Republic of the Philippines

Pangasinan State University

Urdaneta Campus
San Vicente, Urdaneta City
Telefax: (075) 632-2559

College of Engineering and Architecture

Department of Architecture

Quality of Life in Urban and Cities

A Research Paper towards Optimizing the Quality of Life in Cities and Urban
Environments

A Research Study Presented to

Arch. Zaldy F. Corpuz

In partial fulfilment of the course requirements in

Planning 2

For the degree of

Bachelor of Science in Architecture

Tutaan, Jumeirahlyn B.
Proponent
I. INTRODUCTION

Quality of life (QoL) is a concept pertaining to general well-being of people and the
quality of life within the surrounding environment, whether a group of people residing a
community or individual, QoL aims to capture both positive and negative elements of
existence in a certain period of time. For instance, QoL can be determined through
personal health including the aspects of physical, mental and spiritual; social status and
wealth; education and work status; sense of security and freedom; decision-making;
social-belongingness and the physical surroundings.

The concept for QoL is interdisciplinary and can be found among various fields. In the
field of psychology, the existing theory of Abraham Maslow serves as the guiding
principle in defining the quality of life of a human being. In 1962, Maslow published a
book entitled, “Towards a Psychology of Being”, he established a theory of quality of life
which he bases the determinant of QoL on the development of a human being towards
happiness and fulfilment of human needs. He described his approach as existentialistic
approach of QoL in personal growth. It states here that, if a human being is responsible
of his own life, he is able to acquire good qualities capable to live a meaningful life thus
he is able to become a human being with freedom and fulfilment of life by being happy
and healthy. The theory of Maslow on self-actualization plays an important role in
medicine since chronic diseases cannot be fully treated and do not disappear in spite of
the best biomedical treatments. Self-actualization theory could help the patients to
perceive life into a noble path of personal development. The hidden potential for
improving one’s life lies within helping the patient to find the real meaning of existing
through self-actualization.

In the field or urban design, Quality of Urban Life (QOUL) is a multidimensional concept.
Throughout the century, there are measures done to determine the QOUL however,
QOUL is interdependent over the uncertainties of time, thus, indefinite conclusions were
arrived. These measures prioritized the conditions of life among urban and cities and the
residents through literature reviews and evaluating urban performance through indicator
of QOUL. Furthermore, there are systematic literature reviews on QOUL such as the
study of Najafpour, Bigdeli, Lamit, and Fitry with arrived conclusion on neighbourhoods’
QoL criteria, emphasizing security as the main context of issue affecting QOUL. The
study outlined the lack of unifying frame to be aligned with the principles of
sustainability. Similar study from Pineo et.al., focuses on the the QOUL in public health
which they propose a taxonomy of urban health indicators to demonstrate the user’s
need from the built environments aligned with achieving an optimum health. The studies
mentioned, are lacking in-depth evaluation of the assessment methods/tools that were
used. Hence, among the studies of QOUL, thirst for a comprehensive collection and
monitoring of data are gradually arising for urban planning without the degradation of
the environment.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW

The term Quality of Life (QoL) is a multifaceted discipline used worldwide to measure
the general well-being of societies and people. It is often used to wide areas of
discipline in different contexts such as in policy-making and researches. However, the
QoL is still immeasurable since it is interdisciplinary and still remains mainly theoretical
as it contain a large element of subjectivity, thus, making it difficult to consider as a
measurable dimension. For these reasons, both the definition and the adequate
measurement of QOL in a given society still remain inefficient (Costanza et al., 2008).

The main interest of focus lately is the increasing interest of QoL on different aspects to
monitor the development among urban and cities and establish new grounds to
redevelop and provide stronger grounds to enhance the quality of life among these
areas. However, the scientific research about the QOL is characterized by the lack of a
common theoretical framework, which results in a significant variety of different
approaches (Diener and Suh, 1997; Verlet and Devos, 2009).

With the emergence of space demand for new industrial and associated residential uses
has generated large uncontrolled built-up areas, or the appearance of anonymous,
repetitive urban fabric. The notion of filling out vacant spaces converted to residential
zone without proper permit from the authority is more common among developing
countries and in many developed cities. For example, Baguio city was designed by the
American colonial government for 25,000 residents, but now has a population of
366,358 based on the 2020 census. The city hosts a daytime population of 750,000. The
city’s mushrooming structures and a weekday population of 725,366 put a strain on its
water supply, roads, urban facilities, and public services. By being overcrowded, most of
the vacant lots are mostly converted into a residential commercial zone to suffice the
basic needs for survival. Overpopulation and over tourism affects the quality of life of
the residents especially to those individuals not common to this setup. These dilemmas
emerged over the century making Baguio City a threat for urban decay by 2043. Thus,
the city government has begun enforcing strict zoning rules a thorough review of
business operations since the start of 2022.
Modern built-up areas, on the other hand, grow by themselves but lack the “intelligence”
to organize their development (Rosi, 2004). To do so, the city would need to be
organized, but this is not easy and, above all, is costly. Similar with problems
encountered at Baguio City, although interventions are possible, however, the damage
has been become severe. Last February 15, 2019, A draft report of an urban carrying-
capacity study commissioned by the National Economic and Development Authority
(Neda) has found that the city’s resources are hardly enough for its population. The
study also said the city’s solid waste management and sewerage systems had been
inadequate.The aforementioned problems encountered could possibly result to
decreased the QoL of residents in the city, however, there were adequate studies so far
to arrive with conclusions.

This is a serious problem in an economy that speculates on a global level, where what is
under debate is the city budgetary requirement to suffice the needed cost to reverse the
possible urban decay by 2043. Thus, financial resources can be moved on to another
‘hot’ investment (Borja, 2003). Over the century, it is difficult to establish common
references among studies pertaining to city and urban development which develops over
time. From time to time, developments seek general aims and the availability of efficient
resources, while at the same time; determinants of land zoning classification are
prioritized.

In spite of indefinite content of QoL among various disciplines, most people would agree
that urban crime and air pollution downgrade the QOUL (Mercer, 2011). Therefore, we
assume that in given spatial unities (e.g. Europe) and for specific time periods, there can
be some agreement concerning the most significant factors which determine the QOL in
cities. The establishment of a standard set of factors will help relevant research and
related reports to be directly comparable and more open to interpretation.
III. DOMAINS OF KNOWLEDGE

The first section focuses on the literature regarding the determinants of Quality of Life
on a personal level (subjective well-being) and the second section elaborates the Quality
of Urban Life (QUOL) from the previous section.

1. QUALITY OF LIFE ON PUBLIC HEALTH

With the threat imposed along urban and cities with the rapid population growth, the
World Health Organisation, acknowledging the increasing need to establish a QOL
measurement with intra-cultural validity. Thus, it introduced Wold Health
Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) : a quality of life assessment developed by
the WHOQOL group elaborated in 15 research centres worldwide, which led to the
identification of 6 broad domains and 26 items which determine the quality of a
person’s life. These items are summarised in WHOQOL-100 and provide a tool for
the measurement of personal QOL, as considered though the lens of health sciences.

Domain Facets incorporated within domains

Overall Quality of Life and General Health
1. Physical Health Energy and fatigue
Pain and discomfort
Sleep and rest
2. Psychological Bodily image and appearance
Negative feelings
Positive feelings
Self-esteem
Thinking, learning, memory and concentration
3. Level of Mobility
Independence Activities of daily living
Dependence on medicinal substances and medical aids
Work capacity
4. Social Relations Personal relationships
 Social support
Sexual activity
5. Environment Financial resources
Freedom, physical safety and security
Health and social care: accessibility and quality
Home environment
Opportunities for acquiring new information and skills
Participation in and opportunities for recreation/leisure
Physical environment (pollution/noise/traffic/climate)
transport
6. Spirituality Religion
Personal beliefs
Table 1 Life domains and items which determine the QOL according to the WHO.

2. QUALITY OF LIFE ON FAMILY AND WORK

The second European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) focuses on the quality of life
subjected to family life and work across Europe carried by the European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound)
in 2007, offers a wide-ranging view of the diverse social realities in the 27 EU
Member States, Norway and the candidate countries of Croatia, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey. The result of the study concluded
that women tend to be affected by the pressure of fluctuating employment
status (fewer-long term and full-time jobs), working hours (nonstandard hours,
more intense work) and mobility, as well as a rising uncertainty in jobs and
professional careers contributing to tensions between work and family life. The
report analyses these tensions and examines the background of different
institutional settings, labour market structures and cultural factors, all of which
are important for reconciling work and family life in today’s society. Table 3
summarises the factors for QOL at a personal level which were highlighted in this
way.
Order of Life Domain Relative Facets
significance
1 Financial status Income
Material well-being/lifestyle deprivation
Employment
2 Health Age
Health status/disability Social support
3 Employment Status Employment
Unemployment
Retirement
4 Education Education Level
5 Marital Status Marriage
Divorce
Widowhood
6 Practical/ Moral Support Family
Friends
Institutions
7 Public Services Quality of services Accessibility
Table 2 Factors which influence an individual’s QOL as they emerge from the 'Second European Quality
Life Survey

Table 3 presents the data that resulted from gathering and sorting the main
variables which appear in the literature to determine an individual’s QOL. The second
column shows the main general factors that can be formulated by the various
variables, while the third column shows some important variables that appear in
literature to be significant QOL determinants but can be included in the general
factors of column.

s/n Main QOL Factors Facets incorporated in main factors

1 Physical health
2 Mental health and
psychology
3 Happiness, self-esteem,
self-actualisation
4 Family environment and
personal relationships
5 Social relationships and
friendship
Energy, absence of pain
Positive feelings, trust in myselF
Emotional well-being, spiritual well-
being, challenges, prestige
Marital status, giving and earning love
and tenderness, understanding and
solidarity
Friends, being needed, interpersonal
relationships, understanding and
 solidarity
6 Income Material well-being, financial sources
7 Employment Productivity, unemployment, Satisfaction
with one’s job
8 Education and lifelong Level of education, personal
learning development
9 Distinctive time and Leisure Recreation, humour, relaxation, leisure
opportunities
10 Security and tranquillity
11 Freedom and variety of Challenges, capabilities
options
12 Social Inclusion Position in the community or society,
social participation

Factors concerning the Satisfaction with the neighbourhood,

wider environment housing, natural environment, political
situation, public services, etc.
Table 3 Determining factors for the QOL of an individual

The factors concerning the human nature are the satisfaction of the individual within
the neighbourhood, the quality of life within the natural environment, the political
situation have a strong impact on the QoL of an individual. The main determinant of
QoL found is the income factor which is widely studied. Further, a research study
concluded that the economic factors mainly the income strongly influence the QoL
within the city and urban setting (Hankiss, 1981). The positive relationship between
income and an individual which are closely linked to two significant life domains:
employment and leisure. Majority of the past studies agrees that unemployment
downgrades the capacity of an individual causing overwhelming pressure on the
person’s psychology and leading to social exclusion (Fryer and Payne, 1984; Dooley
and Catalano, 1988; Fryer, 1992; Haworth, 1997).

3. QUALITY OF LIFE ON A PERSONAL LEVEL (SUBJECTIVE WELL-

BEING)
The determinants of general QoL in a certain city are not pre-determined by an
average QoL of citizens. Even in cities where QoL is relatively high, one cannot
conclude that the general QoL is relatively high too since there were many
factors to consider when determining the QoL of a human being. These factors
are not transmittable from a personal level to a societal one, it includes, the
state of individual’s health. On the other hand, there are factors affecting the
QoL of a given place that is not pre-determined by QoL of a subjective well-
being, such as, the weather and climate of a certain place. In spite of the
interchangeable aspects of QoL of a given place and in the personal level, the
importance of predetermine QoL on the personal level is an important aspect to
come up with the determinants on the Quality of Urban Life (QOUL).
In 1972, Comparative Welfare for Scandinavia was the first attempt to record
and measure the QoL using evaluation criteria for the following factors: income,
housing, political attitudes, social relationships, uniqueness, personal interest,
health, education and satisfaction with life. The index system structured on the
above factors was based on the distinction of three main sectors of life, viewed
through the lens of humanistic psychology as defined at the time: loving, having
and being (Allardt, 1986; Erikson and Uusitalo, 1986; Veenhoven, 2000). From
that time on, the adaptation of these factors in researchers are used in
evaluation of person’s QoL modifying or amplifying the above considerations
(Cummins, 1996; Diener and Lucas, 2000; Dalkey, 2002; Verlet and Devos,
2009).
The study of Verlet and Devos determined the QoL on a personal level through
subjective evaluation of well-being according to the following domains:
satisfaction as human beings, satisfaction with the life in society, current
professional situation, financial situation at home, life at home, the
neighbourhood and the local government. The researchers also examine current
satisfaction in comparison with that of the recent past, highlighting the
importance of personal continuity and development (Verlet and Devos, 2009). In
their paper, Verlet and Devos establish the significant differences among each
factor and the level of importance. They conclude that some issues are
predetermining the both the general and personal level of QoL do not
significantly affect the subjective well-being. Table 1 summarizes enlist the five
factors with the highest explanatory value for three different scales of subjective
well-being, according to Verlet and Devos.
 Satisfaction with Life General Life Satisfaction Happiness
Scale
Social Integration Social Integration Social Integration
Self-esteem Self-esteem Satisfaction with
neighborhood
State of health Satisfaction with Self-esteem
(compared to peer neighborhood
groups)
Comparison to the Comparison to the State of health compared
beginning of beginning of occupational to peer groups
occupational life life
Comparison to parents State of health compared Comparison to the
situation to peer groups beginning of occupational
life
Table 4 Overview of the factors with the highest explanatory value of Quality of Life

4. QUALITY OF URBAN LIFE

The urban and cities are the social units often subjected when determining the
Quality of Life of a population. For broader views, the living standard or the
Index of Human Development is used. Among the factors used in QoL evaluating
studies, self-evident factors are often considered to be pre-determinant of
culture and values honing an individual. Thus, evaluating QoUL is examined
among the following factors, such as, social exclusion, environmental
degradation and congestion, spatial configuration such as studying linkages and
accessibility of spaces.

QOUL Items Main QOL factors,

according to Table 4
Health services 12
Urban green spaces/recreation areas 1,2,9
Quality of urban environment 1,2
Employment opportunities, employment structure 3,7
Family and marital statues indices 4
Social networks 5
Income, income distribution 6
Unemployment 7
Level of education 8,3
Leisure resources, humour and recreation 9,11
Crime 10
Social inequalities , social exclusion 12
Table 5 Quality of Urban Life items as they emerge from the analysis of individual factors
IV.INDICATORS OF QUALITY OF LIFE

Diverse studies from various fields argue that QOL is an interdisciplinary concept which
includes a variety of factors that people value in life as determinants of how they
perceived the quality of life. The subjective perceptions and judgements of quality of life
among diverse aspects of the built environment are related to individual and sense of
value.
Recent studies emphasized the user’s perception of value is an important aspect to
consider when taking into account on how to perceived QOUL at the neighbourhood
setting. Value perception is a major factor most likely to measure the satisfaction of
users as well as the inconveniences perceived in relation to the built environment. n use,
andinconveniences (sacrifices) perceived in relation to the built environment. The multi-
dimensional QoL concept is thereby closely aligned with the concepts of perceived
value,as highlighted by Rooke et al. : “Objective and subjective, rather than being
mutually exclusive categories, are more like points on a continuum in which objectivity is
socially established from the stream of our perceptions”.
Additionally, as pointed out by Thomson et al. [58] (p. 337), value can be subjective if it
remains internalised within an individual or an organisation, or it can be objective if it is
expressed and negotiated in a common language (universal metrics) by individuals and
organisations within a project.
Thus, based on this relation with perceived value in terms of multidimensional urban
QoL definition, it can be inferred that:
1. Objective urban QoL is related to universal metrics expressed and understood by the
individuals of a society–the exogenous living conditions.
2. Subjective urban QoL is related to the endogenous perception of these living
conditions (level of satisfaction).

