not discriminate based on physical mobility, age, gender, wealth or reason for use (Southworth, 2003; Stafford & Baldwin, 2018).

1.1.3. Liveability can be summarised into two key criteria: experiential quality and environmental quality (Southworth, 2003). The idea of ‘quality’ suggests that liveable places should be desirable and attractive, rather than just providing the necessities for life. Ruth & Franklin (2014, p. 19) state that “once basic needs are fulfilled, higher-level wants and aspirations move into the forefront” of liveable urban planning.

1.1.4. The subjectivity of liveability criteria, and their increased attention “has brought with it a cottage industry of national and international rankings that compare cities” (Ruth & Franklin, 2014, p. 19). The differing choice and weighting of various indicators are often reflective of an underlying socio-political perspective. For example, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Global Liveability Index includes the ‘availability of private healthcare’ in its ranking (EIU, 2019, p. 6), which many would argue is not a necessity for liveability. Deutsche Bank’s (DB) ‘Quality of Life Index’ focuses towards more economic factors, with criteria such as purchasing power index and property price to income ratio (DB, 2019). Whilst many rankings include criteria such as climate, pollution and education, others include more subjective criteria for a certain client group.

1.1.5. The varied criteria and weightings for liveability rankings can thus lead to their easy misinterpretation (Conger, 2015). Therefore, a critical approach is essential when assessing liveability data from secondary sources; an approach which will be applied when considering Copenhagen’s liveability.

1.2. Background and origins of liveability in Copenhagen

1.2.1. Copenhagen has long been considered a highly liveable city, an image which the city itself is keen to portray through its “concern for pedestrians, city life and bicyclists” (Gehl & Svarre, 2013, pp. 156-157). Copenhagen has been ranked highly across many liveability indexes, including 9th place in the EUI’s Global Liveability Index, 4th in Monocle’s Quality of Life survey, and 3rd in DB’s Quality of Life Index (EIU, 2019; Monocle, 2019; DB, 2019).

1.2.2. Concern for liveability has not always been prioritised in Copenhagen, however. In the 1960s, “car use expanded and rapidly surpassed the use of bicycles” (Gössling, 2013, p. 198), with public mindsets re-orientated around a “car centric way of thinking” (Colville-Andersen, 2019). Consequently, car parking epitomised mid-century Copenhagen, with little consideration given for public space, pedestrians or cyclists (see figure 3) (Rohl, 2017).

1.2.3. All was not lost, however, and some “important pre-conditions for the re-design of urban space… existed”, helping Copenhagen to re-focus onto liveability (Gössling, 2013, p. 203). One pre-condition was the widespread use of cycling since the turn of the 20th century. Copenhagen actively advocated cycling as far back as 1915, when the first segregated cycle paths were installed on Copenhagen’s streets (Colville-Andersen, 2019). Furthermore, during the ‘car boom’ of the 50s/60s, cycling had not completely died out. Cycle lanes continued to exist, “showing that it was possible for cyclists to “co-exist” in large urban agglomerations” (Gössling, 2013, p. 203). There was continued use of cycling by a “silent majority” (ibid.), promoting an increasingly “anti-car atmosphere” (Olesen, 2019).

1.2.4. The traditionally accepted use of the bicycle, as shown in figure 1, has now been re-born in Copenhagen. The growth in cycle use has greatly impacted public space and the overall liveability of the city. But the liveability of Copenhagen’s public space has not only been a by-product of a bicycle renaissance. The city trialled pedestrianisation of Strøget, Copenhagen’s main street, in an innovative move in 1962. As explained by Gehl & Svarre (2013, p. 151), “despite the many dire prophecies about the impossibility of car-free streets being able to function in a Danish environment, the new pedestrian street quickly became popular”. An increase in pedestrian traffic of 35% was seen in the first year, and soon Strøget became permanently pedestrianised due to its success (ibid.).

1.2.5. The city has also innovated in being “the first city in the world in which comprehensive studies of public life were conducted systematically for decades” (ibid.). These studies have been influential in informing policy-making and setting targets to continually improve Copenhagen’s liveability.

