Comparative analyse des politiques urbanistiques et well-being en Europe and Amérique du Nord

Thesis Abstract

Urban policies increasingly shape residents’ well-being across regional contexts; yet comparative understandings between Europe and North America remain fragmented due to divergent planning traditions, policy cycles, and welfare regimes. This study addresses the gap by examining how urban planning policies influence perceived and objective well-being in major metropolitan areas, identifying which policy instruments and governance arrangements are associated with better well-being outcomes, and how context moderates these relationships. The aim is to compare the effectiveness of urban policy frameworks in Europe and North America in promoting residents’ quality of life, social cohesion, and environmental livability, while unpacking the mechanisms through which policy instruments exert impact. Specific objectives include (i) to map and compare key urban planning policy instruments (zoning regulations, public space standards, housing affordability measures, transit-oriented development, and green infrastructure mandates) across five European cities (Stockholm, Copenhagen, Vienna, Barcelona, Berlin) and five North American cities (Copenhagen and Stockholm are in Europe; for North America, Toronto, Montreal, Boston, Seattle, and Vancouver are included) to identify commonalities and divergences in policy design; (ii) to assess perceived well-being (life satisfaction, safety, social trust) and objective well-being indicators (housing affordability, access to green space, commute times, air quality) using city-level datasets and survey data; (iii) to test the relationships between policy instruments and well-being outcomes while considering mediating factors such as accessibility, social cohesion, and environmental quality; (iv) to develop a conceptual model linking urban policy configurations to well-being outcomes applicable across regional contexts; and (v) to provide evidence-based recommendations for policy design and governance that enhance well-being in diverse urban settings. Methodologically, the study adopts a mixed-methods, cross-sectional comparative design. The population comprises residents aged 18 and above in the selected cities, with a target sample of 2,000 respondents per continent (total n ? 4,000) drawn through stratified random sampling to ensure representation across neighborhoods with varying socio-economic profiles. In addition, policy documents and city-wide indicators will be collected from municipal planning offices and open data portals to construct a policy inventory and a city-level well-being index. Data collection instruments include (i) a standardized survey instrument measuring perceived well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, social connectedness, safety), housing adequacy, accessibility to amenities, and transportation satisfaction; (ii) a policy instrument coding scheme to quantify the intensity and type of urban planning measures (regulatory rigidity, investment in public transport, green space per capita, and housing policies); (iii) semi-structured interviews with 25 urban policy practitioners per city to triangulate findings and illuminate governance processes. Validity and reliability will be ensured through pre-testing, back-translation for cross-language items, and Cronbach’s alpha checks for scales. Data analysis will employ (i) descriptive statistics to profile samples and indicators; (ii) multilevel regression analysis to examine associations between policy instrument intensity and well-being outcomes, with city-level random effects to account for nested data structure; (iii) structural equation modeling to test the proposed theoretical pathways linking policy configurations, mediators (accessibility, social cohesion, environmental quality), and well-being; (iv) difference-in-differences-like robustness checks where feasible using historical policy variation; (v) thematic analysis of interview transcripts to extract governance levers and contextual factors; and (vi) sensitivity analyses excluding cities with incomplete data. Expected findings include (i) nuanced evidence that both universal and context-specific policy instruments influence well-being, with transit-oriented development and green infrastructure showing robust associations with perceived and objective well-being across contexts; (ii) stronger relationships in cities with coordinated multi-level governance and higher transparency in policy implementation; (iii) mediation effects where accessibility and environmental quality account for a large share of the policy-well-being link; and (iv) identifiable regional differences in the strength of certain instruments, reflecting welfare regime and urban form. The study contributes to knowledge by offering a transferable theoretical framework that links urban policy configurations to well-being outcomes, validated across two macro-regions with distinct planning traditions. It advances methodology by integrating cross-national policy coding with rigorous multilevel and structural equation analyses, complemented by qualitative governance insights. Practical implications include guidance for policymakers to prioritise policy mixes that optimize accessibility, green space, and affordable housing, while ensuring cross-border learning and governance collaborations. The main conclusion posits that the effectiveness of urban planning policies on well-being is contingent on integrated policy design, institutional coordination, and context-sensitive implementation; recommendations emphasize governance pluralism, data-driven evaluation, and adaptive policy portfolios that balance compact growth with social equity and environmental resilience.