These concepts are important to determine QOL indicators which are on objective basis
from observable facts and individual’s perception or the subjective-well-being
assessment. Thus, QOL depends on both the objective and subjective perceptions of an
individual. Table 6 presents the concepts related to QOL including objective and
subjective dimensions.
 Main Urban QoL Concepts
Urban quality of life
Objective dimension of urban QoL
Subjective dimension of urban QoL
Table 6 Urban QoL Concepts
Material and non-material aspects
Individual and collective life conditions
Objective and subjective dimension
Exogenous facts of a person’s life
External conditions
Objective measurement/universal metrics
Endogenous individuals’ perceptions
Internal mechanisms
Subjective measurement/people’s
satisfaction

The table illustrates the diverse concepts representing the QOL. It is multidimensional,
which includes material, non-material, individual and collective life conditions, the
objectivedimension of living conditions (indicators based on universal metrics), and the
subjective dimension of these living conditions (people’s satisfaction). As shown in
Figure 2, QOL is subdivided into dimensions both objective and subjective which require
different assessment methods as these are different perspectives of the evaluation of
both external and internal evaluation.

Figure 1 The concept of urban QoL

1. QUALITY OF URBAN LIFE (QOUL) INDICATORS

The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) Technical Committee for
the Sustainable Development of Communities is developing a new series of
international standards for an integrated approach to sustainable development
[2] (p. 43). Among them is the International Standard ISO 37120:2018
 Sustainable cities and communities—Indicators for city services and quality of life
[66] (second edition: 2018; first edition: 2014), the first international standard
for standardised city indicators (104 in total) for urban services and QoL.
It includes economy, education, energy, the environment and climate change,
finance, governance, health, housing, population and social conditions,
recreation, safety, solid waste, sport and culture, telecommunications,
transportation, urban/local agriculture and food security, urban planning,
wastewater, and water. These indicators can be used to measure the
performance of city services and QoL and to compare different cities [66] (p.
10). Table 6 shows themes (19) and indicators of ISO 37120:2018 as well as the
number of core (total of 45) and supporting indicators (total of 59). This
standard adopts a uniform approach to what is measured and how measurement
is performed. However, its application depends on whether its indicators are
compatible with the legislation of different countries and whether data is
available.

Theme Main Indicators Core Supporting

Indicator Indicator
1 Economy  City’s unemployment rate 1 7
2 Education  Percentage of female school- 4 2
aged population enrolled in
schools;
 Percentage of students
completing primary/secondary
education
3 Energy  Total end-use energy 5 2
consumption per capita
(GJ/year)
 Percentage of total end-use
energy derived from renewable
sources
4 Environment  Fine Particulate/Particulate 3 6
and climate  Matter (PM2.5/PM10)
change concentration
  Greenhouse gas emissions
measured in tonnes per capital
5 Finance  Debt service ratio 2 2
6 Governance  Women as a percentage of the 1 3
total elected to city-level office
7 Health  Average life expectancy 4 2
 Number of inpatient hospital
beds per 100,000 population
 Suicide rate per 100,000
population
8 Housing  Percentage of city population 2 2
living in inadequate housing
 Percentage of population living
in affordable housing
9 Population and  Percentage of city population 1 2
social living below the international
conditions poverty line
10 Recreation  Square meters of public 0 2
indoor/outdoor recreation space
per capita
11 Safety  Number of firefighters/police 5 5
officers/homicides per 100,000
population
12 Solid waste  Percentage of city population 5 5
with regular solid waste
collection 5 5
 Percentage of the city’s solid
waste that is recycled
13 Sport and  Number of cultural institutions 1 2
culture and sporting facilities per
100,000 population
14 Telecommunic  Number of internet/mobile 0 2
ation phone connections per 100,000
population
15 Transportation  Kilometres of public transport 2 5
 system per 100,000 population
 Annual number of public
transport trips per capita
16 Urban/local  Total urban agricultural area per 1 3
agriculture and 100,000 population
food security
17 Urban  Green area (hectares) per 1 3
planning 100,000 population
 Jobs/housing ratio
18 Wastewater  Percentage of city population 3 1
served by wastewater collection;
 Percentage of the city’s
wastewater receiving centralized
treatment
19 Water  Percentage of city population 4 3
with potable water supply
service
 Total domestic water
consumption per capita
(litres/day)
 Average annual hours of water
service interruptions per
household
45 59
Table 6 Quality of Life Indicators based on ISO 37120

