Enhancing Sustainability: A Systematic Review of the Livable Neighborhood Life Circle and Its Prospects in China

Abstract

In recent years, chrono-urbanism has ushered in the x-minute city concept. Effectively combined with the life unit concept, it introduced a new perspective—the neighborhood life circle. This emerging urban decision-making and planning paradigm represents China’s attempt to address the “urban disease” arising from rapid urbanization recently, attracting global attention for its implementation of sustainability. This study aims to reveal the driving factors behind the livable neighborhood life circle amid rapid urbanization by conducting a systematic review of relevant empirical research within China’s context. We used Scopus and WoS as search databases, identifying and extracting a literature review of 67 publications from 2010 to 2025. The findings indicate that the driving factors of a livable neighborhood life circle are a structure constructed comprising social well-being, management and regulation, the built environment, and economic vitality, which are interconnected in multiple ways. This study has advanced discussions on the livable neighborhood life circle and expanded the existing knowledge and literature. It has also deepened insights into how sustainability concepts impact livable neighborhood life circles in China. The study offers insights into four aspects: the systematization of concepts and driving factors related to the neighborhood life circle in China, the development of assessment tools, the establishment of new planning paradigms, and the localization of implementation frameworks. Additionally, it further enriches the global application of the x-minute city and the neighborhood life circle.

1. Introduction

1.1. Concept and Evolution

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 is a challenge. With the acceleration of global urbanization, many countries and researchers have recognized the importance of formulating and implementing sustainable urban development strategies [1]. This concept has gained widespread political resonance worldwide, further exemplified by SDG 11, which focuses on building sustainable, resilient, safe, and inclusive cities and neighborhoods [2].

The neighborhood life circle (NLC) concept, rooted in humanistic principles and meticulous design, has steadily evolved. The proposal supports enhancing public service facilities conveniently accessible by walking and cycling, such as education, healthcare, elder care, recreation, and commerce. Essential service functions and public activity spaces necessary for daily life should accompany these facilities. The aim is to create a secure, welcoming, and comfortable living environment [3]. It is more like a working philosophy and a planning paradigm that focuses on neighborhood-scale planning and the basic unit of the city, and curbs the decline in the residents’ quality of life and livability caused by rapid urbanization and city expansion. In addition, the concept aligns well with the development vision of SDG 11 and enhancing residents’ quality of life.

Urban planning practices have consistently focused on developing livable built environments and guaranteeing superior living conditions [4,5]. The Sustainable Development Agenda projects that by 2030, 70% of the global population will inhabit urban regions. Neighborhoods are the basic building blocks of urban social space and the most important basic units of residents’ daily lives, closely related to human well-being [6]. Meanwhile, planners use neighborhoods as the primary scale for planning and promoting social projects, serving as a “testing ground” for addressing urban sustainability issues [7]. Neighborhood-scale planning also facilitates the arrangement of spatial layout, the preservation of neighborhood character, and the provision of services and facilities [8]. One of the best-known spatial models for neighborhood planning is Perry’s Neighborhood Unit Concept [9], which understands urban neighborhoods as “a means of organizing space and socializing residents” through specific land use scenarios and proposes that this model scale is in the range of 1/4 mile (0.4 km) to 1/2 mile (0.8 km) [10]. This fixed-principle model and similar ones were widely adopted and developed during the 20th century, and they became common in Europe, America, China, and elsewhere [7,11].

The origins of the NLC can be traced back to the late 19th-century “Settlement House Movement,” which aimed to provide essential services and resources to urban residents, thereby promoting neighborhood well-being [12]. In the early 20th century, in response to overcrowding in industrial cities [13], urban planners introduced concepts such as the “Garden City” [14] and “Neighborhood Units” [9] to address the social, economic, and environmental challenges posed by rapidly expanding cities. Consequently, urban design research adopted the neighborhood as a unit of analysis [15]. Following the post-war reconstruction and economic recovery, nations across Europe, America, and Asia gradually developed distinct approaches to neighborhood development. On the one hand, in European countries facing urgent reconstruction needs, a series of “social-ecological revolutions”—including the government-led, social welfare-oriented “New Towns Movement” [16], “Urban Renewal” [17], and “Compact City” [18], and “Resilient Cities” [19]—were vigorously implemented. These embodied mature and pragmatic urban and neighborhood development principles that foster diverse and functionally balanced neighborhoods [20]. On the other hand, North America, represented by the United States, has championed a series of models such as “Suburbanisation” [14], “Diversity Community”, [21] “New Urbanism”, and “Smart Growth” [14]. These endeavors seek to establish “ideal community” frameworks within the logic of free-market adaptation. They reflect a reconsideration of residents’ needs following the rapid and disorderly expansion of neighborhoods [22]. Conversely, neighborhood movements in East Asia have fostered diverse neighborhood models shaped by post-war reconstruction, urbanization, colonial legacies, cultural diversity, and governance patterns. The concept of the “Life Circle” emerged and was implemented in East Asian countries and regions such as Japan and South Korea, contributing to the creation of vibrant, sustainable, and socially connected neighborhoods [23,24]. In Southeast Asian nations, the “Public Housing” policy has fostered racial integration and safeguarded residents’ basic living requirements, redefining notions of equity, efficiency, and sustainability [25,26]. These models offer a distinctive “efficiency-integration nexus” paradigm for survival within densely populated megacities and regions worldwide (Figure 1).

