MONITORING URBAN QUALITY OF LIFE - Springer Link

Social Indicators Research (2007) 80: 411–425 DOI 10.1007/s11205-006-0002-2

Springer 2006

LUIS DELFIM SANTOS and ISABEL MARTINS

MONITORING URBAN QUALITY OF LIFE: THE PORTO EXPERIENCE (Accepted 10 January 2006)

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.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Improving the quality of life is one of the most important goals of public policies. Strengthened by growing pressure not only from local citizens, but also by the competition that exists among urban centres, which are seeking to attract qualified human resources and investments, the pursuit of higher living standards is nowadays shared by public administrations at different levels – local, regional and national. In this context, it is at the level of the city and/or metropolitan area that the challenges of adopting policies that promote a better quality of life seem to be focused, given the intensity of some of the problems being faced locally (poverty and social exclusion, environmental deterioration, insecurity). The multidimensional character of the concept of quality of life and its evolutionary nature raise significant difficulties in its evaluation and monitoring which are seen as an important support to urban planning and management (Dissart and Deller, 2000; Massam, 2002). In recent years many cities have set up systems of urban indicators to produce integrated analysis of the situations and the systematic follow-up of development trends. In 1998, the municipality of Porto took part with 57 other urban centres in the Urban Audit project – Assessing the Quality of Life of Europe’s Cities,

412

LUIS DELFIM SANTOS AND ISABEL MARTINS

which was promoted by the European Union (European Communities, 2000). It was a pilot initiative whose central goals were a first assessment of the individual situation of each city in terms of conditions of life and welfare and the development of a comparable database that allowed the urban centres that took part in this project to position themselves in relation to the reference values and thus self-analyse their own realities. Being a first effort to systematically collect and process statistical information on the situation of European cities, and seen as essential to support the development of strategies and new intervention policies, this project was also an important incentive for local authorities to implement their own systems to collect, process and analyse urban indicators. In the specific case of the municipality of Porto, the participation in the Urban Audit (a second phase of the project is now underway), allowed a first evaluation of some domains of the quality of life in the city and was decisive for the recognition of the need to move forward in this direction. It also showed the need to reflect more fully upon the concept of quality of life itself and upon the most adequate indicators to assess it in urban contexts. But it has also made clear the importance of setting up a permanent information infrastructure to identify and monitor evolutionary trends and of undertaking a study of the intra-urban variability of the quality of life, which is indispensable to determine intervention strategies and actions and to support political decision-making. Therefore, the Porto City Council has been developing an information system to improve the understanding of the present situation of the city in terms of the quality of life that is available to its inhabitants and, also, to non-residents who use it (working population, tourists, consumers of goods and services...).1 The main goal is to promote the systematic monitoring of a number of dynamics in fields that, directly or indirectly, influence the conditions of life in the urban centre (income, housing, labour market, economic activity, education, environment, culture and leisure...) in an effort to support the generation and decision processes of policies and intervention strategies at an urban scale. This paper describes the development and application of this tool for the city of Porto, focusing on both the conceptual and methodological options adopted by the project team. 2.

THE ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE

In recent years, the studies about the quality of life have been focusing increasingly on urban reality. The worldwide growing tendency of populations

MONITORING URBAN QUALITY OF LIFE

413

to concentrate in cities is certainly a reason for the consolidation of an autonomous line of research on the quality of urban life. But equally important is the acknowledgment that current urbanisation, often intense and disorganised, causes problems and internal dysfunctions whose effects must be recognised and evaluated. As urban centres become indisputable economic and political players – asserting themselves as the most appropriate territorial context for the creation of wealth and employment and as the most creative and innovative environments – they are also related to a significant number of inauspicious aspects connected with developed postindustrial societies, such as environmental degradation, social exclusion, insecurity or traffic congestion. Present studies on urban quality of life face, therefore, the challenge of finding new approach models that take into account the deep economic, social and technological changes in progress, which are becoming increasingly clear at the city level. References about the quality of life at the urban level, particularly concerning the concepts, the models used and the methods of analysis can be found in Van Kamp et al. (2003), Yuan et al. (1999), Nuvolati (1998) and Grayson and Young (1994). Cases studies at a city level include Gatt (2003), European Communities (2000), Seik (2000), Giannias (1998) and Findlay et al. (1988). Empirical city studies use, essentially, two types of indicators to evaluate the quality of life (Seik, 2000; Pacione, 2003). One type are quantitative indicators, which are used to measure concrete aspects that relate to environmental, economic or social conditions of a specific urban centre, based on statistical data. An important strand of this kind of studies uses singular indexes to summarise the evaluations of a defined set of characteristics of the urban areas (Giannias, 1998; Burnell and Galster, 1992). The other type of empirical studies that should be mentioned comprises qualitative data, obtained from field surveys, where citizens are asked for their subjective ‘‘interpretation’’ of the various fields of quality of life. 3.

THE MONITORING SYSTEM OF THE URBAN QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE CITY OF PORTO

When setting up the quality of life monitoring system, the Porto City Council tried to face some of the challenges that the assessment of quality of life poses, and thus implemented certain methodological options from the outset. In terms of delimiting the subject of the study, the choice was made to develop an operational concept of quality of life that profited from much of the theoretical production and the experiences of other cities but was also

414


based on a decision of which key-areas to choose concerning the reality of Porto, which involved the project team and practitioners from other municipal services. An undeniably relevant methodological question in the study of the quality of life in cities has to do with the scale of the analysis itself. The urban condition is characterised by a great heterogeneity in the use and management of land and by a wide functional diversity. Lands of contrasts, urban centres offer quality of life conditions that cannot be expressed by simple average values, especially when the assessment is made to support the implementation of intervention policies in the field. The analysis of the intra-urban differentiation is indispensable in this context, thus the choice was made to collect basic data with a minimum level of spatial disaggregation. Whenever possible, and for the purpose of analysis, information was collected for four areas of the city, based on relative homogeneity criteria, through the grouping of parishes. The following areas were considered: Historic Centre, Traditional Centre, West Side and East Side.2 The need not to consider urban centres as confined spaces, but rather not lose sight of their various interactions with the surrounding regions is evident in the study of quality of urban life and raises some particular questions from the point of view of analysis. One such question – that was taken into consideration when undertaking this project – concerns the need to, when interpreting results, account for concepts such as ‘‘user population’’ and not just ‘‘resident population.’’ This differentiation is particularly relevant when assessing, for instance, the provision of certain facilities and services, such as hospitals and universities, which obviously serve a larger population than just the resident population. With respect to the nature of the assessment, the choice was made to adopt both a quantitative approach, supported by statistical indicators which are used to measure concrete aspects that relate to environmental, economic or social conditions, and a more qualitative analysis by having recourse to field surveys to obtain the citizens’ perspective. 3.1.

The Quantitative Assessment

In regards to the first component, a model of analysis has been developed based on four great fields. A first field, generically titled Environmental Conditions has to do with the environment in general, referring to the natural and physical aspects of the city (air, water, green spaces, waste...). The second field, of Collective Material Conditions, refers to facilities and infrastructure that are largely used by citizens in the fields of culture, sports,


415

education, health, social welfare, transport, trade and services. These aspects refer, therefore, to the infrastructure conditions of the city, which are common to all. The third field, Economic Conditions, characterises the city as a centre of economic activity and the inherent issues that relate to individual conditions of life in the city: income and consumption, labour market, housing, economic dynamism. Finally, a fourth field, titled Society, comprises the indicators that refer to the social dimension of the city and to the relationship between people, that is, questions regarding individual choices and the participation of citizens. For each of the fields, concrete subjects have been identified for analysis and several quantitative indicators have been selected. Figure 1 schematises the adopted model, whereas the listing of all the indicators can be found in the Annexe. The selection of the indicators was made taking into consideration not only the more traditional approaches in terms of definition and assessment

Fig. 1. Fields and thematic areas.

416


of quality of life but also the emerging perspectives that try to redefine the concept itself and adapt it to the transformations of modern society, and after analysing previous experiences and projects currently underway in other countries, with similar operational goals. The objective was to obtain a number of indicators to characterise the fields considered, thus preferring more relevant and reliable indicators. Inevitably, the availability of basic information has also affected some of the options. Since there is a strong interdependency between many of the subjects considered, the distribution of some indicators to specific subject areas to the detriment of others, makes for an attentive cross reading of the various situations when interpreting data. An ever-present concern as regards the selection chosen was to guarantee the maximum of comparability within and between the chosen indicators, both for other geographical areas and for projects currently underway, particularly the Urban Audit. A project of this nature is, obviously, very demanding in terms of the necessary statistical information. To calculate the aforementioned indicators approximately 190 basic variables have been identified for which information for different years and geographical areas had to be collected. Besides working with comparative data relating to the Metropolitan area and to the Country, information at parish level was also collected. For this purpose important work was done by the different Services of the Porto City Council to obtain data from and, therefore, choose which elements to use, but also the necessary processes and routines to ensure continuity in terms of access to the information. In addition to the involvement of the different services of the Porto City Council, approximately 27 public and private entities took part in this project as external information suppliers, ensuring the regular supply of about 2/3 of the basic variables and whose cooperation was essential for the development of this information system. The creation of an efficient network of partnerships, allowing the acquisition of the necessary information at the appropriate time, was one of the central elements of the implemented system.

3.2.

The Citizens’ Perception of the Quality of Life

The second component of the Porto City Council’s quality of life monitoring system has to do with the collection of elements concerning the citizens’ perception of the quality of life in the city.


417

The past few years have witnessed an increase in surveys conducted in cities to obtain the individuals’ opinions on their quality of life (Lever, 2000; Michalski, 2001; Wyman, 2001).3 Through such studies, it is possible to capture the perception of the people about the various components of quality of life, namely those that are strongly connected to the sphere of action of public policies, and thus obtain an additional element to support decisions relating to public action fields, strategies and priorities (Johansson, 2002; Veenhoven, 2002; Moller and Dickow, 2002). By emphasising individual analysis, subjective approaches to quality of urban life try to measure the satisfaction level of citizens regarding their life framework and favour a ‘‘perception’’ based on the personal and introspective experience of each person. With respect to methodology, the assessment of the level of satisfaction of individuals is made based on the carrying out of interviews and surveys, which directly collect subjective opinions. Interpretations are made through a cognitive mental exercise in which each individual expresses his/her level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with respect to references and implicit or explicit standards in terms of welfare and conditions of life. A first survey of the resident population of the city of Porto was carried out during the months of January and February 2003, at the interviewees’ homes. The questionnaire was applied to 2,400 individuals, equally distributed in four predefined areas of the city. The maximum margin of error of the sample considered is 2% for the whole of the city and 4% for each area, for a confidence level of 95%. The adopted questionnaire, composed mostly of closed questions, was structured around four main points: •

•

•

•

Global concept of quality of life – with the purpose of identifying the aspects that are seen as fundamental for a city to have a good quality of life. Quality of life in the city of Porto – the objective was to obtain not only the general perception but also opinions about a number of predefined fields of quality of life in the city of Porto, both presently and in terms of its recent evolution. Quality of personal life – the level of satisfaction of individuals with their own quality of life and on the aspects they consider as most important in their personal lives. Quality of life in the individual’s residential area – questions about the quality of life centred exclusively on the residential area of the interviewees.

418


In the Annexe a list of the questionnaire items are presented. To provide additional information some questions were added to characterise, both socially and demographically, the individuals who answered the questionnaire. One of the purposes of this project is to periodically repeat this type of survey to be able to follow the evolutionary tendencies regarding the opinion of citizens. 4.

OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE INDICATORS: A COMPLEMENTARY APPROACH

For many authors, the use of subjective measure presents serious limitations. Veenhoven (2002) has systematised some of the main arguments which often are invoked to explain their limited use: subjective measures are unstable (the perceptions of individuals vary substantially in time and not necessarily linked to change in conditions); they are incomparable measures (they depend upon criteria, values, life experiences, the very mental scales varying from person to person and therefore lack the possibility to compare subjective evaluations); they are unintelligible measures (the evaluation that each individual makes are based not only on mechanisms of a cognitive/ rational nature, but also mechanisms of affection and emotions, so it is not possible to support these evaluations). It has also been pointed out that the perceptions of individuals are not necessary directly related to the objective situation upon which they base their perception. For instance, when someone is asked about personal income, the level of satisfaction concerning his financial condition may not have a direct relationship to his actual income, but may rather be determined by his aspirations and his courses of life (Cummins, 2000b). Notwithstanding the validity of this type of reasoning, the idea that has been gaining ground is that the combination of both approaches (objective and subjective) is the most promising perspective for a more complete evaluation of urban quality of life. Cummins (2000a, b) and Petrucci and D’Andrea (2002) discussed the complementarity of these two approaches. An initial advantage mentioned by those who value the participation of citizens is that the acquisition of information about the importance which they give to the different fields concerning quality of life represents an important support for policy definition and for the establishment of long-term goals shared by the community. In the objective approach of Porto’s monitoring project, no weighting system was defined for the different thematic areas. On the subjective side, in


419

the survey, the residents were asked about which aspects they considered most important for a city to offer a good quality of life (see question 1 of the List of Questionnaire Items in the Annexe). The results, showing that people have identified as most relevant mobility conditions, urban safety and the environmental quality, allow, even from a subjective perspective, to assign distinct levels of importance to the different quality of life domains. Another added value of the complementary subjective approach is that it can offer to the decision makers an integrated evaluation of the quality of life in the city (see question 4 of the List of Questionnaire Items in the Annexe), something that is very difficult to summarise in a single objective indicator. In fact, concerning the evaluation of the impact that certain policies and interventions carried out aiming at promoting a better quality of life may have generated, it is becoming more certain that the thorough review of objective indicators does not abrogate the importance of collecting a direct feedback from the recipients of those measures, who are the citizens. The results obtained also suggest that it can be very useful to complement objective knowledge with the citizen’s opinion in certain domains in order to achieve a deeper understanding of the local conditions. In the case of Porto, a first conclusion, when the results of these two approaches are independently compared is that they are highly correlated. In fact, for 14 thematic areas it was possible to make a direct confrontation between the statistical indicators and the qualitative results of the survey. In 10 of these areas, the situations revealed by the statistical indicators are in accordance with the levels of satisfaction of the residents.4 However, there are some particular cases where there was not coincidence between the objective and the subjective approaches. The most evident thematic areas where the situation was characterised differently by the objective indicators and by the resident’s opinion were ‘‘crime and urban insecurity,’’ ‘‘sport facilities’’ and ‘‘health facilities.’’ In the first case, the objective indicator of the crime rate (field Society) indicates a very low value reported for ‘‘crimes per 1000 inhabitants,’’ showing that the city of Porto is quite safe when compared to a great majority of European cities. Nevertheless, in the survey of the resident population of Porto ‘‘urban insecurity and crime’’ was indicated in first place as the most negative aspect of the quality of life in Porto. This perception of insecurity showed by the interviewees is fundamental in defining urban policies and must be considered in spite of its apparent contradiction with the information given by the statistical indicator. With respect to the ‘‘sports facilities’’ and ‘‘health facilities’’ (field Collective material conditions), the objective indicators have shown a reality of