The QOL assessment presented on ISO 37120 may represent a positive step of
assessment; however, it does not consider subjective indicators. In the second edition,
themes incorporated to socio-cultural aspects were included which have a great effect
on QOUL. Social–cultural indicators could include the number of free cultural events, the
number of cultural activities and facilities (international conferences, fairs, exhibitions
held per year, etc.), the number of workers in the culture market, the number of public
libraries and museums [38], and the percentage of budget devoted to cultural activities.
In order to assess the social sustainability of the cities, Marsal-Llacuna recommended
revising the ISO 37120, thus, include e ten social–cultural indicators such as “municipal
budget to protect vulnerable groups” and “to promote cultural activities. The second
edition of ISO 37120:2018 added the following sports and culture theme indicators:
number of cultural institutions and sporting facilities per 100,000 population (core
indicator), percentage of municipal budget allocated to cultural and sporting facilities
(supporting indicator), and annual number of cultural events per 100,000 population
(e.g., exhibitions, festivals, and concerts) (supporting indicator).

Dimensions Indicators
1 Economy (14/15) Unemployment rate Income
Retail sale area per capita
2 Education (12/15) Number of schools
Percentage of school-aged population enrolled
in school
3 Governance (12/15) Voter participation
Number of formal spaces for popular
participation
4 Transportation (11/15) Public transportation availability
Travel time
5 Health (11/15) Access to health centres (in meters)
Infant mortality
6 Urban planning (10/15) Accessibility to green areas
Heritage conservation
Urban space quality (existence of urban
facilities/equipment)
7 Shelter/Housing (10/15) Housing affordability
Housing conditions
Housing overcrowding
8 Culture (9/15) Number of free cultural events
Number of cultural facilities
9 Environment (8/15) Air quality
Noise pollution
10 Safety (8/15) Crime rates
Table 7 The main QoL indicators identified in the SLR studies.
Table 7 presents QoL themes (economy, education, governance, transportation, health,
urban planning, shelter/housing, culture, and the environment) and indicators in order
of relevance.

Figure 2 A conceptual framework to evaluate the multidimensional QOUL

Therefore, based on the systematic literature review on the ISO 37120 standard, the

following seven vertical dimensions can be highlighted as relevant when assessing

multidimensional urban QoL. The vertical dimensions should be evaluated through

the horizontal dimensions, that is, they should be objectively and subjectively

evaluated.

1. Urban services: solid waste, water and sanitation, energy, telecommunications

and innovation, health, and education.

2. Economy: employment, cost of living, and economic and tourist activities.

3. Culture and recreation: green areas, opportunities to take part in leisure, sports,

and cultural activities.

4. Urban mobility: means of transport and ease of displacement.

5. Conviviality: respect and coexistence between people, and participation in

community activities.

6. Security: safety, crime, policing, and public lighting.

7. Environmental comfort: noise and air pollution, climate comfort, cleanliness, and

Wastewater.
V. CASE STUDIES

This chapter presents an overview of the related study conducted in determining

and conceptualizing the Quality of Urban Life (QOUL).

1. MEASURING QUALITY OF LIFE IN URBAN AREAS: TOWARDS AN

INTEGRATED APPROACH

The International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources research

entitled Measuring Quality of Life in Urban Areas: Toward an Integrated Approach

authored by Jamal Al-Qawasmi conducted July 2020, examines the various aspects

involved in contextualizing and measuring quality of life (QOL) in urban areas. The

project established multi-dimensional assessment system to measure QOL among Saudi

Arabian cities through systematic review of literature where the four paradigms of QOL

are used to unify and integrate ideas.

A. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

a. Paradigm 1: Utilitarianism

The theory holds the notion that QOL among individuals is about

desire and satisfaction wherein a good society provides the maximum

satisfaction or positive experiences of residents. The most common

human desire is economic success; therefore, utilitarianism mainly

focuses on the materialistic achievement.

 Typical utilitarian definitions of QOL are as follow: “feeling of well-

being, fulfillment or satisfaction resulting from factors in the external

environments”; and “individuals’ perceptions of their position in life in

the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in

relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concern”.

b. Paradigm 2: Human Development Paradigm

Initiated by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the

human development theory developed a wider perspective which

incorporates ideas from ecological economics, sustainable

development, welfare economics, and feminist economists. The

theory outlines the capability of society in helping citizens to develop

virtues, attain freedom and wisdom which are the determinants of

QOL.