1.3. Copenhagen’s liveability focus & evidence for its liveability today

1.3.1. Copenhagen’s focus of creating a liveable city centres around public space and liveable transport; two highly interlinked areas. Policy documents produced by the City of Copenhagen (CoC) (Københavns Kommune’ in Danish) show a well-rounded, holistic approach to liveability criteria, as seen in figure 1.

documents

Policy documents

‘White Paper: Sustainable urban transportation: creating green liveable cities’ (2016)

‘Good, better, best. The City of Copenhagen’s bicycle strategy’ (2011)

‘The bicycle account 2018: Copenhagen city of cyclists’ (2018)

‘Eco-metropolis: Our vision for Copenhagen 2015’ (2007)

‘Copenhagen Green Accounts 2014’ (2015)

‘Co-create Copenhagen: Vision for 2025’ (2015)

‘Urban life account: Trends in Copenhagen’s urban life 2015’ (2015)

Liveability criteria addressed

• Integrated transport systems

• Smart mobility, car sharing

• Bicycle-friendly streets

• City life

• Cycling comfort, speed, safety

• Public perception of the bicycle network

• Equal opportunities

• Greenery, ‘green and blue areas’

• Climate adaptability

• Green energy

• Air & noise pollution, cleanliness/ waste

• Food supply

• Quality of public life – community events, use of public space

• Lively & diverse urban spaces

• Urban life satisfaction

• Outdoor seating, time spent outdoors

• Walkability, accessibility, safety

1.3.2. Copenhagen’s cycling focus stems from Denmark’s cultural acceptance of bicycle use which enabled continued support even through the mid-century car boom. Copenhagen is also quick to travel across, as figure 4 shows. As Colville-Andersen (2019) points out: “you can never be more than 10-15 minutes late in Copenhagen. It’s really irritating sometimes, you want to be late, but you can’t be!” This is also testament to improvements in city planning, which have enabled shorter journey times by bicycle.

1.3.3. In fact, the speed of travelling by bike is the main reason Copenhageners cycle, as seen in figure 5. Colville-Andersen (2019) refers to this ideology as ‘A2Bism’ – Copenhageners are not choosing this method mainly due to environmental or financial concerns, but because ‘it’s quick’

1.3.4. The ease of travelling through Copenhagen by bicycle is evidence for Copenhagen’s promotion of liveability There is an extensive network of cycle paths across the city, with an aim to “allocate space away from the cars and towards people” (Rohl, 2017). The city has invested in “ambitious short cuts” such as the new Bryggebroen pedestrian and cycling bridge to connect new developments and increase permeability (CoC, 2011, p. 5).

1.3.5. Much work has been implemented to improve public space, creating more places for people to sit and socialise, while increasing the safety and capacity for cyclists. The improvements on Dronning Louise’s bridge have been a major success, encouraging huge increases in cycle and pedestrian traffic, whilst reducing noise and pollution with lower car numbers. A 1400% increase of social use of the bridge has been observed.

1.3.6. As will be discussed in section 2, Copenhagen has placed much emphasis on improving the quality, variety and vibrancy of its urban spaces, promoting a more liveable environment.

2. Liveability target-setting & monitoring in Copenhagen

2.1. How can targets and monitoring be used to improve liveability?

2.1.1. Target-setting and monitoring liveability criteria are important ways to promote and encourage increased urban liveability. Targets enable a standard to be set, providing a clear goal over a certain time period. Not only does target-setting inform the requirements from planners and policy-makers, but it provides a level of transparency for citizens to understand what aims and priorities are being focussed on by the city. Specifically for cycling targets, Nielsen et al. (2013, p. 112) state that “clear priorities and responsibilities support a constant focus on improving cycling conditions”

2.1.2. Targets can focus on a wide range of aspirations, from more subjective indicators such as improved public perceptions of urban schemes, or more objective indicators such as the number of bikes passing a certain point during a given period. The CoC have used a wide range of target types, as will be discussed. As with international liveability rankings, the criteria selected may reflect underlying social and/or political motivations, which must be considered when assessing whether the targets aspire to genuinely human-centric, accessible and inclusive liveability

2.1.3. In order to assess the progress towards meeting liveability targets, evidencegathering or monitoring techniques are essential A wide variety of data collection methods can be employed, depending on the target being assessed. These can include public opinion surveys, cyclist or pedestrian counting, GIS analysis, urban design analysis (UDA) indexes, and level of service (LOS) indicators. These range from low-tech human counting methods to potentially complex GIS computer analysis.

2.1.4. Asadi-Shekari et al. (2013, p.167) comment that the “utilisation of systematic methods in street assessment has been a challenging task” Challenges can include collecting objective, comparable data, and issues of bias in data collection and/or target-setting. Therefore, “introducing a reliable method with which to evaluate streets for cyclists and pedestrians is very important” (ibid.).

2.1.5. Copenhagen places a strong emphasis on public life analysis, and while many electronic methods of collection are available, there is still widespread use of human counting techniques by the CoC (Henrichsen, 2019).

2.2. What targets and monitoring techniques have been employed in Copenhagen?

2.2.1. Cyclist satisfaction

2.2.1.1. As stated in Copenhagen’s Cycling Strategy, Copenhagen aims to “become the world’s best bicycle city” (CoC, 2011, p.3). City policy documents place great emphasis on the importance of Copenhagen’s image as a ‘cycling city’. Monitoring progress towards this target is undertaken through cyclist satisfaction data. There is no indication of how this data is collected and what sampling strategies are used.

2.2.1.2. Table 2, shows data from the Bicycle Account 2018, with 97% satisfaction of Copenhagen as a cycling city, suggesting that from an internal perspective, people consider the city to be focussing its efforts on cycling.

2.2.1.3. Table 2 shows that by 2025, Copenhagen aims to have an 80% cyclist satisfaction with cycle track maintenance, 70% satisfaction of bicycle parking and 80% satisfaction on the impact of cycling culture’s impact on urban life and atmosphere. The aims here, and other categories monitored present a broad picture of cycling liveability, including cycle route amenity and cultural indicators. But it is unclear why 2025 goals have been set for certain indicators and not others, especially as there are low satisfaction levels with road maintenance and inter-modal transport, for example.

2.2.2. Public space user satisfaction

2.2.2.1. Copenhagen set a public space goal for 80% of Copenhageners to be satisfied with their opportunities to take part in urban life by 2015 (CoC, 2015d, p. 4).

Figure 8 shows how the city has met this target every year from 2010-2015, suggesting that the target could have been more ambitious. Policy documents have instead used this chart to promote the “wide range of measures” used to achieve this goal, “including abolishing the fees for outdoor seating for cafes, bars and restaurants and for staging events in the urban space” (ibid.).

2.2.2.2. A further goal is that 90% of Copenhageners consider their neighbourhood lively and varied by 2025 (CoC, 2015a, p. 19). This target was close to being met in 2015, with public agreement at 86% (CoC, 2015d, p. 5).

2.2.3. Levels of cycling

2.2.3.1. Copenhagen is keen to promote cycling for benefits relating to speed, convenience, health and cost. A key target is “that at least 50% of people cycle to work or school” (CoC, 2015c, p. 16). This target focuses on the economically active or educated proportion of the population, which will be discussed further in 3.1. Figure 9 shows the current progress towards this goal

2.2.3.2. Bicycle counting is a popular evidence-gathering technique in Copenhagen. Counting data is easily comparable between locations and easily conducted using electronic bicycle counters, as seen in figure 10

2.2.4. Pedestrian levels & public space usage

2.2.4.1. Copenhagen aims for a diverse, active use of urban public spaces, monitoring use of outdoor seating, numbers of permits for street vendors, and level of walking throughout the city. These factors reflect an area’s level of interest and vibrancy, indicating the level of liveability.

2.2.4.2. Figure 12 shows how the 2015 target for pedestrian activity has been exceeded each year since 2011, suggesting Copenhagen is an increasingly attractive place to walk, with a high level of liveability. There is however evidence of reduced walking since 2012. Whether this reflects reduced liveability is unknown, thus this monitoring has limited utility in liveability assessment.

3. Critical analysis of Copenhagen’s liveability approach

3.1. Liveability for all? – Do the targets represent the aspirations of everyone?

3.1.1. Many of Copenhagen’s liveability targets address the broader aspects of liveability, rather than focussing on particular user groups. For example, the target to become “the world’s best bicycle city” seems a generally inclusive aspiration. However, due to age or disability, some people cannot fully experience the advantages of living in a ‘cycling city’. So are these groups considered in the monitoring techniques?

3.1.2. Table 2 (p. 9) shows that the city monitor satisfaction towards factors such as cycle track width and maintenance. Wide and well-maintained cycle tracks enable greater access to cycling, as individuals with physical disabilities may use different types of bicycles (such as recumbent cycles or tricycles), which require wider and better designed cycle lanes (Read, 2020). However, the satisfaction monitoring only reflects the views of cyclists, not non-cyclists. Those who feel unable to cycle are unable to contribute their views towards this data, reflecting a level of exclusion in this liveability target.

3.1.3. The key target for public space is also very general, aiming for ‘80% satisfaction with opportunities to take part in urban life’. It is ambiguous what opportunities are being referred to. Some may consider the opportunity to sit in a public space a satisfactory fulfilment of this target. Others may aspire to large-scale community events or perceive involvement as living in a noisy, busy environment. Therefore, how do we know whether all Copenhageners’ aspirations are satisfactorily achieved? Perhaps the 13% who are not satisfied, as shown in figure 8, correlate to a certain proportion of the population by age, wealth or disability?

3.1.4. To assess Copenhagen’s inclusivity, it is useful to consider the age/gender profile of the city. Figure 13 shows that Copenhagen has a much larger proportion of young adults compared to national levels, suggesting the city is less attractive to families and the elderly (although no age ranges are completely excluded).

3.1.5. The greater proportion of young adults in their 20s and 30s is reflected in the focus of liveability targets and monitoring relating to cycling usage. As was seen in figure 9, there is an emphasis on monitoring the level of cycling for people in work or education, to the exclusion of the economically inactive such as younger children, unemployed or the retired. When comparing the percentage of Copenhageners cycling to work or education in the city with the ‘all trips’ cycling percentage (figure 9), there are 17% less cycle journeys within the ‘all trips’ category. This perhaps suggests that educated or professional citizens have greater access to cycling, reducing the inclusivity of policy aiming at increasing cycling trips. The city seems less concerned about the needs of the economically inactive when considering this target and associated monitoring.

3.2. ‘Real’ liveability? – Do the targets privilege certain liveability criteria or geographical areas?

3.2.1. It is important that Copenhagen’s liveability targets and monitoring promote liveability throughout the city, not just in certain areas. Copenhagen’s policy documents promote a ‘coherent city’, reinforcing this aspect of liveability (CoC, 2015c).

3.2.2. However, some targets are location-specific, suggesting a prioritisation of initiatives in certain areas. Figure 14 shows a target to increase weekday inner-city bicycle trips to 240,000 by 2025, prioritising the inner-city area above Copenhagen as a whole

3.2.3. Public space monitoring also shows that there are wide discrepancies in the perceived quality of public space between geographical areas (figure 14). Vibrancy and variety of public space seems to be higher in central areas of Copenhagen and decreasing further away from the centre.

4. Conclusion & recommendations

4.1. Many of the targets and monitoring techniques considered are seen to be beneficial in helping to deliver liveability. Targets encourage pro-active policymaking and planning, which have been enabled increased levels of cyclist and public space user satisfaction over time.

4.2. Copenhagen has been innovative to promote cycling, walking and satisfaction with public space. Abolishing outdoor seating fees for food outlets and staging outdoor events are some of the ways public space has been made more liveable (CoC, 2015d). Cycling initiatives have included an increase of cycle path routes, better road layouts for cyclists, and small changes such as installing bins for cyclists and footrests at traffic lights (CoC, 2011; State of Green, 2016).

4.3. Copenhagen generally has a holistic approach in addressing a range of liveability criteria. Although this report has only considered targets relating to cycling and public space, targets and monitoring relate to a range of criteria including cycle path widths, bicycle parking, community involvement, urban vibrancy and levels of walking/cycling. These enable a coherent liveability approach.

4.4. For greater levels of inclusivity, Copenhagen should assess a broader range of liveability criteria to include the needs and wants of a broader picture of society. Currently there is a focus on the younger, working population, to the expense of considering user groups such as the elderly and disabled. Creating targets that do not preference users or geographic location will enable policy making that promotes true and inclusive liveability.

