Rereading the Ontological Areas of Livability(Livability is a "Dominant Category of Urban Discourse")

Separating and clarifying the conceptual borders of livability with the concepts of quality of life, sustainability and welfare is ambiguous due to the similarities and differences of various concepts. Such terms are often used without sufficient definition or study context. As a result, these terms are defined in the true meaning of whatever the researchers themselves have conceptually understood and reached, and consensus is impossible. This confusion is compounded by the fact that many of these terms are often used interchangeably. Therefore, the ontological re-reading of livability is necessary to prevent the existing confusion of researchers in confronting and interacting with these concepts. Therefore, any conceptual confusion in the fields of knowledge of livability can cause a kind of misunderstanding in the scientific and philosophical foundations of knowledge and more experimental results.

The current research was carried out with the aim of ontological rereading of livability in urban studies.

The present article is a developmental-exploratory research, with the help of the qualitative method and through the review of library documents and through the description, analysis and expansion of opinions and discourses and theoretical approaches, in the pursuit of re-reading the areas of existence.

The results of this study showed that livability is a meta-concept for environmental quality and a subset of sustainability that directly affects the physical, economic and psychological aspects of people's lives and includes a set of acquired characteristics of the environment that make it It makes it a desirable, convenient and attractive place for all people to live, work and visit.

It seems that materialism and modernism influenced the fundamental concept of livability and further this concept by being in the core of post-materialist values as a value system and movement to estimate material needs (such as security, livelihood and Shelter) and criticized and countered the excesses in the policies governing urban growth and used the theory of modern functionalism.