420


insufficient provision, particularly concerning the community scale facilities (local equipment for sports practice by the residents and primary care health units). Nevertheless, the survey has revealed a high level of satisfaction by the interviewees, what seems to suggest that their perception was partially influenced by the existence, in Porto, of important facilities (big central hospitals and professional sports complexes). The situation showed by the objective statistical data, different from the residents’ perception, is, however, a fundamental basis for public action definition. Finally, it is important to highlight the relevance of using subjective measures in the cases where the objective indicators are limited in their ability to capture the realities intended for evaluation. An interesting example is the global measure of housing quality, which can be rendered more easily by the degree of satisfaction expressed by the actual residents than by means of one or even several numerical parameters. 5.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Given the nature of this project, and in view of what has been discussed above, it is not possible to consider its implementation as achieved. In reality, this is a project whose development is continuous and future actions have already been identified. From the outset, it is important to consolidate the information system by routinely updating the database and filling current gaps in basic information. The revision and adaptation of indicators is also essential and should be a result of the identification of new fields to monitor within the quality of urban life, of the empirical relevance test of the initially selected indicators and, even, of the availability of new elements in terms of statistical information. With respect to the support of city planning and management activities, one future plan refers to the establishment of quantified targets and goals for the improvement of the quality of life in the city, in light of which evolutionary dynamics can be interpreted and assessed as to their levels of convergence and divergence regarding the patterns of life that are considered desirable. The project will be made available and open to the public through the development of an interactive Internet site, which will simultaneously give and obtain opinions on the quality of urban life to reinforce the participation of agents and citizens in the identification of priorities of intervention in the city.


421

Many of the fields of quality of life monitored within this system are not directly or exclusively the responsibility of the municipality, therefore this is a potential platform for the discussion of urban problems and for the development of concerted strategies for Porto, involving the various social, economic and institutional agents and the general population. ANNEXE LIST OF INDICATORS

Field

Subject

Indicator

Environmental conditions

Green spaces

Public green spaces per capita Length of leafy streets Days of rainfall Average of hours of sunlight per day Noise disturbance Days with a Good or Very Good Air Quality Index Records of Good bathing water quality

Climate Noise Air quality Bathing water quality Basic infrastructure Collective material conditions

Cultural facilities

Sports facilities

Educational facilities

Social and health facilities

Heritage Mobility

Trade and services

Treated waste water Recoverable municipal solid waste Public libraries per 1,000 inhabitants Art galleries per 1,000 inhabitants Museums per 1,000 inhabitants Pavilions per 1,000 inhabitants Swimming in pools per 1,000 inhabitants Other sports facilities per 1,000 inhabitants Primary and secondary schools per 1,000 inhabitants Computers in primary and secondary schools per 100 students Capacity of day nurseries per 1,000 inhabitants Capacity of kindergartens per 1,000 inhabitants Capacity of homes for the elderly, day centres and in-house care per 1,000 inhabitants Hospital beds per 1,000 inhabitants Health care centres and annexes per 1,000 inhabitants Doctors per 1,000 inhabitants Property of national and public interest improved public space Average speed of individual transport Average speed of public transport Parking places in car parks Retail shops per 1,000 inhabitants Support service to the population per 1,000 inhabitants Hostels and restaurants per 1,000 inhabitants

