Urban Quality of Life: A Systematic Literature Review
, Luciana Inês Gomes Miron 1, Ioanni Delsante 2 and Patricia Tzortzopoulos 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for bringing to our interest your work about the topic of increasing importance, that is the quality of urban life, and for proposing a set of indicators that could be used to evaluate that quality. To further improve your manuscript, I would like to bring to your attention the following comments:
It would be more correct to use the phrase “quality of urban life” instead of “urban quality of life”.
Raw 101 reads as: “Table 16. (p. 155). It comprises…” This is not clear, please correct.
Figure 3, The Proposed Concept of Urban Quality of Life, belongs to Results and not to Discussion, and it is important to highlight it better, together with Table 2 and the text starting from line 475.
References should be amended, and the overall research refreshed with the review of the body of works published from 2020 onwards. However, a new literature review could mean a whole new research process. So, to make this revision more comfortable for the authors, newly revised units could be used to compare the obtained final result – that is the proposal for the indicators for the quality of urban life – against propositions from the literature from 2020. And this could be the revised Discussion.
By modifying the manuscript according to the above proposed, the Conclusions should also be modified.
In overall, the manuscript offers a great amount of descriptions of reviewed researches, and, at some point, it becomes difficult to follow them and, more importantly, to recognize peculiarities of considered works. The authors could therefore think of redesigning presentation of reviewed studies, by enabling more direct comparison, for example by introducing additional graphical contents.
Kind regards.
The quality of English Language is fine. I suggest minor editing/proofreading.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 (Please see the attachment).
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
Thank you for bringing to our interest your work about the topic of increasing importance, that is the quality of urban life, and for proposing a set of indicators that could be used to evaluate that quality. To further improve your manuscript, I would like to bring to your attention the following comments:
Point 1: It would be more correct to use the phrase “quality of urban life” instead of “urban quality of life”.
Response 1: This is an interesting discussion, however, the concept of “quality of life” precedes the concept of quality of life in the urban context. Additionally, as various studies in the field use “urban quality of life”, we have decided to do so:
- McCrea, R., Shyy, T. K., & Stimson, R. (2006). What is the strength of the link between objective and subjective indicators of urban quality of life?. Applied research in quality of life, 1, 79-96.
- Serag El Din, H., Shalaby, A., Farouh, H. E., & Elariane, S. A. (2013). Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood. HBRC journal, 9(1), 86-92.
- Mulligan, G., Carruthers, J., & Cahill, M. (2004). Urban quality of life and public policy: A survey. Contributions to Economic Analysis, 266, 729-802.
Point 2: Raw 101 reads as: “Table 16. (p. 155). It comprises…” This is not clear, please correct.
Response 2: Part of the text had been suppressed in the previous version. This item has been revised. Please check line 105.
Point 3: Figure 3, The Proposed Concept of Urban Quality of Life, belongs to Results and not to Discussion, and it is important to highlight it better, together with Table 2 and the text starting from line 475.
Response 3: Suggestion accepted. Please check lines 336.
Point 4: References should be amended, and the overall research refreshed with the review of the body of works published from 2020 onwards. However, a new literature review could mean a whole new research process. So, to make this revision more comfortable for the authors, newly revised units could be used to compare the obtained final result – that is the proposal for the indicators for the quality of urban life – against propositions from the literature from 2020. And this could be the revised Discussion.
Response 4: Suggestion accepted:
- Becerik-Gerber, B., Lucas, G., Aryal, A., Awada, M., Bergés, M., Billington, S. L., ... & Zhao, J. (2022). Ten questions concerning human-building interaction research for improving the quality of life. Building and Environment, 226, 109681.
- Mouratidis, K. (2021). Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities, 115, 103229.
- Sapena, M., Wurm, M., Taubenböck, H., Tuia, D., & Ruiz, L. A. (2021). Estimating quality of life dimensions from urban spatial pattern metrics. Computers, environment and urban systems, 85, 101549.
Point 5: By modifying the manuscript according to the above proposed, the Conclusions should also be modified.
Response 5: Suggestion accepted. This item has been revised.
Point 6: In overall, the manuscript offers a great amount of descriptions of reviewed researches, and, at some point, it becomes difficult to follow them and, more importantly, to recognize peculiarities of considered works. The authors could therefore think of redesigning presentation of reviewed studies, by enabling more direct comparison, for example by introducing additional graphical contents.
Response 6: Suggestion accepted (Tables 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Figure 3).
Point 7: Comments on the Quality of English Language
The quality of English Language is fine. I suggest minor editing/proofreading.
Response 7: Suggestion accepted. Proofreading was done.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It is a very interesting and contemporary topic, in line with the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals related to it.
Perhaps, it would be advisable to contextualise the study in a framework in which the 2030 agenda takes importance in what defines quality of life, such as environment, poverty, biodiversity, health and well-being, energy, water, and so on.
