Review of Concepts, Tools and Indices for the Assessment of Urban Quality of Life

  • Shilpi MittalEmail author
  • Jayprakash Chadchan
  • Sudipta K. Mishra
Original Research


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.


Urban 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.


  1. AARP-AARP Public Policy Institute. (2018). AARP livability index—Great neighborhoods for all ages. Retrieved from
  2. Anand, S., & Sen, A. (1994). Human development index: Methodology and measurement.Google Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Brown, C., & Thompson, K. (1994). A quality life: Searching for quality of life in residential service for elderly people. Australian Journal on Ageing,13(3), 131–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carmichael, A., Gleason, D., Lehrmitt, R., & Luppino, C. (2007). City of Westminster livability index. London: Worcester Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
  8. CII-Confederation of Indian Industry. (2010). Livability index 2010: The best cities in India.Google Scholar
  9. CNP-Cleveland Neighborhood Progress and the Centre on Urban Poverty and Community development (2018). Progress index. Retrieved from
  10. Conger, B. (2015). On livability, livability and the limited utility of quality-of-life rankings. SPP Research Paper, (7-4).Google Scholar
  11. Çubukçu, E., & Erin, İ. (2015). Indicators of quality of life to compare neighbourhood units and regional areas: A model to collect data in Turkish cities. Environment-Behaviour Proceeding Journal,1(2), 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Das, D. (2008). Urban quality of life: A case study of Guwahati. Social Indicators Research,88(2), 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. El Din, H. S., Shalaby, A., Farouh, H. E., & Elariane, S. A. (2013). Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood. Hbrc Journal,9(1), 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garau, C., & Pavan, V. (2018). Evaluating urban quality: Indicators and assessment tools for smart sustainable cities. Sustainability,10(3), 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giap, T. K., Thye, W. W., & Aw, G. (2014). A new approach to measuring the liveability of cities: The Global Liveable Cities Index. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development,11(2), 176–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenberg, M. R. (1999). Improving neighborhood quality: A hierarchy of needs. Housing Policy Debate,10(3), 601–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, A. R., Ferriss, A. L., Land, K., Michalos, A. C., Peterson, M., et al. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and agenda for research. Social Indicators Research,55, 1–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2012). World happiness report [2012].Google Scholar
  22. Hur, M., Nasar, J. L., & Chun, B. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology,30(1), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research,26(1), 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jenks, M., Burton, E., & William, K. (Eds.). (1996). The compact city: A sustainable urban form?. London: E & FN Spon.Google Scholar
  25. Kovacic, I., Summer, M., & Achammer, C. (2015). Strategies of building stock renovation for ageing society. Journal of Cleaner Production,88, 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lotfi, S., & Solaimani, K. (2009). An assessment of urban quality of life by using analytic hierarchy process approach (case study: comparative study of quality of life in the North of Iran). Journal of Social Sciences,5(2), 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyndhurst, B. (2004). Liveability & sustainable development: Bad habits & hard choices. Final Report for the UK Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.Google Scholar
  28. Mamuye, N., & Gotu, B. (2015). Statistical analysis of urban quality of life (Case Study: Hawassa Town, SNNP Region, Ethiopia). American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics.,4(6), 547–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCrea, R., Stimson, R., & Western, J. (2005). Testing a moderated model of satisfaction with urban living using data for Brisbane-South East Queensland. Social Indicators Research,72, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mccridle. (2015). Urban task force. Urban living index. Retrieved from
  31. McMhom, S. K. (2002). The development of quality of life indicators—A case study from the city of Bristol, UK. Ecological Indicators,2, 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meersman, S. C. (2005). Objective neighborhood properties and perceptions of neighborhood problems: Using a Geographic Information system (GIS) in neighborhood effects and aging research. Ageing International,30(1), 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mercer. (2016). Mercer make tomorrow, today. Retrieved 2017, from 2016 Quality of Living Rankings:
  34. Milbrath, L. W. (1979). Policy relevant quality of life research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,444, 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. MoHUA-Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. (2018). Ease of living index. New Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar
  37. NYC-New York City Center for Innovation through Data Intelligence (CIDI) (2015). State of New Yorkers—A well-being index. Retrieved from
  38. Onnom, W., Tripathi, N., Nitivattananon, V., & Ninsawat, S. (2018). Development of a liveable city index (LCI) using multi criteria geospatial modelling for medium class cities in developing countries. Sustainability,10(2), 520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Randhawa, A., & Kumar, A. (2017). Exploring sustainability of smart development initiatives in India. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment,6(2), 701–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Sawicki, D. S., & Flynn, P. (1996). Neighborhood indicators: A review of the literature and an assessment of conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of American Planning Association,62(2), 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Serrano-Jiménez, A., Lima, M. L., Molina-Huelva, M., & Barrios-Padura, Á. (2019). Promoting urban regeneration and aging in place: APRAM—An interdisciplinary method to support decision-making in building renovation. Sustainable Cities and Society,47, 101505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sethi, M. (2018). Co-benefits assessment tools and research gap. In M. Sethi & J. A. Puppim de Oliveira (Eds.), Mainstreaming climate co-benefits in Indian cities (pp. 3–45). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seto, K. C., Fragkias, M., Güneralp, B., & Reilly, M. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS ONE,6(8), e23777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Severinsen, C., Breheny, M., & Stephens, C. (2016). Ageing in unsuitable places. Housing Studies,31(6), 714–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Sirgy, M. J. (2011). Theoretical perspectives guiding QOL indicator projects. Social Indicators Research,103, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Streimikiene, D. (2015). Quality of life and housing. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,5(2), 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Testa, M. A., & Nackley, J. F. (1994). Methods for quality-of-life studies. Annual Review of Public Health,15(1), 535–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. The Economist. (2016). A summary of the liveability ranking and overview. London: The Economist Intelligence Unit.Google Scholar
  52. UN DESA. (2018). Revision of world urbanization prospects.Google Scholar
  53. UN-Habitat. (2011). Cities and climate change: Global report on human settlements. London/Washington, DC: Earthscan & UNCHS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Van Dijk, H. M., Cramm, J. M., Van Exel, J. O. B., & Nieboer, A. P. (2015). The ideal neighbourhood for ageing in place as perceived by frail and non-frail community-dwelling older people. Ageing & Society,35(8), 1771–1795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vozikaki, M., Linardakis, M., Micheli, K., & Philalithis, A. (2017). Activity participation and well-being among European adults aged 65 years and older. Social Indicators Research,131(2), 769–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. WSP. (2018). A tale of our cities2018 WSP global cities index. Retrieved from: on 20 February 2019.
  59. 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
  60. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shilpi Mittal
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Jayprakash Chadchan
    • 3
  • Sudipta K. Mishra
    • 3
  1. 1.GD Goenka UniversityGurgaonIndia
  2. 2.ISARDNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Vastu Kala AcademyNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations