556586

research-article2014
CSI0010.1177/0011392114556586Current SociologyPorio

Global Futures CS

Current Sociology Monograph

Sustainable development goals

2015, Vol. 63(2) 244­–260
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
and quality of life targets: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0011392114556586
Insights from Metro Manila csi.sagepub.com

Emma Porio
Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines

Abstract
This article examines three frameworks utilized in assessing quality of life (QOL)
and sustainability, namely, (1) the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), (2) the
United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD) framework for
sustainable development, and the (3) Livable Cities Indicators (LCIs). The study assesses
the efficiency, relevance/appropriateness, and effectiveness of these frameworks in
assessing the quality of urban life in cities, with special reference to Metro Manila. What
do these indicators really tell us about urban quality of life and whose quality of life is
reflected or measured in these indicators? The article suggests that the understanding
and assessment of the quality of life in cities can become broader and more relevant if
we take into consideration that macro indicators may not reflect the socio-economic
realities of different sub-groups, especially the politically and economically marginalized
urban groups and classes. In short, these QOL frameworks and indicators are not
sensitive to issues of social exclusion, inequality, and resource distribution among sub-
groups, which have a great bearing on quality of life and sustainability, both in the
cities of the North and the global South. To advance this goal, there is a need to
contextualize, localize, and decentralize the production and utilization of the QOL
knowledge systems.

Keywords
Millennium Development Goals, quality of life, social indicators, sustainable
development

Corresponding author:
Emma Porio, Ateneo de Manila University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, School of Social
Sciences, Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City 1108, Philippines.
Email: eporio@ateneo.edu
Porio 245

Quality of life (QOL) frameworks and indicators have been used to assess progress in
societal development for the past few decades. QOL measures are deemed better at
measuring human welfare compared to the singularly popular measure used by econo-
mists and planners, the gross domestic product or GDP (Tan, 2007). Some countries and
regions, therefore, have formulated their own QOL measures to make it more contextu-
ally relevant and meaningful to the users of the framework. For example, Bhutan uses the
Gross Domestic Happiness (GNH) index to underscore its fundamental goal of societal
development and human welfare.
This article examines three frameworks utilized in assessing QOL in general,
namely, (1) the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), (2) the United Nations
Commission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD) framework for sustainable
development, and the (3) Livable Cities Indicators (LCIs). What do these indicators
really tell us about urban quality of life and sustainability? Whose quality of life is
reflected here or measured by these indicators? Reflecting on their efficiency, rele-
vance or appropriateness, and their effectiveness in assessing the quality of urban life
in cities, this article argues that these indicators do not really reflect the socio-eco-
nomic and political realities of the different income classes and other sub-groups in
the metropolis. Understanding the quality of life in cities, especially those from
developing societies, becomes broader and more relevant if we take into considera-
tion that macro indicators do not reflect the particular living conditions of the politi-
cally and economically marginalized groups. In short, these indicators are not sensitive
to issues of social exclusion, inequality, and resource distribution among sub-groups,
which has a strong bearing on quality of life and sustainability. This article concludes
that to advance this goal, there is a need to contextualize, localize, and decentralize
the production and utilization of the QOL knowledge systems, their allied indicators,
and measurements.
The first part of the article outlines the key arguments while the second part discusses
the potential strength and weaknesses of the major frameworks (i.e., MDGs, UNCSD,
and LCIs) utilized in assessing quality of life in cities. This section highlights the indica-
tors of each framework and the issues involved in applying these frameworks to con-
crete, specific urban, municipal, and neighborhood areas. The third part suggests ways to
enhance broad, macro-based QOL indicators by making them more contextualized,
accessible, and utilizable in different contexts and by different users. In particular, it sug-
gests ways to improve the current macro-based standards of QOL indicators by focusing
on ways to apply more contextually the frameworks in third world cities and localities.
Finally, the article concludes with suggestions and recommendations in contextualizing
these frameworks.
The following section provides an inventory of different sets of indicators and rank-
ings of quality of life in cities. It examines the indicators used in the MDGs and the
UNCSD and assesses their relevance and applicability to third world cities, especially in
the Philippines. Following these QOL indicators, the Livable Cities Indicators (LCIs) in
Asia are presented with the individual city rankings, their meanings and implications. It
then compares and contrasts these with other indicators like the MDGs promoted by the
UNDP and other UN agencies.
246 Current Sociology Monograph 1 63(2)

Standard quality of life indicators: Design and dimensions

covered
This section presents the standard quality of life indicators currently used by nation-
states, cities, and some localities, namely, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
and UNCSD’s Sustainability Indicators of Sustainable Development, and the Livable
Cities in Asia Indicators.

The Millennium Development Goals

As shown in Table 1, the MDGs cover eight goals to eradicate hunger and poverty,
achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality, reduce child mortality,
improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, ensure envi-
ronmental sustainability, and develop a global partnership for development.
While the MDGs attempt to address gender hierarchies (goal 3), they are silent on
other indicators of social locations and hierarchies (e.g., race, religion, ethnicity, class,
age) that may generate inequities in the distribution of resources across cities and locali-
ties. For example, goal 1, which is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, measures the
proportion of people whose incomes are less than US$1 per day. Given current standards
of living, this indicator of poverty might be appropriate for those in peri-urban or rural
areas but certainly not in national capital cities like Metro Manila, Hanoi, and other
regional centers. Also, this measure will have different meanings and implications for
urban areas in other parts of Asia, like the urban areas in the Central Vietnamese
Highlands, where the cost of living is lower compared to those in the capital cities of
Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh.
For relevance and more effective application, there is a need to contextualize the
meanings and implications of these MDG indicators and performance targets. In terms of
a poverty threshold, the US$1/day might make measurement of cost of living compara-
ble across cities and municipalities. But certainly, the meanings and possibilities of
US$1/day to those below the poverty line in Metro Manila, Hanoi, and Ho Chi Minh City
are quite different. In the same manner, the meaning of the promotion of gender equality
can take on different forms in Vietnam, the Philippines or in Indonesia. Or for that mat-
ter, the risks of HIV/AIDS and the strategies of risk reduction vary largely from urban to
rural areas and from one national context to the other.
In general, the MDG targets and indicators are not very sensitive to issues of social
differentiation, social/community cohesion, and overall urban sustainability. The attrac-
tiveness of MDGs, however, lies in their simplicity, brevity, and seemingly doable goals
and targets. The set of indicators also allow space for recalibration and enrichment of the
goals and targets for better contextualization and relevance of application to specific cit-
ies and localities.
While the potential for refining and contextualizing the MDGs is excellent, applying
them to specific national contexts can also pose problems of data accessibility, availabil-
ity, and applicability. This is seen in the assessment of the MDG targets in the Philippines.
Of 48 MDG indicators, 29 have available and accessible data, eight are not available
Porio 247

Table 1.  Millennium Development Goals.

Goals
Goal No. 1: Eradicate
extreme poverty and hunger
 
Goal No. 2: Achieve universal
primary education
Goal No. 3: Promote gender
equality and empower
women
Goal No. 4: Reduce child
mortality
Goal No. 5: Improvement of
maternal health
Goal No. 6: Combat HIV/
AIDS, malaria, and other
diseases
Goal No. 7: Ensure of
environmental sustainability
Goal No. 8: Develop a global
partnership for development
Targets
Proportion of people whose income is less than US$1 per
day
Halve proportion of people who suffer from hunger
Ensure that boys and girls will be able to complete a full
course of primary schooling
Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary
education by 2005 and all levels of education by 2015
Reduce by two-thirds mortality rate under five years old
Reduce by three-fourths maternal mortality ratio
Halt and begin to reverse spread of HIV/AIDS
Halt and begin to reverse incidence of malaria and other
major diseases
Integrate principles of sustainable development into
country policies and programs and reverse loss of
environmental resources
Halve proportion of people without sustainable access to
safe drinking water
Achieve a significant improvement in the lives of at least
100 million slum dwellers
Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-
discriminatory trading and financial system
Address the special needs of the least developed
countries
Address the special needs of landlocked countries and
small island developing states
Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of
developing countries through national and international
measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long
term
In cooperation with developing countries, develop and
implement strategies for decent and productive work for
youth
In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide
access to affordable essential drugs in developing
countries

Source: UNDP (2003).

(e.g., proportion of population in malaria risk areas using effective prevention and treat-
ment measures, proportion of tuberculosis cases detected and cured under directly
observed treatment short course), while 11 are not applicable, such as those pertaining to
global partnership for development, and do not have direct relevance to the Philippine
context.
248 Current Sociology Monograph 1 63(2)

In assessing the MDGs in the Philippines, Metro Manila has a score of .70 in achiev-
ing the targets, not far from its Asian neighboring cities like Bangkok or Singapore. But
since this score is an average of all the municipalities and cities in Metro Manila, it does
not capture the social and spatial inequalities among the 17 cities and municipalities
comprising the metropolis. Data from the National Statistics Coordinating Board show
that urban poor segments or communities of the metropolis suffer from high levels of
malnutrition, infant and maternal mortality and therefore will have lower scores than
the .70 rating obtained for Metro Manila. Some NGO estimates put the score of these
urban poor communities at .35 or half of the overall score for Metro Manila. This rank-
ing, therefore, has serious implications with regard to the production and utilization of
QOL databases. Assessing the progress of achieving the MDGs in the Philippines,
Briones et al. (2011: 3) concluded:

The Philippines has been progressing well in many of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). However, with barely three years left until the 2015 deadline, the challenges remain
formidable: the goals for education, as well as maternal and reproductive health, remain elusive.
Prospects for significant reduction in moderate poverty have dimmed over the past decade.

UNCSD framework
I would like now to move the discussion to the UNCSD sustainability framework (see
Table 2). Here, I would like to argue that the dimensions of sustainability have to be
integrated into existing QOL frameworks for it to be more meaningful and applicable.
Moreover, aside from the usual indicators of sustainability, urban governance indicators
to reflect the quality of governance are central to making the institutional aspects of sus-
tainability work. As shown below, the institutional dimensions of sustainability do not
seem to recognize the importance of this factor in promoting a sustainable quality of life
in cities.
As shown in Table 2, the UNCSD framework for sustainability covers four major
categories of themes, namely, social, environmental, economic, and institutional (which
expand to 15 dimensions) and 38 sub-themes that expand to 58 indicators (UN, 2001).
In the UNCSD framework, the theme of equity is divided into the sub-themes of pov-
erty and gender inequality and further broken into four indicators, namely, (1) percent of
population living below the poverty line, (2) Gini index of income inequality, (3) unem-
ployment rate, and (4) ratio of average female wage to male wage. Compared to the
MDGs, the UNCSD takes into consideration issues of equity but the problem is that most
of these data are not disaggregated by cities and localities, nor areas within cities that
indicate social and spatial inequalities of distribution of income, employment, resources,
services, and facilities. Or in the case of the sub-theme for gender equality, the equity
indicator is the ratio of the average female wage to male wage. But in most third world
cities, the urban poor men and women are dominant in the non-waged based sector, the
informal sector. In fact, in Metro Manila, the underground economy (non-wage, irregu-
lar, etc.) or informal economy accounts for 70% of economic transactions, according to
informally communicated estimates by officials of the National Economic Development
Authority (NEDA). Also noticeably missing in this framework is a category regarding
Porio 249

Table 2.  UNCSD theme indicator framework.

Theme Sub-theme Indicator

SOCIAL
Equity Poverty 1. Percent of population living below poverty line
2. Gini index of income inequality
3. Unemployment rate
Gender equality 4. Ratio of average female wage to male wage
Health Nutritional status 5. Nutritional status of children
Mortality 6. Mortality rate under five years old
7. Life expectancy at birth
Sanitation 8. Percent of population with adequate sewage
disposal facilities
Drinking water 9. Percent of population with access to safe
drinking water
Healthcare 10. Percent of population with access to primary
delivery health care facilities
11. Immunization against infectious childhood
diseases
12. Contraceptive prevalence rate
Education Education level 13. Children reaching grade 5 of primary education
14. Adult secondary education achievement level
Literacy 15. Adult literacy rate
Housing Living conditions 16. Floor area per person
Security Crime 17. Number of recorded crimes per 100,000
population
Population Population change 18. Population growth rate
19. Population of urban formal and informal
settlements
ENVIRONMENTAL
Atmosphere Climate change 20. Emissions of greenhouse gases
Ozone layer 21. Consumption of ozone depleting substances
depletion
Air quality 22. Ambient concentration of air pollutants in
urban areas
Land Agriculture 23. Arable and permanent crop land area
24. Use of fertilizers
25. Use of agricultural pesticides
Forests 26. Forest area as a percent of land area
27. Wood harvesting intensity
Desertification 28. Land affected by desertification
Urbanization 29. Area of urban formal and informal settlements
Oceans, seas, Coastal zone 30. Algae concentration in coastal waters
and coasts 31. Percent of total population living in coastal
areas
Fisheries 32. Annual catch by major species
(Continued)
250 Current Sociology Monograph 1 63(2)

Table 2. (Continued)

Theme Sub-theme Indicator

Fresh water Water quantity 33. Annual withdrawal of ground and surface water
as a percent of total available water
Water quality 34. BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) in water
bodies
35. Concentration of fecal coliform in freshwater
Biodiversity Ecosystem 36. Area of selected key ecosystems
37. Protected area as percent of total area
Species 38. Abundance of selected key species
ECONOMIC
Economic Economic 39. GDP per capita
structure Performance 40. Investment share in GDP
Trade 41. Balance of trade in goods and services
Financial status 42. Debt to GNP ratio
43. Total official development assistance given or
received as a percent of GNP
Consumption Material 44. Intensity of material use
and production consumption
patterns Energy use 45. Annual energy consumption per capita
  46. Share of consumption of renewable energy
resources
  47. Intensity of energy use
Waste generation 48. Generation of industrial and municipal solid
and management waste
49. Generation of hazardous waste
50. Generation of radioactive waste
51. Waste recycling and reuse
Transportation 52. Distance traveled per capita by mode of
transport
INSTITUTIONAL
Institutional Strategic 53. National sustainable development strategy
framework implementation
of sustainable
development
  International 54. Implementation of ratified global agreements
cooperation
Institutional Information 55. Number of internet subscribers per 1000
capacity access inhabitants
Communication 56. Main telephone lines per 1000 inhabitants
infrastructure
Science and 57. Expenditure on research and development as a
technology percent of GDP
Disaster 58. Economic and human loss due to natural
preparedness and disasters
response
Porio 251

Table 3.  Quality of Life Indicators in New Zealand’s large urban areas.
PEOPLE KNOWLEDGE & ECONOMIC
Population growth SKILLS STANDARD OF
Ethnicity Suspensions & stand-downs LIVING
Age Early childhood education Household expenditure
Family and households School decile ratings Social deprivation
Community education Income
Qualification levels Costs
NATURAL HOUSING HEALTH
ENVIRONMENT Housing costs & affordability Mental health & wellbeing
Waste management and Government housing Modifiable risk factors
recycling provision Low birth weights
Beach, stream, & lake water Urban housing intensification Teenage parents
Drinking water quality Household crowding Life expectancy
Biodiversity Household tenure Infant mortality
Air quality Access to GPs
Health status
Diseases
Community strength & spirit BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Electronic communication Look and feel of the city SAFETY
Quality of life Traffic and transport Perceptions of safety
Diversity City green space Child safety
Public transport Road casualties
Noise pollution Crime levels
Graffiti
ECONOMIC CIVIL & POLITICAL
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Growth in businesses Involvement in decision-
Building consents making
Economic growth Representation
Employment Voter turnout
Retail sales
Tourism

the cultural and built heritage, which is covered by other frameworks like the Livable
Cities Indicators discussed later in this article.

Other QOL frameworks

Some cities have crafted sustainability indicators that are deemed more responsive to the
needs of specific cities and urban areas/neighborhoods. These QOL indicators involve a
wide range of variables ranging from population characteristics, to economic develop-
ment and urban safety. Some have operationalized these indicators to make it more
appropriate and applicable for their cities. Examples of innovations in developing
252 Current Sociology Monograph 1 63(2)

Table 4.  Livable Cities in Asia Indicators.

•• Average life expectancy
•• Hospital beds per 1000 people
•• Per capita state spending on education
•• Average class size in primary school
•• University-educated people as percent of the total population
•• Sulfur dioxide in the air (ppm)
•• Nitrogen dioxide in the air (ppm)
•• Dust/suspended particles in the air – micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3)
•• Average monthly rental per square meter
•• Average price of a house or price range
•• Ratio of housing price to income
•• Square meters of parks and fields per capita
•• Vehicles per kilometer of city roads
•• Existence of mass transit railway system
•• Number of movie theaters per 100,000
•• Unemployment rate
•• GDP growth
•• Annual urban inflation rate
•• Vacation and public holidays per year
•• Criminal cases for every 10,000 persons
•• Number of telephones per 1000 people
•• Number of mobiles per 1000 people
•• Internet usage per 1000 people
•• Average time taken to commute to work
•• Number of TV sets per 1000 people
•• % of population with sewerage
•• Average income

Notes: Each indicator carries a different score according to its weighting in the various categories: economic
conditions (total of 15 points available), quality of education (15), law and order (5), housing costs (10),
healthcare and sanitation (15), the environment (15), transport and communication (15), leisure (10).
Source: Asiaweek (2000).

specific QOL frameworks include: (1) the New Zealand QOL for Large Urban Areas,
which covers 56 areas of assessment (see below for details), (2) Asian Development
Bank (ADB) Urban Indicators for Managing Cities, (3) London Quality of Life Indicators,
and (4) the Livable Cities in Asia Indicators.
The ADB has formulated indicators for managing cities that cover eight categories,
namely (1) poverty, (2) improved quality and quantity of social life, (3) urban productiv-
ity and competition, (4) urban land and housing, (5) urban services, (6) environment, (7)
urban transport, and (8) urban governance and management.
There are many other initiatives and innovations to formulate more appropriate, rel-
evant, and meaningful sets of QOL indicators. The examples give us an idea of the wide
range of applications and attempts to contextualize in different parts of the world. The
next sections discuss some of the more notable initiatives.
Porio 253

Contextualizing QOL applications: New Zealand’s large urban areas

Table 3 shows how New Zealand has revised the usual QOL indicators and adapted it to
large urban areas. Their framework introduced several variables in recognition of their
different contexts of application such as: (1) ethnicity in consideration of New Zealand’s
multicultural population and how this social category can reflect differential access and
distribution among the different ethnic categories; (2) education broadened into a knowl-
edge and skills category to reflect the human resource capabilities of the different sub-
groups in the population; (3) social deprivation added into the economic standard of
living, recognizing the subjective, perceptual dimensions of poverty; (4) built environ-
ment includes look and feel of the city; (5) social connectedness includes community
spirit; (6) housing includes the dimension of security of tenure and crowding; (7) safety
includes perceptions of safety; and (8) civil and political rights include involvement in
decision-making.
The indicators in Table 3 illustrate how contextualizing QOL indicators for increased
relevance and adaptability is being done and continuously done by many cities. The New
Zealand QOL for Large Urban Areas includes refining the indicators to address issues of
poverty, equity, social cohesion, and sustainability among different subgroups (e.g., eth-
nic, gender, age, families/households of different social locations).

Contextualizing QOL in Asian cities: Livable Cities in Asia Indicators

Another initiative to contextualize QOL is the Livable Cities in Asia Indicators (see
Table 4). This QOL framework puts a premium on health, education, environmental qual-
ity (e.g., indicators of carbon footprints, parks), housing, social services, economic capac-
ities, safety, and access to communications technology. This set of indicators can also be
compared to other ‘livable cities’ frameworks that put a high premium on parks, walkabil-
ity, and accessibility of cities such as Dom’s ranking of New York, other American and
European cities. Some of the promising innovations of the Livable Cities Indicators
include: (1) environmental quality like sulfur dioxide in the air (ppm), nitrogen dioxide in
the air (ppm), (2) ratio of housing price to income, and (3) average time to commute to
work. I find the variable ratio of housing price to income quite promising because it gives
us some sense of how accessible or inaccessible housing is to the lower income segments
of the population. As I noted earlier, most QOL frameworks are not very sensitive to
issues of resource distribution, a key aspect of urban sustainability. While the LCI seems
to be sensitive to these issues, this accommodation is still quite lacking.

The Neighborhood Sustainability Indicators

Another initiative to refine QOL indicators is the Neighborhood Sustainability Indicators
developed by the Minneapolis-based Urban Ecology Coalition (2013). A set of practical
tools for communities and neighborhoods, this was an attempt by community-based
organizations and research professionals to define sustainability indicators for micro-
level situations. This initiative formulated six types of neighborhood sustainability indi-
cators, namely (1) data ‘poetry’ indicators which reflect the perceptions of local
stakeholders of their neighborhood; (2) core indicators deemed useful by local residents,
254 Current Sociology Monograph 1 63(2)

external funders, investors, and researchers; (3) background indicators or information

about cities and neighborhoods that help define the context in which sustainability initia-
tives take place and are quite useful for both internal and external stakeholders; (4) deep
sustainability indicators, variables which define the longer-term vision of community
life for stakeholders; (5) friendly spaces indicator which measures over time through
periodic survey gathering spaces in the neighborhood that invite people to meet each
other or become better acquainted with other residents and their community; and (6)
affordable housing indicators which assess whether local rental and ownership opportu-
nities are affordable to residents of all income levels. As seen from this list, this set of
indicators attempts to contextualize and localize the indicators to the appropriate level of
use, that of community/neighborhood groups.
The affordable housing indicator above is comparable to the UNCSD framework
which also has housing as a theme, with a sub-theme of living conditions, and indicated
by floor area per person. This indicator is also similar to the concern of NGO networks
like the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR) for access to housing and security
of tenure in urban areas as a key indicator of quality of life for the urban poor and other
vulnerable groups in the city. Interestingly, the MDGs do not list housing and security of
tenure as a key indicator; instead they allude to the improvement of lives of people in the
slums through improved access to water and sanitation services. Significantly, the
Neighborhood Sustainability Indicators put a premium on the stakeholders’ assessments
of their cities and neighborhoods, a key dimension for the relevance and applicability of
sustainability indicators.

Assessments of standard quality of life indicators and

revisions
In examining these frameworks and applying them to assess the quality of life in Metro
Manila and other cities, the following observations can be made:

•• These are macro indicators that assess the objective, quantitative, and structurally
based indicators of urban life and neglect the subjective, perceptual, experientially
based, and/or other qualitative dimensions of urban life. These assessment tools
are functionally developed with enough detail to measure comprehensively the
quality of life for general urban-based populations.
•• These indicators summarize (in average points) the conditions of urban life for the
whole population and, therefore, are not sensitive to the quality of life of other
segments of the urban population like the urban poor and other vulnerable
populations.
•• Thus, these indicators are not sensitive to the social and spatial inequalities or the
variable distribution of resources across areas and social classes/groups in cities.
In short, they are not sensitive to issues of equity and distribution of resources,
services, and facilities across income classes and socio-cultural groups, factors
crucial to the sustainability of cities and urban areas.
•• Thus, the dimensions of urban ‘livability’ and sustainability is not highlighted or
paid attention to in these quality of life frameworks.
Porio 255

To make these indicators more sensitive to the issues of poverty, equity, and sustainabil-
ity, I propose that local assessments should disaggregate the data into meaningful units
of analysis. Thus, data sets can be differentiated according to sub-groups (e.g., age, gen-
der, occupation, education) and the levels of vulnerability among different groups like
lower class men, women, children, and workers in the informal sectors. If assessments of
QOL are disaggregated to meaningful units and the results are used to debate local
investment planning and distribution of public goods, then perhaps sustainability of mar-
ginal communities can be attained.
We can also further examine the macro-based structural indicators (viewed as objec-
tive) indicators versus the qualitative and perceptual, subjective and experiential indica-
tors of quality of life according to different social and political locations. I would also
like to suggest that these QOL indicators do not highlight an important aspect of urban
life, namely governance factors, which fundamentally shape resource distribution issues.
As Leftwich (1993) strongly argued, urban politics determine distribution of power and
resources and are crucial in distributing the fruits of development to various citizen
groups.

Integrating quality of life indicators with the urban sustainability

framework
First, assessments of the QOL of any country or city can be more efficient and effective
if we bear in mind the following criteria: comparability, applicability or relevance, and
accessibility of databases. This should be borne in mind as we apply the indicators to
cities or urban areas with different historical-structural, political-economic, and cultural
contexts. Second, these assessments can be improved by integrating issues of sustaina-
bility into the QOL indicators and targets like the MDGs. More importantly, integrating
indicators of equity and distribution of resources (e.g., indications of level of poverty and
marginality across groups) and social services across different segments of the popula-
tion will improve the efforts at contextualizing the QOL framework.

Quality of life indicators: Sensitivity to applications and articulations in

varying socio-cultural and political-economic contexts
There is a need to come up with several levels of articulation of QOL indicators. Data
systems need to be collected and organized in such a manner that they can be disaggre-
gated according to relevant political or administrative levels, different sub-groups of the
population (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, religion, income groups or classes, occupation or
livelihood bases, and other variables that can indicate the group’s social location). If the
databases can allow us to disaggregate data according to these variables, then we can get
a sense of the social and spatial inequalities in a particular city or locality.
In the Philippines, the Minimum Basic Needs (MBN) and MDGs have been localized
by local government units such as cities, municipalities, and barangays. In 2006, the
Galing Pook Foundation examined the 215 local government units (LGUs) which have
received awards for excellence in local governance to see if any of them had integrated
256 Current Sociology Monograph 1 63(2)

the MDGs in their development programs. Sadly, only 10 LGUs (two provinces, four
cities, and four municipalities) were found to have integrated the MDGs and were mov-
ing progressively towards achieving the targets.

