Disability, equity, and measurements of livability: A scoping review

Background: Livability is a concept commonly featured in health research to help shape public policy decisions and improve local place settings. Although widely used, it is a contested concept known for its ambiguity and inconsistency of measurements. Other criticisms include the lack of equity perspectives and the underrepresentation of people with disabilities and inhabitants of non-metropolitan places.Objectives: This review sought to identify the extent to which people with disabilities and nonmetropolitan places are included in measurements of livability and to critically review and summarise i) livability definitions and uses, ii) livability places and populations, and iii) livability measurements. Methods: The scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. The data extraction used meta-aggregation techniques to evaluate findings. A standardised mixed methods appraisal tool was used, and a novel classification of measurements was created.Results: Seventy-seven articles were included, and 1955 measurements were extracted. The overarching findings were: i) livability is inconsistently defined and assessed by measuring the performance of related and independent domains, ii) the population sample or the studies' participants are often not disclosed, non-metropolitan settings are overlooked, and equity is not generally applied or operationalised in measurements, and iii) there is an extensive lack of measurements considering people with disabilities and diversity within disabilities.Conclusions: The assumptions of homogeneity in study populations in livability measurement literature overlook inequities experienced by people with disabilities and inhabitants of non-metropolitan settings. This review suggests recommendations for future research to assess livability from perspectives inclusive of human diversity.(c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).