Social Indicators Research

, Volume 80, Issue 2, pp 411–425 | Cite as

Monitoring Urban Quality of Life: The Porto Experience

  • Luis Delfim SantosEmail author
  • Isabel Martins


This paper describes the monitorin g system of the urban quality of life developed by the Porto City Council, a new tool being used to support urban planning and management. The two components of this system – a quantitative approach based on statistical indicators and a qualitative analysis based on the citizens’ perceptions of the conditions of life – are presented. The strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches adopted in the project are reviewed. It is argued that, in order to achieve a deeper understanding and more effective measurement of urban quality of life, both kinds of measurements are useful and complement each other.


Urban Centre Resident Population Objective Indicator Urban Life Sport Facility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Burnell J. and Galster G. (1992). Quality-of-life measurements and urban size: An empirical note. Urban Studies 29(5): 727–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cummins R. (2000a). Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model. Social Indicators Research 52: 55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cummins R. (2000b). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies 1: 133–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dissart J. and Deller S. (2000). ‘Quality of life in the planning literature’. Journal of Planning Literature 15(1): 135–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. (2000). The Urban Audit – Vol. I, II and III. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  6. Findlay A., Morris A. and Rogerson R. (1988). Where to live in Britain in 1988: Quality of life in British cities. Cities 5(3): 268–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gatt, L.: 2003, Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Eight Largest Cities (Wellington City Council)Google Scholar
  8. Giannias D. (1998). A quality of life based ranking of Canadian cities. Urban Studies 35(12): 2241–2251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grayson L. and Young K. (1994). Quality of Life in Cities. An Overview and Guide to the Literature. The British Library/London Research Center, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Johansson S. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring quality of life for national policy. Social Indicators Research 58: 13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lever J. (2000). The development of an instrument to measure quality of life in Mexico city. Social Indicators Research 50: 187–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Massam B.H. (2002). Quality of life: Public planning and private living. Progress in Planning 58: 141–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Michalski J.H. (2001). Asking Citizens What Matters for Quality of Life in Canada. Canadian Policy Research Networks, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  14. Moller V. and Dickow H. (2002). The role of quality of life surveys in managing change in democratic transitions: The South Africa case. Social Indicators Research 58: 267–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nuvolati G. (1998). La Qualità della Vita Urbana. Teorie, Metodi e Risultati della Ricerche. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  16. Pacione M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being – A social geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 65: 19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Petrucci A. and D’Andrea S. (2002). Quality of life in Europe: Objective and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research 60: 55–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seik F.T. (2000). Subjective assessment of urban quality of life in Singapore: 1997–1998. Habitat International 24: 31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leidelmeijer K., Marsman G. and Hollander A. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being. Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning 65: 5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Veenhoven R. (2002). Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research 58: 33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yuan L., Yuen B. and Low C. (1999). Urban Quality of Life – Critical Issues and Options. National University of Singapore, Singapore, 1–12Google Scholar
  22. Wyman, M.: 2001, Quality of Life Indicators Project – Learning from Citizens What Matters for Quality of Life (Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of Porto and CEMPREPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Studies and Planning DepartmentPorto City CouncilPortugal

Personalised recommendations