Quality of life: a reappraisal

Abstract

PurposeWith this reappraisal, the purpose of this paper is to present a reflexion on and discussion of the concept of quality of life (QL) with the intention of delimiting its meaning and application within the scope of the research project entitled “Costs and benefits of urban dispersion on a local scale”.Design/methodology/approachThe concept of QL contains a significant degree of complexity and multidimensional variables, in addition to the dynamic nature inherent in all social phenomena. The application of this concept at a local level and within the context of the Portuguese socio‐territorial reality requires rethinking the concept through the different authors and approaches, in order to delineate the research process, and guarantee its operationalisation, selecting the social indicators than can serve this purpose, with the intent of gaining a clearer understanding of QL as perceived and evaluated by the people and groups living in various dispersed urban areas.FindingsFrom the readings of literature in the field, one can understand the importance of choosing the relevant domains when analysing and measuring QL. As with the choice of indicators, in order to be able to measure the QL, simultaneously, at a local level, the choice of indicators and the delimitation of units of analysis are also fundamental in order to be able to obtain the comparison and real measure of quality of life and not the contingencies of specific contextual characteristics.Originality/valueThe study aims to open a new research perspective in the field of social sciences, more specifically in the areas related to QL and urban dispersion.

Urban Quality of Life: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Table 1 also shows the foci and the assessments of quality and relevance of the 26 studies, which were classified as low, medium, or high according to Weights of Evidence A, B, C and D as presented in Section 2. Some findings are as follows: (a) only five studies (19%) achieved high quality in a quality criterion (D), and thus, these are the most relevant studies in this SLR [20][21][22][23][24]; (b) 42% of the studies have high methodological soundness (A); (c) 35% of the studies had adequacy to the review question (B), and 38.5% had high alignment with the focus/context of this study (C). The information in Table 1 enabled the analysis presented as follows.…”

“…Gomes et al [21] reviewed the concept of QoL, highlighting the importance of developing QoL indicators that can be measured at a local urban scale both in the objective (i.e., a top-down approach) and subjective dimension (the perception of users at the local level in a bottom-up approach). The study of Berhe et al [20], carried out in Ethiopia, discusses QoL indicators related to housing, access to public services, and family income.…”

Sustainable Development of Urban Green Areas for Quality of Life Improvement—Argument for Increased Citizen Participation

“…As the introduction mentioned, in the context of growing urban built areas and decreasing green areas within the city along with an increasing attention granted to urban sustainable development, an emphasis is put on parks and green spaces management as one means of increasing urban habitants' quality of life. For example, Sousa Gomes et al [16] point out that at the individual level, quality of life is determined by each individual's satisfaction regarding all aspects of their life, among which parks and green spaces were also mentioned. Furthermore, in the noisy and crowded urban setting, parks are gaining more and more popularity as destinations for relaxation [17].…”

“…If the park was cleaner 16. Starting from left to right, one can firstly observe the degree of perceived association of each QoL dimension to park visits, from the highest (health, with 4.72) to the lowest (education and culture, with 4.05).…”

Latvija. Pārskats par tautas attīstību 2015/2016. Dzīves meistarība un informācijpratība

“…Tāpēc arī cilvēka dzīves meistarības rezultātu var novērtēt pēc dzīves kvalitātes. Tā ietver apmierinātību ar dzīvi kopumā, dzīves apstākļiem, veselības stāvokli, materiālo un ekonomisko situāciju, izglītību, cilvēka produktivitāti, attiecības ar citiem cilvēkiem, subjektīvās labklājības vai laimes izjū-tu (Gomes, Pinto, & dos Santos, 2010) (sk. 03. logu).…”