Review of Concepts, Tools and Indices for the Assessment of Urban Quality of Life
- 13 Downloads
The rapid urban growth poses a huge challenge in sustaining the quality of local environment and life characteristics in contemporary cities. There is a growing body of literature on sustainable cities, QoL, livability; yet a transparent and verifiable knowledge on its assessment at the urban scale is both limited and disparate. Very recently, the use of computational models, tools and indices has seen a sudden upsurge in QoL assessment at the city and sub-city level. This research, through an exhaustive review of scientific and policy literature postulates that despite promulgation of numerous and comprehensive indices and tools, yet these demonstrate a great deal of inconsistency and incomparability. This necessitates an investigation into what ought to be the preferred attributes/features of an ideal model, thereby demanding a systematic, transparent and objective appraisal of urban QoL assessment tools used worldwide. Addressing to the above objective, the research examines peer-reviewed papers to derive eight fundamental study criteria (type of dataset, scope or parameters, sample- coverage and unit, approach, technique, model type, interphase and application) that could typically characterizes such tool. It then reviews scientific and policy literature, open-access webpages on the internet to identify a first of its kind, exhaustive inventory of 26 urban QoL models and then critically evaluates these on the basis of the eight study criteria. The ensuing results bring to the fore a plethora of new, interesting and some inconvenient findings, most importantly that not even a single tool captures all the seven theoretical dimensions of QoL. Despite meant to evaluate quality in cities, only few tools conduct qualitative, subjective, bottom-up, GIS based simulation modeling that could effectively be put to use for more public and policy oriented applications. Lastly, the research demonstrates with credible evidence that a majority of tools/index continue to understand the city as a homogenous entity, with limited know-how on the variability of QoL at the neighbourhood level.
KeywordsUrban QoL assessment QoL parameters Models Tools Index Spatial-statistics Neighbourhood
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- AARP-AARP Public Policy Institute. (2018). AARP livability index—Great neighborhoods for all ages. Retrieved from https://livabilityindex.aarp.org/pdf_report.
- Anand, S., & Sen, A. (1994). Human development index: Methodology and measurement.Google Scholar
- Angel S., Parent, J., Civco, D. L., & Blei, A. M. (2010). The persistent decline in urban densities: Global and historical evidence of sprawl. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper. http://urb.iiedlist.org/sites/default/files/Angel%202010-declineinurbandensities.pdf.
- Bader, N., & Bleischwitz, R. (2009). Measuring urban greenhouse gas emissions: the challenge of comparability. SAPI EN. S. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society, (2.3).Google Scholar
- Bardhan, R. H., Kurisu, K., & Hanaki, K. (2011). Linking urban form and quality of life in Kolkata, India. Presented at the 47th ISOCARP Congress, Wuhan, China. Retrieved from http://www.isocarp.net/data/case_studies/1923.pdf.
- Carmichael, A., Gleason, D., Lehrmitt, R., & Luppino, C. (2007). City of Westminster livability index. London: Worcester Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
- CII-Confederation of Indian Industry. (2010). Livability index 2010: The best cities in India.Google Scholar
- CNP-Cleveland Neighborhood Progress and the Centre on Urban Poverty and Community development (2018). Progress index. Retrieved from http://progressindexcle.org/pdf/progress-city-cleveland.pdf.
- Conger, B. (2015). On livability, livability and the limited utility of quality-of-life rankings. SPP Research Paper, (7-4).Google Scholar
- Dadashpour, H., Azizi, D., & Asgharzade, P. (2016). Evaluating the livable capacity of urban neighborhoods in Tehran: A case study of Harandi, Takhti and Kosar neighborhoods. Planning,16(2016), 55–74.Google Scholar
- Derix, C., Helme, L., Galicia, F., & Kachkaev, A. (2017). Empirically evaluating the livability of local neighborhoods and global cities. CTBUH Journal,4, 40–47.Google Scholar
- Dukku, S. J. (2018). Serviceability and liveability planning in Yelwa Sector of Bauchi Metropolis, Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention,7(5), 71–80.Google Scholar
- Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2012). World happiness report .Google Scholar
- Jenks, M., Burton, E., & William, K. (Eds.). (1996). The compact city: A sustainable urban form?. London: E & FN Spon.Google Scholar
- Lyndhurst, B. (2004). Liveability & sustainable development: Bad habits & hard choices. Final Report for the UK Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.Google Scholar
- Mccridle. (2015). Urban task force. Urban living index. Retrieved from https://mccrindle.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/UrbanTaskforce_The-Urban-Living-Index_McCrindle.pdf.
- Mercer. (2016). Mercer make tomorrow, today. Retrieved 2017, from 2016 Quality of Living Rankings: https://www.imercer.com/content/mobility/quality-of-living-city-rankings.html.
- Mittal, S., & Sharma, A. K. (2017). Quality of life and built environment: Theoretical understanding and research gaps. Urban India,37(2), 37–54.Google Scholar
- MoHUA-Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. (2018). Ease of living index. New Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar
- NYC-New York City Center for Innovation through Data Intelligence (CIDI) (2015). State of New Yorkers—A well-being index. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cidi/downloads/pdfs/nyc_well_being_index_full_report_2015.pdf.
- Paul, A., & Sen, J. (2017). Identifying factors for evaluating livability potential within a metropolis: A case of Kolkata. International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering,11(1), 50–55.Google Scholar
- Salleh, A. G., & Badarulzaman, N. (2012). Quality of life of residents in urban neighbourhoods of Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries,17(2), 117–123.Google Scholar
- Shin, D. C., Rutkowski, C. P., & Park, C. M. (2003). The quality of life in Korea: Comparative and dynamic perspectives. Social Indicators Research,62(63), 3–36.Google Scholar
- The Economist. (2016). A summary of the liveability ranking and overview. London: The Economist Intelligence Unit.Google Scholar
- UN DESA. (2018). Revision of world urbanization prospects.Google Scholar
- UN Habitat. (2015). The city prosperity initiative. https://unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02-old/CPI_2015%20Global%20City%20Report.compressed.pdf.
- UNU-IAS. (2013). Urban development with climate co-benefits: Aligning climate, environmental and other development goals in cities. Yokohama: United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
- Wokekoro, E., & Owei, O. B. (2014). An assessment of residential quality of life in Port Harcourt Municipality. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities,3, 1.Google Scholar
- WSP. (2018). A tale of our cities—2018 WSP global cities index. Retrieved from: https://www.wspfuturecities.com/assets/pdf/en/global-cities-index.pdf on 20 February 2019.
- Yin, Z., Wu, Y., Jin, Z., & Zhang, X. (2018). Research on livable community evaluation based on GIS. In IOP conference series: Earth and environmental science (Vol. 108, No. 4, p. 042075). IOP Publishing.Google Scholar
- Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Demps, K., Ariza-Montobbio, P., García, C., & Reyes-García, V. (2014). What defines quality of life? The gap between public policies and locally defined indicators among residents of Kodagu, Karnataka (India). Social Indicators Research,115(1), 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar