Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Burnell J. and Galster G. (1992). Quality-of-life measurements and urban size: An empirical note. Urban Studies 29(5): 727–735
Cummins R. (2000a). Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model. Social Indicators Research 52: 55–72
Cummins R. (2000b). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies 1: 133–158
Dissart J. and Deller S. (2000). ‘Quality of life in the planning literature’. Journal of Planning Literature 15(1): 135–161
(2000). The Urban Audit – Vol. I, II and III. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
Findlay A., Morris A. and Rogerson R. (1988). Where to live in Britain in 1988: Quality of life in British cities. Cities 5(3): 268–276
Gatt, L.: 2003, Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Eight Largest Cities (Wellington City Council)
Giannias D. (1998). A quality of life based ranking of Canadian cities. Urban Studies 35(12): 2241–2251
Grayson L. and Young K. (1994). Quality of Life in Cities. An Overview and Guide to the Literature. The British Library/London Research Center, London
Johansson S. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring quality of life for national policy. Social Indicators Research 58: 13–32
Lever J. (2000). The development of an instrument to measure quality of life in Mexico city. Social Indicators Research 50: 187–208
Massam B.H. (2002). Quality of life: Public planning and private living. Progress in Planning 58: 141–227
Michalski J.H. (2001). Asking Citizens What Matters for Quality of Life in Canada. Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa
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: 267–292
Nuvolati G. (1998). La Qualità della Vita Urbana. Teorie, Metodi e Risultati della Ricerche. Franco Angeli, Milano
Pacione M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being – A social geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 65: 19–30
Petrucci A. and D’Andrea S. (2002). Quality of life in Europe: Objective and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research 60: 55–88
Seik F.T. (2000). Subjective assessment of urban quality of life in Singapore: 1997–1998. Habitat International 24: 31–49
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: 5–18
Veenhoven R. (2002). Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research 58: 33–45
Yuan L., Yuen B. and Low C. (1999). Urban Quality of Life – Critical Issues and Options. National University of Singapore, Singapore, 1–12
Wyman, M.: 2001, Quality of Life Indicators Project – Learning from Citizens What Matters for Quality of Life (Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Santos, L.D., Martins, I. Monitoring Urban Quality of Life: The Porto Experience. Soc Indic Res 80, 411–425 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-0002-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-0002-2