1.2. China’s Planning Context

In 2016, time urbanism ushered in the concept of a 15-minute city, and based on this, the X-minute city/life circle was derived [29,30]. Recent research highlights that neighborhood life circles provide an essential safety net for increasing the resilience of neighborhoods, infrastructure, and services during emergencies [31]. Meanwhile, this physical spatial scale impacts the allocation of time, money, and energy, which in turn affects residents’ well-being. In this context, the NLC emerged. Shanghai took the lead in launching the pilot implementation in 2017 [32]. In China, NLC planning is serving as a new planning paradigm to guide urban planning in cities at all levels [27]. This concept aims to mitigate the inconvenience of distance by prioritizing the provision of essential services within walking distance at various scales, meeting residents’ daily needs, and enhancing livability to create a healthy, safe, and attractive sustainable city and built environment [30,33].

Over the past 20 years, interest in the livable NLC has grown steadily in China [34]. However, to date, there is still no regular implementation framework [35]. There has been an increased dependence on the application models and planning paradigms of the 15-minute city concept, which has positively influenced sustainable neighborhood planning and design, but also has its drawbacks. The 15-minute city, while overemphasizing physical distance and service radius [36], is not a homogeneous circle; instead, it constitutes a corridor space formed by streets that link neighborhoods and adjacent public service facilities [37]. As neighborhoods become more self-sufficient, the gentrification effect may exacerbate social inequality [38], limit broader social interaction, and reduce exposure to diverse experiences within the city. The concept of the 15-minute city typically assumes standard mobility levels, which may marginalize people with disabilities. It cannot meet the diverse needs of all residents [39]. Altering current urban areas to conform to the 15-minute city paradigm necessitates substantial investment and long-term planning [40]. Recently, numerous scholars have commenced addressing these deficiencies, transitioning implementation frameworks from a singular environmental dimension [41] to a sustainability theory founded on the “three pillars” of environment, economy, and society [28]. Simultaneously, scholars have emphasized that considering policy tools and institutional dimensions is a critical aspect of the livable NLC [33].

1.3. Challenges and Research Aim

Searches in the Scopus and WoS online databases revealed several review articles on the livable NLC. To date, no comprehensive review has systematically examined the research trends and trends in sustainable neighborhood life circles from a holistic perspective. Most studies focus on specific drivers related to the topic. This research, based on empirical data from Chinese cities, explores the relationship between neighborhood space use, neighborhood interaction, and social cohesion [42]. Meanwhile, other review papers include specific dimensions or trends, such as Xiong [43] review of the theoretical origins and development of the 15-minute neighborhood life circle, which explores its role and prospects in realizing the “people-oriented city” concept, and the attempt by Chai, L. [37] to propose a spatio-temporal behavioral research framework for the neighborhood life circle from a time geography perspective.

China is undergoing the largest and fastest urbanization in human history [44]. This has led to cities facing the challenges of sharply increased population density and a range of “urban diseases” [45,46], severely impacting sustainability. In recent years, China has entered a transitional phase, shifting from extensive growth towards quality-oriented, livable development. The central government has fully recognized these challenges and is actively addressing them [47]. However, there remain numerous shortcomings in the implementation process, namely the following: (i) Research and action continue to be predominantly guided and implemented through top-down directives at the national level [48,49]; policies and implementation initiatives at the local authorities’ level increasingly rely on standardized templates and metrics, which results in a mismatch with the actual NLC needs and leads to resource wastage [47,50]. (ii) Current implementation regulations generally fail to incorporate the enhancement of the existing NLC environment into planning [51]; there is insufficient consideration for children, the elderly, and disabled residents, leading to inadequate convenience and adaptability. The difficulty in balancing “public benefit” with “marketization” poses risks of gentrification; management mechanisms remain inadequate, with a shortage of professional operational entities [52]. (iii) Poor coordination between different departments has led to confusion among researchers and the public [47,53]. Implementation has lacked attention to stakeholder relationships. Barriers exist in areas such as resident participation and experience [54,55]. (iv) No governance system or framework has been established to manage the NLC implementation process [56]; planning exhibits strong policy advocacy [57]. In addition, existing review studies worldwide always focus on low-density, low-rise planning paradigms that are not well adapted to high-rise, high-density NLCs in China [58,59,60].

Meanwhile, China is developing a Territorial Spatial Planning system, which also requires a matching neighborhood-level planning paradigm and implementation framework [61]. The lack of assessment tools and implementation frameworks suitable for China’s unique characteristics is a cause for concern. Consequently, it is essential to identify, validate, and augment the driving factors and research trends specific to China’s context, which will aid in the subsequent development of a livable NLC implementation framework tailored to China.

Authorities and scholars have undertaken initiatives to tackle these issues, resulting in a substantial corpus of literature on livable NLCs. However, to our knowledge, no review article has comprehensively examined the driving factors pertinent to China. This study will systematize and explore the driving factors, predominant practices, and research trends of the livable NLC; advance the discussion; and expand the existing knowledge and literature from a Chinese perspective.

2. Methodology

2.1. Review Approach and Databases

This study utilized a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology in response to the aforementioned issues. An SLR addresses specific inquiries by identifying, selecting, and critically assessing studies [62]. The SLR originated in the medical field and is closely related to evidence-based practice. It has recently emerged as a favored instrument for the expedited formulation of reviews in urban planning [63]. It seeks to resolve particular inquiries by methodically gathering empirical evidence through transparent, systematic approaches in credible studies. The 2020 version of the “PRISMA Checklist” clearly outlines this process, including the development of a well-considered search strategy, focusing on specific questions, and clearly defining the types of information to be searched, critiqued, and reported, along with related limitations, such as search terms, search strategies, and restrictions. This ensures the transparency and completeness of the SLR [64]. Adhering to the PRISMA guidelines undoubtedly enhances the research quality of review papers [62,65].

This study employed manual analysis for the preliminary screening and review. The software performed a relationship analysis on the filtered data to substantiate the review findings. This hybrid methodology can enhance the efficacy of theme identification and critical concept recognition, as well as proficiently discern patterns and trends [66,67]. NVIVO.1.2(426), a software application for qualitative research methodologies, optimized the coding procedure and data analysis [68].

The thesaurus and prior research were instrumental in identifying analogous keywords and terms related to sustainability and the neighborhood life circle. Alongside the primary concepts, synonyms for neighborhood and the life circle are also delineated and amalgamated (e.g., neighborhood life circle, community living circle, minute life unit, daily living circle).

The databases considered in this study are Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, which are the two most authoritative and widely used academic databases internationally, firmly recognized by research institutions and high-level journals. The journals included in these two databases have undergone rigorous screening and represent a high level of academic research, helping to ensure the academic authority and credibility of the review content [69,70,71].

2.2. Selection and Screening Process

We established the following inclusion criteria for the research question based on [63]: (i) journal and conference papers that examine the nexus of livability and the neighborhood life circle, incorporating these terms in their titles, abstracts, or keywords; (ii) papers published in English; and (iii) papers classified as journal and conference papers. Figure 2 shows the trend in the emergence of the literature. Furthermore, exclusion criteria were established: (i) papers lacking relevance to the livable NLC (e.g., biological life cycles, building materials, clinical contexts, projects, products, etc.); (ii) unavailability of full text.

This systematic review involved multiple searches conducted from January 2024 to August 2024, with additional revisions in June 2025, employing the WoS and Scopus scientific databases (

Table 1. The search string used for the systematic review process.

Scientific Database	Search String
Scopus	TITLE-ABS-KEY (“sustainab*” OR “liv*abilit*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“neighbo*hood” OR “communit*” OR “daily” OR “minute*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“life circle” OR “living circle” OR “life unit”)
Web of Science	TS = (“sustainab*” OR “liv*abilit*”) AND TS = (“neighbo*hood” OR “communit*” OR “daily” OR “minute*”) AND TS = (“life circle” OR “living circle” OR “life unit”)

). The selection process illustrated in Figure 2 included term searches, exporting paper details, applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, downloading, conducting quality assessments, and finally, data extraction. The initial screening phase produced a total of 274 papers. Upon thorough assessment of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we identified 100 papers as eligible for this review. Then we evaluated the abstracts, titles, and keywords of the papers to ascertain their relevance to our investigation and subsequently conducted a final screening of these papers to select those addressing at least one part of sustainability (like social, environmental, economic, or institutional factors) using indicators or themes related to what makes a livable NLC. Excluded papers include studies that do not mention the term “neighborhood life circle” or that discuss or propose driving factors without empirical application to case studies. Finally, we identified 67 papers and recorded the frequency of NLC mentions as a means of improving livability standards. Figure 2 presents a summary of the research method.

3. Results

3.1. Data Abstraction and Analysis

The review explored four dimensions and thirteen driving factors related to the livable NLC. The main dimensions are as follows: (1) social well-being (four driving factors), (2) management and regulation (three driving factors), (3) built environment (three driving factors), and (4) economic vitality (three driving factors).

The research results comprehensively analyze the livable NLC under the 2030 agenda. Our results show that the quantitative method is the primary research method; 55 studies use questionnaires and existing datasets to analyze data, with only 5 studies using qualitative research methods and only 7 using mixed methods. Regarding the year of publication, one paper was published in 2010, one in 2018, five in 2020, four in 2021, fifteen in 2022, twenty-three in 2023, twelve in 2024, and six as of May 2025. The research emerged in 2010 and saw significant growth in 2022 (Figure 3).

Analysis of metadata, such as researcher attributes, reveals that all researchers originated from China. Except for two studies from European and Japanese institutions, all affiliations were from Chinese universities or institutes. Wuhan University contributed five studies, making it the most prolific university. Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Xi’an Jiaotong University each produced three studies. A total of 10 institutes contributed two studies each, while 46 institutes contributed one.

Most studies have focused on the local cities where institutions are based, encompassing various types of cities across China. As of 2020, China had 684 cities [72]. These are categorized into five tiers—the super city, super-large city, large city, medium-sized city, and small city—based on population size, construction scale, economic development, and other factors [73]. Among these, 106 cities are classified as super cities, super-large cities, and large cities, while 578 are medium-sized and small cities (Figure 4) [74]. Cities with an urban permanent resident population exceeding 10 million are classified as super cities. These are densely populated, modernized metropolitan areas experiencing rapid economic growth, with seven such cities currently existing. Examples include Beijing and Shanghai. Cities with an urban permanent resident population between 5 million and 10 million are designated as super-large cities. Although they are smaller in scale than super cities, super-large cities, of which there are currently 15, play a significant economic role and serve as nationally influential regional centers within their respective areas. Cities with populations between 1 million and 5 million are classified as large cities. These cities lead provincial economic and social development, typically serving as provincial capitals or sub-provincial cities, with a total of 84 such cities. In contrast, medium-sized and small cities with populations under 1 million are considered ordinary cities. Numerous in number, they form the foundation of China’s urban landscape. Cities positioned as regional centers typically concentrate on local industries and provide essential services to agriculture, manufacturing, and other sectors within their regions. Figure 5 shows that researchers conducted 28 studies in super cities, and studies in Shanghai and Beijing were significantly higher in number than others. Totals of 26 and 7 studies have identified the NLC in super-large and large cities, respectively, which are primarily concentrated in central and eastern regions, including Wuhan, Nanjing, Jinan, and Fuzhou. The only three studies among ordinary cities were conducted in Kaifeng, Daqing, and Macao.

Figure 6 displays data derived from an extensive analysis of 67 papers. A notable proportion, specifically over 17 papers (at least 25%), assessed factors such as accessibility, health and well-being, green facilities, and equity. Furthermore, 10–25% of the papers measured factors related to measurement and assessment, safety and security, neighborhood cohesion, circular economy, policy integration and support, and smart technology. The least frequent factors were reduced environmental footprint, employment and income, and renewable energy.

3.2. Synthesis of the Literature

This study provides a comprehensive review and analysis of various academic papers. Therefore, we have categorized the criteria measured in the papers into multiple driving factors. These driving factors—accessibility, equity, health and well-being, neighborhood cohesion, measurement and assessment, policy integration and support, safety and security, green facilities, reduced environmental footprint, renewable energy, circular economy, employment and income, and smart technology—constitute the primary research directions for the livable NLC in China (

Table 2. The findings sorted according to author, country, and driving factor.

Years	Affiliation	Case Cities/Countries	Research Design	Social Well-Being				Management and Regulation			Built Environment			Economic Vitality
				AC	EQ	HW	NC	MA	PIS	SS	GF	REF	RE	CE	EI	ST
Feng, Feng et al. (2010) [75]	Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, China	Hefei/China	Mix Method	•											•
Huang and Zhou (2018) [76]	Changsha Planning Information Service Center, Changsha, China	Changsha/China	Quantitative					•	•
Linggui, Jing et al. (2020) [77]	Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China	Xi’an/China	Quantitative	•
Luo, Hou et al. (2020) [78]	Tongji University, Shanghai, China	Shanghai/China	Quantitative	•					•							•
Shi, Chen et al. (2020) [79]	Yunnan Design Institute Group Co., Ltd., Kunming, China	Yunnan/China	Quantitative			•				•
Zhang, Zhao et al. (2020) [80]	Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School, Shenzhen, China	Beijing/China	Quantitative					•				•			•
Zhong, Lü et al. (2020) [81]	Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China	Kaifeng/China	Quantitative					•
Dai, Jin et al. (2021) [82]	Land Satellite Remote Sensing Application Center, Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing, China	Qingdao/China	Quantitative	•		•
Li, Peng et al. (2021) [83]	Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China	Wuhan/China	Quantitative	•	•		•				•
Wu, Wang et al. (2021) [84]	Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China	Shanghai/China	Quantitative		•		•
Zhang, Su et al. (2021) [85]	Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, China	Hefei/China	Quantitative			•				•
Cai and Tan (2022) [86]	Chongqing university, Chongqing, China	Wuhan/China	Qualitative				•	•								•
Huang, Gong et al. (2022) [87]	North China University of Technology, Beijing, China	Shanghai/China	Quantitative	•		•
Jiao and Xiao (2022) [37]	Wuhan University, Wuhan, China	Wuhan/China	Quantitative					•	•					•
Liu, Chen et al. (2022) [88]	Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing, China	Chongqing/China	Quantitative								•	•
Liu, Zheng et al. (2022) [89]	Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China	Wuhan/China	Quantitative			•					•
Luo, Shu et al. (2022) [90]	Wuhan University, Wuhan, China	Wuhan/China	Quantitative					•			•
Luo and Li (2022) [91]	Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China	Changchun/China	Quantitative			•				•
Peng, Wu et al. (2022) [92]	National Engineering Research Center for Information Technology in Agriculture, Beijing, China	Beijing/China	Quantitative		•
Qiu, Zhou et al. (2022) [93]	Huaqiao University, Quanzhou, China	Shanghai/China	Quantitative	•	•						•			•
Sun and Ren (2022) [94]	Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China	Jinan/China	Quantitative						•	•
Wan, Liu et al. (2022) [95]	Tianjin Chengjian University, Tianjin, China	Tianjin/China	Quantitative	•		•										•
Wan, Zhao et al. (2022) [96]	Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China	Chengdu/China	Mix Method	•		•								•
Wang, Zeng et al. (2022) [97]	Southeast University, Nanjing, China	Wuhan/China	Quantitative							•	•
Ying, Guo et al. (2022) [98]	Zhejiang Agriculture & Forestry University, Hangzhou, China	Hangzhou/China	Quantitative	•	•						•
Zhang, Lu et al. (2022) [99]	Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School, Shenzhen, China	Beijing/China	Quantitative	•								•			•
Chen (2023) [100]	Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, Shanghai, China	Shanghai/China	Quantitative		•
Chen, Luh et al. (2023) [101]	Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, China	Guangzhou/China	Quantitative				•		•					•
Huang, Cui et al. (2023) [102]	Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou, China	Lanzhou/China	Quantitative	•	•
Jing, Zhou et al. (2023) [103]	Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China	Beijing/China	Quantitative	•		•
Li, Chen et al. (2023) [104]	Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China	Fuzhou/China	Quantitative								•
Li, Ran et al. (2023) [105]	Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China	Hangzhou/China	Mix Method	•		•								•
Liu, Li et al. (2023) [106]	Wuhan University, Wuhan, China	Wuhan/China	Quantitative								•		•
Liu, Guo et al. (2023) [107]	Northeastern University, Shenyang, China	Shenyang/China	Quantitative					•
Ma, Wang et al. (2023) [108]	Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China	Wuhan/China	Mix Method	•	•			•
Rui and Li (2023) [109]	Technical University Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany	Shenzhen/China	Quantitative			•					•
Shen, Yuan et al. (2023) [110]	Southeast University, Nanjing, China	Nanjing/China	Qualitative							•
Song, Kong et al. (2023) [111]	Wuhan University, Wuhan, China	Nanjing/China	Quantitative					•
Song, Zhang et al. (2023) [112]	Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu, China	Chengdu/China	Quantitative								•
Wang, Pei et al. (2023) [113]	Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing, China	Shenzhen/China	Mix Method				•							•
Wang and Ma (2023) [114]	Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China	Shanghai/China	Quantitative		•	•								•
Wu and Divigalpitiya (2023) [115]	Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan	Jinan/China	Quantitative		•	•
Xie, Wang et al. (2023) [116]	Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China	Fuzhou/China	Quantitative		•						•
Xie, Wang et al. (2023) [117]	Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China	Fuzhou/China	Quantitative		•
Xu, Zhao et al. (2023) [118]	Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China	Wuhan/China	Quantitative	•		•
Yang, Qian et al. (2023) [119]	Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou, China	Shanghai/China	Quantitative	•			•					•
Yuan and Yan (2023) [120]	Tongji University, Shanghai, China	Shanghai/China	Qualitative										•	•		•
Zhang, Tang et al. (2023) [121]	Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China	Shanghai/China	Quantitative		•						•
Zhong, Li et al. (2023) [122]	Central South University, Changsha, China	China	Qualitative			•		•		•
Han and Yang (2024) [123]	Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China	Dalian/China	Quantitative	•	•
Jiang, Hu et al. (2024) [42]	Chongqing University, Chongqing, China	Chongqing/China	Quantitative				•		•	•
Jiao and Feng (2024) [124]	Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China	Daqing/China	Quantitative					•		•
Liu, Aziz et al. (2024) [125]	Jiangxi Institute of Fashion Technology, Nanchang, China	Nanchang/China	Qualitative			•	•			•
Tan, Wu et al. (2024) [126]	Shanghai University, Shanghai, China	Shanghai/China	Quantitative				•		•		•	•
Wan, Sun et al. (2024) [127]	Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China	Chengdu/China	Quantitative
Wan, Wei et al. (2024) [128]	East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China	Shanghai/China	Quantitative
Wang and Sun (2024) [129]	Macao Polytechnic University, Macao, China	Macao/China	Quantitative
Xia, Yin et al. (2024) [130]	Nanjing Forest University, Nanjing, China	Nanjing/China	Quantitative		•			•			•		•
Yang, Yang et al. (2024) [131]	South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, China	Guangzhou/China	Quantitative	•		•					•
Yang, Li et al. (2024) [132]	Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China	Xi’an/China	Quantitative			•					•
Zhang, Lei et al. (2024) [133]	Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi, China	Urumqi/China	Quantitative					•	•	•
Chen, Lu et al. (2025) [134]	Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China	Guangzhou/China	Quantitative	•	•
Li and Zhou (2025) [135]	Renmin University of China, Beijing, China	Beijing/China	Mix Method			•		•
Liu, Zhou et al. (2025) [136]	Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China	Xi’an/China	Quantitative			•	•			•
Yu, Chen et al. (2025) [137]	Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China	Beijing/China	Quantitative							•				•
Zhou, Zhao et al. (2025) [138]	Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, China	Qingdao/China	Quantitative					•	•							•
Zhu, Xie et al. (2025) [139]	Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou, China	Zhejiang/China	Mix Method				•			•						•

AC = accessibility; EQ = equity; HW = health and well-being; NC = neighborhood cohesion; MA = measurement and assessment; PIS = policy integration and support; SS = safety and security; GF = green facility; REF = reduced environmental footprint; RE = renewable energy; CE = circular economy; EI = employment and income; ST = smart technology.

and

Table 3. Classification and grading of driving factors.

Dimensions		Classification
Social Well-being	Accessibility	Proportion of neighborhood facilities reachable by walking or cycling Continuity and density of pedestrian and bike-friendly paths (km/km2) Universal accessibility infrastructure coverage (e.g., barrier-free ramps) Connectivity of public spaces
	Equity	Equal access to neighborhood facilities Ratio of affordable rental or public housing to total housing stock Accessibility improvements for vulnerable groups (e.g., elderly, disabled) Distribution of services across income levels
	Health and Well-being	Air quality index (AQI) trends Access to primary healthcare services within 15 min Rate of residents engaging in active transport Availability of open fitness facilities by standard
	Neighborhood Cohesion	Frequency of volunteering or public activities Degree of resident participation in local governance or planning Satisfaction with residential environment Sense of belonging
Management and Regulation	Measurement and Assessment	Frequency of sustainability performance assessments Stakeholder participation in evaluations Availability of open sustainability dashboards
	Policy Integration and Support	Existence of territory with spatial or life circle planning Level of vertical coordination (city–district–neighborhood) in policy execution Amount of local government investment in neighborhood facilities Cross-departmental coordination mechanisms
	Safety and Security	Nighttime lighting coverage Neighborhood-based safety initiatives Installation of emergency response facilities (AEDs, fire stations, etc.)
Built Environment	Green Facility	Ratio of green coverage Rate of green building certification (e.g., China Three-Star Green Building) Availability of multifunctional ecological infrastructure (e.g., green roofs, seepage pond)
	Reduced Environmental Footprint	Rate of waste sorting compliance Water usage efficiency Rate of new energy vehicles and walking Mixed land use
	Renewable Energy	Ratio of electricity demand met by renewable energy Type of renewable equipment (rooftop PV, solar water heating)
Economic Vitality	Circular Economy	Reuse or recycling rate of construction and demolition waste Presence of community-level sharing or repair facilities Circular business models in district
	Employment and Income	Ratio of residents working locally Green job creation rate Income disparity within neighborhood
	Smart Technology	Availability of smart community services (e.g., digital governance platforms, smart waste bins) Deployment of real-time environmental monitoring (air, water, noise) Data openness and digital participation rates

, Figure 6).

The literature review indicates that the relationships between driving factors are influenced by the dimensions of sustainability, including economic, environmental, social, and institutional aspects, with institutional sustainability acknowledged as the fourth pillar of sustainability [140,141]. The four dimensions of integration are as follows: (1) promoting social inclusion to strengthen social cohesion and eliminate exclusion, (2) prioritizing the planning and management of safe spaces and resilient futures, (3) creating a comfortable built environment to enhance the living experience, and (4) increasing traffic flow to improve economic vitality.

We used NVIVO to create separate nodes labeled “relationships” for coding the connections between the driving factors that were discussed and measured in the papers. As shown in Figure 7, we visualized the mutual influences. Smart technology, policy integration, and equity are the main hubs. Health and well-being and reduced environmental footprint are key outcomes. Neighborhood cohesion and green facilities serve as social and physical connectors. Measurement and assessment act as a backbone for monitoring all others. Figure 8 visually represents the above discussion and attempts to establish a relational framework, emphasizing the importance of a livable NLC for achieving sustainability. This is because constructing a framework from selected drivers is a critical step in ensuring that they accurately reflect the research phenomenon. The results of the reviewed papers shape and refine the framework. The following subsections provide a brief description of these dimensions by the driving factors prioritized.

4. Factors Contributing to the Livable Neighborhood Life Circle

4.1. Social Well-Being

We explored four themes in terms of social well-being: accessibility, equity, health and well-being, and neighborhood cohesion. A total of 48 of the 67 studies mentioned factor for social well-being, accounting for 71.64% of the total. Wu, W. [84], Chen, L. [101], Wang, P. [113], Jiang, H. [42], and Zhu, X. [139] believed that good neighborhood relations and implementation participation can significantly improve residents’ satisfaction and neighborhood belonging. Li, P. [83], Wu, W. [84], Ying, G. [98], and Wang and Ma [114] mentioned that the graded allocation of service facilities and public space in different-scale NLCs is conducive to achieving a balance between supply and demand, enriching residents’ living experiences, and promoting group equity in the NLC. Wan, Z. [96], Zhong, L. [122], and Li and Zhou [135] argued that the pandemic, an abrupt and widespread public health crisis, has heightened residents’ recognition of the significance of a healthy NLC. A total of 24 studies mentioned accessibility factors, which were the most frequently discussed topic. Luo, H. [78] conducted a survey in Shanghai which revealed that the urban scale of super-large cities is substantial, and residents heavily rely on the facilities and spaces within the NLC. Zhang, L. [99] analyzed Beijing and concluded that improving accessibility can effectively reduce the use of motor vehicles. A walkable scale positively impacts the NLC’s livability and sustainability.

Based on our review, accessibility, equity, health and well-being, and neighborhood cohesion accounted for 36%, 25%, 30%, and 16% of the total review papers. Therefore, we define this dimension through these four (4) driving factors.

4.2. Management and Regulation

Out of 67 studies, 29 explained management and regulation as one of the impacts of the livable NLC, accounting for 43.28% of the total. Chen, L. [101] asserted in their paper that adopting sustainable strategies in the NLC, such as planning the NLC, establishing self-organization, and creating a mobile service station, can provide a livable living environment for residents and enhance their satisfaction. Meanwhile, Zhou, Zhao et al. (2025) [138] also suggested that the authorities establish an interconnected NLC database, integrating the advantages of multi-source data, which provides primary data support for scientific planning, efficient management, and effective service of the NLC. The outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic has also served to raise the authorities’ requirements for the daily management of the NLC. Simultaneously, we can enhance the proactive prevention and control of public health emergencies to safeguard people’s livelihoods. Taking Wuhan City as an example, Shi, C. [79] concluded that enforcing the concept of a life circle and strict and effective management policies are needed to analyze the regularity of the spread of COVID-19 in the multi-scale NLC. In terms of assessment and measurement, Zhong, L. [81], Liu, G. [107], and Song, K. [111] all argue that analyzing subjective, intangible residents’ experiences through quantitative methods provides an essential basis for the authorities’ formulation of sustainable policies. Meanwhile, the dynamic livability assessment promotes decision-making optimization and efficient management of NLCs [138]. The evaluation and optimization of public service facility configurations merely represent the material spatial dimension of NLC research. Research on a livable NLC should place greater emphasis on the planning and management of safety and security spaces [139].

Strengthening management mechanisms and assessing monitoring indicate that the Chinese central government attaches great importance to these issues. More special measures need to be taken within the NLC to ensure the safety of residents and enable dynamic adjustments. Therefore, we have considered policy integration and support, safety and security, and measuring and assessing.

4.3. Built Environment

According to Table 2, 22 of the 67 studies viewed the built environment as having a sustainable impact on the livable NLC, accounting for 32.28% of the total. Eighteen studies mentioned the green facility factor, among which Li, P. [83], Ying, G. [98], Liu, L. [106], Wan, W. [128], and Yang, Y. [131] believed that the natural environment and facilities such as green spaces provide many irreplaceable environmental benefits for humans. They can effectively improve the living experience of the NLC and restore biodiversity. Liu, Z. [89] assessed that a blue–green environment and facility could provide more social health functions for the large-scale NLC and promote residents’ physical and mental health for the small-scale NLC. It reveals the spatial scale effects of green facilities on health and cognition at different scales for NLCs. Therefore, a green facility is necessary. At the same time, more and more research focuses on achieving low-carbon goals from the perspective of renewable energy and reducing environmental footprints. Yuan and Yan [120] noted that open customization and material recycling technology will provide a new perspective on neighborhood public space co-construction and low-carbon development. Studies conducted by Zhang, Z. [80], Liu, C. [88], and Tan, W. [126] from Beijing, Shanghai, and Chongqing, respectively, proposed the importance of reducing the environmental footprint. Research has proven that reducing carbon emissions and environmental footprints enhances the livability and environmental sustainability of the NLC.

According to the review, green facilities, reduced environmental footprint, and renewable energy accounted for 27%, 7%, and 4% of the total review papers. Meanwhile, factors such as reduced environmental footprint and renewable energy have been gaining increasing attention recently. Therefore, we define the built environment through these three (3) driving factors.

4.4. Economic Vitality

A livable NLC identifies economic vitality as another dimension. This theme has three sub-themes: smart technology, circular economy, and employment and income. According to studies by Wan, L. [95] and Zhu, X. [139] at the city and regional levels, smart technology contributes to economic vitality by providing smart wearables, service robots, and smart medical care. Using these products will also improve the health and quality of life of the elderly and children, and promote a livable NLC. Qiu, Z. [93] and Wan, Z. [96] noted that substituting or sharing between service facilities is another method worth considering to reduce construction costs. In addition, open customization and material recycling technology will provide a new perspective on the circular economy and low-carbon development to address the world’s sustainability challenges [120]. Employment and income are other criteria. Zhang, L. [99] found that employment density is generally low within the NLC, and residents use transportation for long-distance commuting, with a high dependence on motor vehicles, which is not conducive to walkable and low-carbon development. Feng, F. [75] argued that strategically organizing commercial facilities could effectively encourage consumption and drive urban economic growth. Additionally, this approach can create more job opportunities and effectively address social waiting issues. The livable NLC could promote employment dispersion and polycentric development.

According to the review, circular economy, employment and income, and smart technology accounted for 13%, 9%, and 4% of the total review papers. With the popularization of 5G mobile technology and the emergence of 6G mobile technology, modern smart technology can generate new business opportunities and, over time, enhance quality of life for residents. Therefore, we define the economic vitality through these three driving factors.

5. Discussion and Limitations

This study systematically analyzes the existing literature on the NLC. Recently, China has primarily utilized and promoted the NLC as a planning strategy and research paradigm. Understanding its livability is critical to achieving sustainability. We performed a comprehensive systematic review utilizing two databases, yielding 67 papers on the livable NLC. The review explored four dimensions and thirteen driving factors, including accessibility, equity, health and well-being, neighborhood cohesion, measurement and assessment, policy integration and support, and safety and security, green facilities, reduced environmental footprint, renewable energy, circular economy, employment and income, and smart technology, all of which are key to sustainability.

The distribution of the factors demonstrates varying degrees of emphasis. Over 70% of studies focus on the social well-being dimension, with accessibility, health and well-being, and equity factors receiving the most intense attention, featuring in over one-third of studies. The management and regulation dimension is significantly emphasized, with half of the studies addressing it, reflecting China’s current vigorous efforts to strengthen management mechanisms and the authorities’ emphasis on and proactive advancement of these areas. The building environment dimension occupies a middle ground, with green facilities receiving considerable attention. In contrast, the economic vitality dimension, including the employment and income and smart technology factors, appears less frequently, indicating lower research focus. However, smart technology is a relatively recent trend and will soon become a focal point for research convergence.