422

LUIS DELFIM SANTOS AND ISABEL MARTINS LIST OF INDICATORS

Economic conditions

Income and consumption

Labour market Housing market Economic dynamism

Society

Population Education

Cultural dynamism Civic participation

Health Safety

Social problems

Average monthly wage (earnings) Quotient between the 80th and the 20th percentile of the average monthly wage (earnings) Disablement and survivor per 1,000 inhabitants ATM withdrawals Light vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants House hold with access to the Internet Jobs per 1,000 inhabitants Medium and highly qualified directors and workers Registered unemployment Average acquisition cost Average rent Issue of reconstruction permits Year-to-year variation in the number of establishments Fuel sales Total municipal expenditure per 1,000 inhabitants Passengers on commercial flights Live births per 1,000 inhabitants Foreign residents Students in higher education Students pursing postgraduate studies, master’s degrees and doctorates Rate of early school leavers Cultural performances Users of public libraries Museum visitors Voters who exercised their right to vote in the past four elections Women elected for municipal office Sports associations per 1,000 inhabitants Recreational and cultural association per 1,000 inhabitants Voluntary associations per 1,000 inhabitants Premature death rate Road accidents resulting in death or serious injury per 1,000 inhabitants Crime rate Suicide per 1,000 inhabitants Active use of rehabilitation centres for drug addicts Applications for social housing Home less population


423

LIST OF QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

Quality of Life: Global Concept 1. Which, in your opinion, are the most important aspects for a city to have a good quality of life? Please indicate three. 2. Of the following aspects (a list of 17 aspects was supplied), please choose the five that you find most important for a city’s quality of life. Quality of Life: Evaluation of the Situation in the City of Porto 3. Which, in your opinion, are the three most positive and the three most negative aspects in terms of quality of life in the city of Porto (as a living and working place)? 4. Generally speaking, how do you view the quality of life in the city of Porto at the present moment? (Very good/Good/Reasonable/Bad/Extremely bad) 5. How do you view the quality of life in the city of Porto in each of the following areas (a list of 22 areas was supplied) – as regards the present situation and the way it has evolved (past 2 years): (present situation: Very good/Good/Reasonable/Bad/Extremely bad; evolution: For the better/For theworse/The same) 6. Of the following social problems (a list of 13 problems was supplied), which, in your opinion, have a negative contribution to the quality of life in the city. Please indicate five. 7. Are there any other aspects – besides the aforementioned – that you regard as particularly negative for the quality of life in the city? If so, indicate which. Quality of Personal Life in the City 8. Are you satisfied with the quality of your life in the city? (Very satisfied/ Satisfied/Reasonably satisfied/Unsatisfied/Very unsatisfied) 9. How has the quality of your life changed in the past 2 years? Is it the same, has it improved or has it gotten worse? 10. What importance do you place on each of the following aspects (a list of 12 aspects was supplied) of your personal life? (Very important/ Important/Reasonably important/Not very important) 11. Are there any other aspects – besides the aforementioned – that you regard as particularly important? If so, indicate which.

424


Quality of Life in the Residential Area 12. How long have you lived in the city? (For less than 2 years/Between 3 and 10 years/Between 11 and 20 years/For more than 21 years) 13. Have you always lived here? (Yes/No) 14. How long have you lived in your present house? (For less than 2 years/ Between 3 and 10 years/Between 11 and 20 years/For more than 21 years) 15. Generally speaking, how do you view the quality of life in your residential area at the present moment? (Very good/Good/Reasonable/Bad/ Extremely bad) 16. Which, in your opinion, are the most positive and the most negative aspects of life in this area? 17. If you could improve the quality of your life, would you change residence? (I would not/I would move to another area of the city/I would move outside the city) NOTES 1

The project was developed under the coordination of the Studies and Planning Unit with the cooperation of CEMPRE, a research centre of the Faculty of Economy of the Porto University. 2 Historic Centre, comprising the parishes of Miragaia, Saõ Nicolau, Se´ and Vito´ria; Traditional Centre, comprising the parishes of Bonfim, Cedofeita, Massarelos and Santo Ildefonso; West Side comprising the parishes of Aldoar, Foz do Douro, Lordelo do Ouro and Nevogilde and East Side comprising the parishes of Campanha˜, Paranhos and Ramalde. 3 In its site, www.isqols.org/, the International Society for Quality of Life Studies provides many links to projects conducting this type of research. 4 Apparently, this result is not in accordance with Cummins’s conclusions, who found low correlations between objective and subjective indicators of quality of life. However, as this author also pointed out, ‘‘the inter-correlations of QOL between the objective and subjective dimensions will increase as objective life quality decreases to low levels’’ (Cummins, 2000a, p. 63), what can, partly, explain the result obtained in the case of Porto.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Centro de Estudos Macroecono´micos e Previsaõ (CEMPRE) is supported by the Fundaçaõ para a Cieˆncia e a Tecnologia, Portugal. REFERENCES Burnell, J. and G. Galster: 1992, ÔQuality-of-life measurements and urban size: An empirical noteÕ, Urban Studies 29(5), pp. 727–735. Cummins, R.: 2000a, ÔObjective and subjective quality of life: An interactive modelÕ, Social Indicators Research 52, pp. 55–72. Cummins, R.: 2000b, ÔPersonal income and subjective well-being: A reviewÕ, Journal of Happiness Studies 1, pp. 133–158.


425

Dissart, J. and S. Deller: 2000, ‘Quality of life in the planning literature’, Journal of Planning Literature 15(1), pp. 135–161. European Communities: 2000, The Urban Audit – Vol. I, II and III, (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg). Findlay, A., A. Morris and R. Rogerson: 1988, ÔWhere to live in Britain in 1988: Quality of life in British citiesÕ, Cities 5(3), pp. 268–276. Gatt, L.: 2003, Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Eight Largest Cities (Wellington City Council). Giannias, D.: 1998, ÔA quality of life based ranking of Canadian citiesÕ, Urban Studies 35(12), pp. 2241–2251. Grayson, L. and K. Young: 1994, Quality of Life in Cities. An Overview and Guide to the Literature, (The British Library/London Research Center, London). Johansson, S.: 2002, ÔConceptualizing and measuring quality of life for national policyÕ, Social Indicators Research 58, pp. 13–32. Lever, J.: 2000, ÔThe development of an instrument to measure quality of life in Mexico cityÕ, Social Indicators Research 50, pp. 187–208. Massam, B.H.: 2002, ÔQuality of life: Public planning and private livingÕ, Progress in Planning 58, pp. 141–227. Michalski, J.H.: 2001, Asking Citizens What Matters for Quality of Life in Canada (Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa). Moller, V. and H. Dickow: 2002, ÔThe role of quality of life surveys in managing change in democratic transitions: The South Africa caseÕ, Social Indicators Research 58, pp. 267–292. Nuvolati, G.: 1998, La Qualita` della Vita Urbana. Teorie, Metodi e Risultati della Ricerche, (Franco Angeli, Milano). Pacione, M.: 2003, ÔUrban environmental quality and human well-being – A social geographical perspectiveÕ, Landscape and Urban Planning 65, pp. 19–30. Petrucci, A. and S. D’Andrea: 2002, ÔQuality of life in Europe: Objective and subjective indicatorsÕ, Social Indicators Research 60, pp. 55–88. Seik, F.T.: 2000, ÔSubjective assessment of urban quality of life in Singapore: 1997–1998Õ, Habitat International 24, pp. 31–49. Van Kamp, I., K. Leidelmeijer, G. Marsman and A. Hollander: 2003, ÔUrban environmental quality and human well-being. Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature studyÕ, Landscape and Urban Planning 65, pp. 5–18. Veenhoven, R.: 2002, ÔWhy social policy needs subjective indicatorsÕ, Social Indicators Research 58, pp. 33–45. Yuan, L., B. Yuen and C. Low: 1 1999, Urban Quality of Life – Critical Issues and Options, (National University of Singapore, Singapore), pp. 1–12. Wyman, M.: 2001, Quality of Life Indicators Project – Learning from Citizens What Matters for Quality of Life (Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa).

Faculty of Economics University of Porto and CEMPRE Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-464, Porto, Portugal E-mail: [email protected] Studies and Planning Department Porto City Council Portugal

Luis Delfim Santos

Isabel Martins