The introduction (lines 62-67) on the concepts of quality of life decades ago, mainly linked to the economy, is interesting. Today, the social and urban environment is of great importance.
The article provides a literature review of concepts related to quality of life.
They take into account: people's subjective perception, conditions and opportunities of urban space, GIS-based diagnoses, social, economic and environmental dimensions.
The text is well explained and the reasoning is followed.
The results and tables shown in the article are interesting and in line with the review they have carried out.
Although it has a large number of bibliographical references, some of them are from 1996, 1997, 2001, 2003. These dates are too old to be able to establish the indicators that people currently perceive as quality of life, since in recent decades this almost exclusively economic vision has changed.
Unless the use of this 1996 or 1997 bibliography is explained and the context explained, it should perhaps be deleted or modified.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 (Please see the attachment)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is a very interesting and contemporary topic, in line with the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals related to it.
Point 1: Perhaps, it would be advisable to contextualise the study in a framework in which the 2030 agenda takes importance in what defines quality of life, such as environment, poverty, biodiversity, health and well-being, energy, water, and so on.
Response 1: Suggestion accepted. Please check line 33.
The introduction (lines 62-67) on the concepts of quality of life decades ago, mainly linked to the economy, is interesting. Today, the social and urban environment is of great importance.
The article provides a literature review of concepts related to quality of life.
They take into account: people's subjective perception, conditions and opportunities of urban space, GIS-based diagnoses, social, economic and environmental dimensions.
The text is well explained and the reasoning is followed.
The results and tables shown in the article are interesting and in line with the review they have carried out.
Point 2: Although it has a large number of bibliographical references, some of them are from 1996, 1997, 2001, 2003. These dates are too old to be able to establish the indicators that people currently perceive as quality of life, since in recent decades this almost exclusively economic vision has changed.
Unless the use of this 1996 or 1997 bibliography is explained and the context explained, it should perhaps be deleted or modified.
Response 2: Suggestion accepted.
Additionally, references were amended:
- Becerik-Gerber, B., Lucas, G., Aryal, A., Awada, M., Bergés, M., Billington, S. L., ... & Zhao, J. (2022). Ten questions concerning human-building interaction research for improving the quality of life. Building and Environment, 226, 109681.
- Mouratidis, K. (2021). Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities, 115, 103229.
- Sapena, M., Wurm, M., Taubenböck, H., Tuia, D., & Ruiz, L. A. (2021). Estimating quality of life dimensions from urban spatial pattern metrics. Computers, environment and urban systems, 85, 101549.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Please include an introduction to QoL models and theories in section 1, such as objective and subjective approaches, and social indicators theory.
The authors missed many related papers for QOL, which should be reviewed:
Ten questions concerning human-building interaction research for improving the quality of life
Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood
Urban Quality of Life and Public Policy: A Survey
What is the Strength of the Link Between Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life
Quality of life in the economic and urban economic literature
line 95, the meaning of "p142" is unclear. Similarly, in line 101, it is unclear what "Table 16 (p. 155)" refers to. Please check and clarify these page numbers throughout the manuscript.
What is the scope of this review?
Can you provide a detailed explanation of the information and conclusions that can be drawn from Table 1?
Please discuss the challenges and limitations in current QoL research.
The current structure of the paper does not seem appropriate for a review. Instead, you need to consider reorganizing the paper as follows:
1.Introduction
A. Background
B. Importance
C. Scope and Objectives
2.Theoretical Foundations
A. Definition and Dimensions
B. Models and Theories
C. Key Concepts and their Relationships
3.Methodological Approaches
A. Quantitative Methods
B. Qualitative Methods
C. Challenges and Limitations in QoL Research
4.Key Indicators and Domains
A. Economic Indicators
B. Social Indicators
C. Environmental Indicators
5.QoL and Urban Policy
6.Conclusion
A. Summary
B. Implications for Urban Policy
C. Future Research
The Urban QoL concept from Section 4.1 should be placed in the introduction.
Section 4.1 has only one subsection, 4.1.1, which is not suitable.
Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2 both discuss the evaluation of QoL and should be combined.
In lines 475-499, there are two instances of the number one indicator.
It seems odd to group education and governance together, as well as transportation and health. Please discuss them separately. If there is a tie for second place, the next ranking should typically be fourth place.
The numbering in lines 506-518 is still strange.
Please analyze the literature in a global context, comparing cities and countries, developed versus developing countries, and rural versus urban areas.
Lastly, please present the implications for urban planning and policy based on the findings from the literature, as well as suggestions for future research and work.
language needs to be polished
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 (Please see the attachment).
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Point 1: Please include an introduction to QoL models and theories in section 1, such as objective and subjective approaches, and social indicators theory.
Response 1: The systematic literature review was the starting point of the study, so after the introduction section, we believe it is necessary to present the method section to establish the structure of the study.
Point 2: The authors missed many related papers for QOL, which should be reviewed:
- Ten questions concerning human-building interaction research for improving the quality of life
- Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood
- Urban Quality of Life and Public Policy: A Survey
- What is the Strength of the Link Between Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life
- Quality of life in the economic and urban economic literature
Response 2: This point was revised. The contributions of these papers were included in the paper.
Point 3: line 95, the meaning of "p142" is unclear.
Response 3: Page 142.
Point 4: Similarly, in line 101, it is unclear what "Table 16 (p. 155)" refers to. Please check and clarify these page numbers throughout the manuscript.
Response 4: Part of the text had been suppressed in the previous version. This item has been revised. Please check line 105.
Point 5: What is the scope of this review?
Response 5: This point was revised (line 85).
Point 6: Can you provide a detailed explanation of the information and conclusions that can be drawn from Table 1?
Response 6: This point was revised. Lines 159 to 188.
Point 7: Please discuss the challenges and limitations in current QoL research.
Response 7: This point was revised. Conclusion (line 620).
Point 8: The current structure of the paper does not seem appropriate for a review. Instead, you need to consider reorganizing the paper as follows:
1.Introduction
- Background
- Importance
- Scope and Objectives
2.Theoretical Foundations
- Definition and Dimensions
- Models and Theories
- Key Concepts and their Relationships
3.Methodological Approaches
- Quantitative Methods
- Qualitative Methods
- Challenges and Limitations in QoL Research
4.Key Indicators and Domains
- Economic Indicators
- Social Indicators
- Environmental Indicators
5.QoL and Urban Policy
6.Conclusion
- Summary
- Implications for Urban Policy
- Future Research
Response 8: As far as possible, the suggested points were considered in the structure of the paper. However, the systematic literature review was the starting point of the study, so after the introduction section, we believe it is necessary to present the method section to establish the structure of the study.
Point 9: The Urban QoL concept from Section 4.1 should be placed in the introduction.
Response 9: This point was revised. The systematic literature review was the starting point of the study, so the Urban Quality of Life (QoL) concept section is the result of the systematic literature review. As suggested by another reviewer, Section 4.1.1 was placed in the Results Section (3.2).
Point 10: Section 4.1 has only one subsection, 4.1.1, which is not suitable.
Response 10: This point was revised (see Results Section 3.2).
Point 11: Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2 both discuss the evaluation of QoL and should be combined.
Response 11: This point was revised.
Point 12: In lines 475-499, there are two instances of the number one indicator.
Response 12: This point was revised.
Point 13: It seems odd to group education and governance together, as well as transportation and health. Please discuss them separately. If there is a tie for second place, the next ranking should typically be fourth place.
Response 13: This point was revised.
Point 14: The numbering in lines 506-518 is still strange.
Response 14: This item has been revised.
Point 15: Please analyze the literature in a global context, comparing cities and countries, developed versus developing countries, and rural versus urban areas.
Response 15: These were presented as limitations of the study (Conclusions – line 630).
Point 16: Lastly, please present the implications for urban planning and policy based on the findings from the literature, as well as suggestions for future research and work.
Response 16: These were presented as limitations of the study (Conclusions – lines 633 to 639).
Point 17:
language needs to be polished.
Response 17: Suggestion accepted. Proofreading was done.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for improving significantly the quality of your research. The work can be accepted in my opinion.
Please note that there exists a newer version of the Standard ISO 37120:2014, and it would be good to use that one.
Kind regards.
ISO 37120:2014
I would suggest minor editing of English language, including correcting typing errors.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments (Please see the attachment)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Point 1: Please note that there exists a newer version of the Standard ISO 37120:2014, and it would be good to use that one.
Response 1: Suggestion accepted (ISO 37120:2018). Please check the first three paragraphs of Section 4.2 and Table 6.
Point 2: Comments on the Quality of English Language
I would suggest minor editing of English language, including correcting typing errors.
Response 2: Suggestion accepted. Proofreading was done.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
There are two discussion titles.
There is something wrong with the reference numbering.
Table 5 the reference citation is missing
Table 7 the reference citation is missing
Reference citation format is nonuniform, most was using [], some used () in line 296, 444
NA
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments (Please see the attachment)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Point 1: There are two discussion titles.
Response 1: This point was revised.
Point 2: There is something wrong with the reference numbering.
Response 2: This point was revised.
Point 3: Table 5 the reference citation is missing
Response 3: This point was revised.
Point 4: Table 7 the reference citation is missing
Response 4: This point was revised.
Point 5: Reference citation format is nonuniform, most was using [], some used () in line 296, 444
Response 5: This point was revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