Research institutions exhibit a pronounced tendency towards localized studies concerning this subject matter. The overwhelming majority of research is conducted by institutions based in mainland China, with case cities typically being the very locations where these institutions are situated. This reveals that China’s rapid urbanization has spawned numerous complex “urban diseases,” providing the NLC with a vast, dynamic, and highly valuable repository of case studies. The nation is acknowledging these “urban diseases” and mobilizing various forces to tackle development challenges, optimize the urban and NLC living environment, and enhance residents’ quality of life. As the primary forces in addressing these issues, local institutions and local authorities require closer and longer-term collaboration to gain a deeper and more acute understanding of “localized issues” and devise more suitable solutions. Another related issue is that the studies on this topic come from cities of different sizes in China. In contrast, many of the current studies are from super cities with high levels of economic development, which account for 43% of the papers. However, research has gradually focused more on Wuhan, Nanjing, and other super-large and large cities in the central and eastern regions. Among ordinary cities, only three studies have been conducted, in Kaifeng, Daqing, and Macao. The vast differences in comprehensive strengths have made it particularly difficult to adopt and develop the theory and practices of super cities in ordinary cities, such as the renewable energy factor, which is mentioned only in a study applied to Shanghai [120], but which may be a prominent issue facing Chinese cities at all levels [142,143]. In addition, the review found that renewable energy, reduced environmental footprint, and smart technology factors appear to be the top concerns for super cities (particularly Shanghai) when addressing the livable NLC, which suggests that, as the cities with the most robust overall strength in China, they can serve as pilots to lead the research direction for future development. However, super-large and large cities show strong interest in the social well-being, management and regulation dimensions, such as equity, accessibility, policy integration and support, and safety and security. This indicates that as cities’ comprehensive strength continues to develop, authorities across various Chinese cities could gradually implement the livable NLC [115]. The results explain the reasons for and the structure, policies, and implementation of the NLC in cities of different sizes and levels in China, which can serve as a favorable reference for the world.

According to Shi et al. [144] and Dawodu. et al. [145], the robustness of interconnections and the prioritization of indicators may impact the scientific integrity of sustainability evaluations. Consequently, a reasonable assessment and implementation framework should be developed to mitigate errors, a matter warranting further exploration.

Regarding limitations, this review is grounded in the Chinese context, with all 67 studies conducted by Chinese researchers and predominantly originating from China. Only two studies, from Japanese and German institutions, adopted an international perspective, which may pose challenges for disseminating this theory globally and addressing all worldwide issues. The principal publications emerged between 2022 and 2024. Future research may broaden its scope to encompass more recent publications from 2025, which would be beneficial. As Asia, Africa, and America witness burgeoning interest in x-minute city and NLC themes [146,147], this would help identify distinctions in developing and developed nations’ approaches to habitable NLC development. It would aid in examining the implications of the 2030 Agenda, particularly SDG 11, and would yield substantial literature highlighting geographical variations in global sustainability measures for livable NLCs.

6. Conclusions and Perspectives

Given the increasing importance of sustainability, policymakers and researchers aim to effectively understand the livable neighborhood life circle (NLC). This study enhances the current understanding of the NLC and its role in China’s sustainability policies. It sheds light on the research areas that have received considerable attention from researchers while providing valuable information for scholars and practitioners. In turn, it highlights driving factors and research directions and must be incorporated into an implementation framework for a livable NLC. Based on this, some subsequent prospects for researching the NLC in China are given below.

6.1. Identifying the Driving Factors of the Livable Neighborhood Life Circle (Research Direction)

Quantitatively identifying the driving factors and operational mechanisms that promote sustainability is the only approach to achieve a livable NLC. First, research on factors with unknown effects must be strengthened. Looking at this research direction in a balanced way helps us understand how the NLC is related to creating a good living environment for residents. Second, the strength of interconnections between driving factors may impact the scientific rigor of sustainability assessments, which should be a focus moving forward. As highlighted by Xiong [43], this is an issue that requires further exploration in future research. Additionally, such relationships grounded in sustainability dimensions also reflect philosophical dimensions of practical activities.

6.2. Developing Livable Neighborhood Life Circle Assessment Tools and Approaches in China’s Context

Effective livable NLC assessment research requires a clear definition of concepts such as the “neighborhood life circle” and “livability”. The concept of the neighborhood life circle originates from the 15-minute city [31,32], but future research will localize it, integrating it into the Chinese urban governance model and adopting the hierarchical planning system. The four-dimensional “prism” model of environment, economy, society, and institutions has become popular for understanding the NLC. Therefore, developing assessment tools and pathways tailored to local conditions to evaluate the livable NLC and achieving precise supply–demand matching within a walking radius should be the fundamental prerequisites for conducting research in this field.

6.3. Smart Technology Drives a New Paradigm for Neighborhood Planning

The “urban diseases” have exposed the disconnect between planning and governance at the micro and meso levels in China’s rapidly urbanizing society, posing new challenges to the creation of livable neighborhoods. In particular, there is a clear mismatch between the allocation of public service facilities and the neighborhood-level governance system. The “neighborhood life circle” concept, which is more closely aligned with residents’ daily lives, is emerging as a key pillar of urban governance in the new era. With the development of multi-source data technologies, residents’ actual living radius and service needs can now be quantified and identified, driving the transformation of the life circle from concept to reality. In the future, neighborhood planning should take the life circle as the basic scale, integrating spatial layout and technological governance to promote the formation of a new neighborhood governance model that is people-oriented, data-driven, and based on co-governance and shared benefits.

6.4. Establishing a Framework to Ensure a Livable Neighborhood Life Circle

A strong and mutually supportive connection exists between theoretical research on livable NLC assessments and practical requirements. To address the requirements for sustainability and livability, it is pragmatic to establish a framework for the NLC that integrates multiple factors and scales, alongside technical methodologies and policy systems for pertinent research.

This study serves as a foundational basis for creating a practical framework. While rooted in China’s context, its concepts, structure, and insights are flexible enough to inform planning theory and practice in other countries with similar urban challenges and any city seeking to make neighborhood planning more sustainable and people-oriented.