References

Asadi-Shekari, Z., et al. 2013. Non-motorised level of service: Addressing challenges in pedestrian and bicycle level of service. Transport Reviews 33(2), pp. 166-194. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2013.775613

City of Copenhagen (CoC). 2007. Eco-metropolis: Our vision for Copenhagen 2015 Copenhagen: Technical and Environmental Administration

City of Copenhagen. 2011. Good, better, best. The City of Copenhagen’s bicycle strategy 2011-2025. Copenhagen: Technical and Environmental Administration

City of Copenhagen. 2015a. Co-create Copenhagen: Vision for 2025. Copenhagen: Technical and Environmental Administration

City of Copenhagen. 2015b. Copenhagen Green Accounts 2014. Copenhagen: Technical and Environmental Administration

City of Copenhagen. 2015c. Municipal plan 2015: The coherent city. Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.

City of Copenhagen. 2015d. Urban life account: Trends in Copenhagen’s urban life 2015. Copenhagen: Technical and Environmental Administration

City of Copenhagen. 2017. Copenhagen: city of cyclists. The bicycle account 2016. Copenhagen: Technical and Environmental Administration

City of Copenhagen. 2018. The bicycle account 2018: Copenhagen city of cyclists. Copenhagen: Technical and Environmental Administration, Mobility.

Colville-Andersen, M. 2018. Copenhagenize: The definitive guide to global bicycle urbanism. Washington DC: Island Press.

Colville-Andersen, M. 2019. Lecture to Cardiff University students: Bicycle urbanism by design. Copenhagen (Copenhagenize, Copenhagen).

Conger, B. 2015. On livability, liveability and the limited utility of quality-of-life rankings. The School of Public Policy Publications 7(4), pp. 1-9. doi: 10.11575/sppp.v8i0.42528

Deutsche Bank (DB). 2019. Mapping the world’s prices 2019. Available at: https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_ENPROD/PROD0000000000494405/Mapping_the_world%27s_prices_2019.pdf [Accessed: 4 May 2020]

Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU). 2019. The Global Liveability Index 2019: A free overview. Available at: https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=liveability2019 [Accessed: 4 May 2020]

Gehl J & Svarre B. 2013. How to study public life. Washington DC: Island Press

Gössling, S. 2013. Urban transport transitions: Copenhagen, city of cyclists. Journal of Transport Geography 33, pp.196-206. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.10.013

Henrichsen, A. 2019. Lecture to Cardiff University students: City of Copenhagen: how we count public life. Copenhagen (Københavns Kommune, Copenhagen).

Monocle. 2019. Quality of Life Survey: top 25 cities, 2019. Available at: https://monocle.com/film/affairs/quality-of-life-survey-top-25-cities-2019/ [Accessed: 15 May 2020]

Nielsen, T. et al. 2013. Urban planning practices for bikeable cities – the case of Copenhagen. Urban Research & Practice 6(1), pp. 110-115. doi: 10.1080/17535069.2013.765108

Olesen, S. 2019. Lecture to Cardiff University students: Copenhagen- city of cyclists. Copenhagen (Københavns Kommune, Copenhagen).

Read, M. 2020. Tech landscape: Seeing cycling in the round The Planner. Available at: https://www.theplanner.co.uk/features/tech-landscape-seeing-cycling-in-theround?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term= [Accessed 18 May 2020].

Rohl, A. 2017. Lecture to Cardiff University students: People and public spaces. Copenhagen (Gehl architects, Copenhagen).

Ruth, M. & Franklin, R. 2014 Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications Applied Geography 49, pp.18-23, doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.018

Southworth, M. 2003 Measuring the liveable city Built Environment 29(4), pp.343-354. doi: 10.2148/benv.29.4.343.54293

Stafford, L. & Baldwin, C. 2018 Planning walkable neighborhoods: are we overlooking diversity in abilities and ages? Journal of Planning Literature 33(1), pp. 17-30. doi: 10.1177/0885412217704649

State of Green. 2016. White Paper: Sustainable urban transportation: creating green liveable cities. Copenhagen: State of Green.

Visit Copenhagen. [no date]. Photographs of Dronning Louises Bro. Available at: https://www.visitcopenhagen.com/copenhagen/planning/dronning-louises-bro-gdk699876 [Accessed: 13 May 2020]