The following are some typical definitions: “the product of the

interplay among social, health, economic and environmental

conditions which affect human and social development” ; and “the

general well-being of people and the quality of the environment in

which they live”

c.Paradigm 3: Capability Paradigm

The capabilities paradigm, firstly developed by the Nobel laureate in

economics A. Sen, is related to human development theory. It

outlines the subjective well-being of an individual lies within its

capabilities to achieve valuable functioning’s which refers to what

people can choose to do or to be as a determinant of QOL.

 Recognizing the capabilities and the opportunities of an individual to

make his own choice to how he perceives life is the main assumption

of this paradigm. If people in a society have high capability to attain

their aims and goals, the QOL is relatively high.

d. Paradigm 4: Opportunity Paradigm

The QOL in the opportunity paradigm is broken down into four parts,

namely an outer-quality-of-life-chances (the liveability of the

environment for a person), an inner-quality-of-life-chances (a person’s

life-abilities), an outer-quality-of-life-results (the utility of a person’s

life), and an inner-quality-of-life-results (a person’s experience of his

life as a good one). The government is in-charge of creating policies

for opportunities where human needs to be met. This includes

creating conditions to most likely enjoy the opportunities within a

society.

A typical definition of QOL will be: “The quality of the living

environment or the availability of good educational and recreational

facilities of a high sense of security and safety”.

B. CONCEPTUALIZING AND OPERATIONALIZING QOL

Since the consensus on the definition of QOL is lacking, the study develops a

general procedure to follow in contextualizing QOL and develops an

assessment system to measure it. The first step developed a conceptual

framework that conceptualized the core dimensions of QOL. The next step
 operationalized the aspects for accurate measurement. The process enlists

the core dimensions (Attributes) subdivided into several subcategories. The

core indicators are the determinants of QOL which are the main attributes of

life broken down into categories which are called the indicators. . For

instance, the well-known WHOQOL instruments break QOL into “physical”,

“psychological”, “social relationships” and “environment” domains. These

domains are subdivided into subcategories or indicators that enable

researchers to measure and quantify domains. Both domains and indicators

are joined by a theoretical framework, known as the conceptual map that

describes the relationship between the various domains, indicators, and sub-

indicators. This framework is a fundamental part of contextualizing the QOL

concept for use in specific region.

Figure 3 : A general framework to contextualize QOL and develop an assessment system to

measure it (source: author)

C. DOMAINS AND INDICATORS OF QOL

QOL domains and indicators are usually identified and formulated by mainly

two approaches: top-down (expert driven) and bottom up (community)

approach. The top-down approaches made used of data gathering through

experts in establishing QOL domains/indicators, on the other hand, the

bottom-up approach. The bottom-up approach ensures the balance data

gathering among local authorities, and citizens by addressing their

expectations prior to the quality of life leading to a set-up where local public

participation is anticipated. Thus, local indicators are defined that differ from

general indicators for statistical information.

Assigning values or weights for QOL domains and indicators is another major

aspect of the study. The processes of assigning values include the usage of

adhoc weighting schemes where the process is based on researcher’s

judgement making it less reliable.

Since QOL is a value-laden construct, assigning values or weights for QOL

domains and indicators is another major aspect of QOL research. Most

studies used adhoc weighting schemes; that is the weighting process is

based on the researcher’s .Other researchers’ use citizens’ feedback for

weighting indicators and domains,while others use the Analytic Hierarchy

Process (AHP) or other statistical approaches to prioritize and establish

weights for various QOL domains and indicators based on experts’ feedback.
 Figure 4 An outline of the proposed integrated approach to contextualize, operationalize and
measuring QOL in the Saudi context (source:

D. D

E.
D. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The study is a research project to determine and contextualize QOL domains

and indicators in Saudi Arabian cities. The related literature showed that

there is no universally accepted definition of QOL. However, the weak

grounds for QOL do not define the irrelevance of the past studies; QOL is a

broad concept that cannot be measured on a specific method. It highlights

the fact that QOL is a value-laden, complex, and multi-dimensional concept,

and underscores the importance of the intrinsic characteristics of the place

and local context. Thus, defining and operationalizing the QOL construct

should be at the core of any project aims to measure QOL urban context.
 The operationalize measurement of the study in determining QOL is obtained

through relevant data gathered from QOL experts, local authorities and

residents. It made used of both a top-down and a bottom-up approach, and

incorporate secondary/objective data and primary data obtained through

survey questionnaire. An integrated framework to contextualize,

operationalize and measuring QOL in the Saudi context has been proposed

based on critical analysis of literature.

The study concluded that selecting appropriate domains and indicators to

measure and assess QOL is important. The framework used indicates that in

gathering QOL domains and indicators, the challenge is the need for critical

adaptation of parameters and particularities. Wherein, the constraint of the

study is applying the QOL concept to urban setting in a developing country

such as the Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia belong to a distinct culture, thus, local

interpretations of QOL requires extensive attention to the particularities

including its socio-cultural aspects. These results are vital to the next stage of

the project to develop QOL assessment system that fit Saudi Arabia context.

VI.OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Since the 1940s, quality of life (QOL) has been recognized as an important concept
in several academic disciplines such as urban studies, sociology, economics,
environmental sciences, psychology, political science, and marketing, among others.
It is a concept pertaining to general well-being of people and the quality life within
the surrounding, whether a group of people residing a community or individual.
Quality of life (QOL) is difficult to define entity which one must have a theory of
what makes up a good life to measure it. However, literature shows that although it
has been a widely used concept, QOL has more than 100 definitions and even more
interpretations of QOL data depending on the context and scope of the research and
its aim or purpose. Some studies emphasized QOL concerning with the personal
well-being and satisfaction or happiness, while for others, it is concerned with living
conditions of a place. As a result, there is a wide range of theories of what
constitutes a “good life” or a “good urban setting”. A good life is somehow
immeasurable, the difference is something found along the postmodern
understanding of the quality of life. In contrast, according to Bradley (2015, vii),
“well-being has always been a central notion in moral and political philosophy. It
plays a role in determining the rightness of action.”
The basis for the determinant of QOUL according to Marans and Stimson (2011), is a
holistic understanding of approaches that are focused on well-being and quality of
place. The conceptualization of the quality of urban life is summarized below:
 The quality of life is consists of two dimensions: subjective (well-being) and
objective (quality of place) (Murgaš, Klobučník, 2016a) with two levels –
individual and societal.
 An important part of a good place in the quality of urban life is its ecological
domain. Murgaš and Klobučník (2016)
 The quality of urban life is holistic consists of two dimensions – life
satisfaction of inhabitants and the quality of place in the city.
 Quality of life pertains to how an individual perceive life dependent on the
environment.
 The quality of urban life (QOUL) expresses how the inhabitants are satisfied
with the life instead of an inhabitant is ´generally` satisfied with life. Life
satisfaction ´generally` is the quality of life, or its personal dimension.
 The study of Verlet and Devos determined the QoL on a personal level
through subjective evaluation of well-being according to the following
domains: satisfaction as human beings, satisfaction with the life in society,
current professional situation, financial situation at home, life at home, the
neighbourhood and the local government.
 Quality of life (QOL) is difficult to define entity which one must have a theory
of what makes up a good life to measure it
 Based on the systematic literature review on the ISO 37120 standard, the
following seven vertical dimensions, including: urban services; economy;
culture and recreation; urban mobility; conviviality; security and
environmental comfort.
 According to Murgaš (2016b), the quality of life is a good life, which is lived
in a good place
VII. REFERENCES

Cabreza, V. (2019, February 18). Baguio City groans from too many visitors.
INQUIRER.net. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1086853/baguio-city-groans-
from-too-many-visitors

Delsante, L., Miron, L., Tzortzopoulus, P., & Wesx,J. (2018). Urban Quality of
Life: A Systematic Literature Review. Urban Science (2018);56. DOI:
10.3390/URBANSCI7020056

Jamal A. Measuring Quality of Life in Urban Areas: Toward an Integrated

Approach. Int J Environ Sci Nat Res. 2020; 25(1): 556158. DOI:
10.19080/IJESNR.2020.25.556158

Ventegodt, S., Merrick, J., & Andersen, N. J. (n.d.). Quality of Life Theory III.
maslow revisited. The Scientific World Journal.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2003/723673/

Wesz, J. G. B., Miron, L. I. G., Delsante, I., & Tzortzopoulos, P. (2023, May 18).
Urban Quality of Life: A Systematic Literature Review. MDPI.
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/7/2/56