Proposals and recommendations for assessing quality of life in cities

Based on the above analysis, it is evident that there is a need for QOL and sustainability
frameworks to recognize the different socio-cultural and political-economic contexts of
application/articulation. In doing so, we can have accessible, useful and meaningful
bases for comparison and application. From the above initiatives, this article strongly
argues for the integration of key QOL indicators with some of the dimensions of the
urban sustainability framework.

Integrate dimensions of access and distribution.  The proposed system must recognize issues
of social and spatial inequality among different segments/classes of the population and
different localities. The current macro-based indicators need to be disaggregated to
reflect more effectively the material conditions of the not-so-average populations, i.e., at
the ends of the social spectrum like the socially deprived groups.

Decentralizing/localizing production and utilization of database systems.  While the produc-

tion of and utilization of large database systems need to be done by central state agencies
with legitimacy and proven institutional capacity, there is a need to decentralize and
democratize this process.

Democratize the production and utilization of QOL indicators.  For the databases to be mean-
ingful and relevant, indicators must be able to capture the conditions of the different
socio-economic groups of people. They must be responsive to the initiatives of concep-
tualization and utilization at the level of different institutions and communities that can
use it in understanding and planning their communities. To respond to these needs, aca-
demic institutions and research institutes must work in collaborative ways in producing
the data systems utilized in QOL assessments.

Conclusion, prospects, and challenges

The standard QOL frameworks and indicators are useful in comparing the QOL status of
countries based on particular database systems. But the meanings and implications of
these databases can vary from one historical, social, economic, and political-economic
context to the other. The quality of life could vary among different subgroups in the city
or different areas in the country.
The article closes with several preliminary conclusions. These existing QOL indica-
tors are good as summative indicators of quality of life but miss out on important com-
ponents of quality of life, namely the indicators of equity and sustainability as well as
how people from different sub-groups experience urban life (e.g., security, safety) and
how cities are governed, which affects the distribution of resources to those economi-
cally and politically marginal urban populations.
Porio 257

The following issues need to be addressed in making QOL frameworks and indicators
in cities more relevant, applicable, and utilizable:

•• Accessibility/availability and relevance to particular socio-cultural and political-

economic contexts. It is hard to compare QOL indicators from one context to the
other because of varying levels of relevance, applicability and availability, and/or
accessibility of the data needed for the indicators.
•• Limits of urban primacy and carrying capacity. QOL indicators do not also seem
to address the limits of urban primacy, regional growth, and the carrying capacity
of cities and localities.
•• Issues of distribution, poverty, and marginality. The current QOL frameworks
need to be revised at the national, regional, and local levels so that issues of dis-
tribution, levels of poverty and marginality among various citizen groups can be
better understood and highlighted in planning and implementation of policies and
programs.
•• Lack of meaningful units of analysis. To be more meaningful most QOL indicators
have to be further disaggregated to cities, municipalities, and other smaller admin-
istrative units like districts or wards. In this way, the data can also reflect spatial
and social inequality across areas and population sub-groups. Thus, while HDI
(Human Development Index) can potentially reflect social and spatial inequalities
across areas/groups, currently existing database systems are not disaggregated to
smaller administrative units.
•• Quality of life indicators and social differentiation. Standard, macro-based QOL
frameworks and indicators are also not sensitive to issues of social differentiation
within cities and across cities. Since these indicators are averages of total units,
then, it does not indicate the distribution of resources (e.g., education, housing,
infrastructural development) across national, regional, small town urban centers,
and within cities.
•• Quality of life and integration of cities to the global system. The current QOL
assessment frameworks are not also sensitive to how cities are integrated into the
global political and economic system. For example, the increasing casualization
(more and more workers are integrated into the labor force without tenure) of the
labor force means that their work tenure and security are further threatened.
•• Issues regarding the structure of urban politics and power which shape the distri-
bution of resources among different segments of the population are hardly
reflected in these QOL frameworks and indicators. Governance and politics medi-
ate strongly in the distribution of resources across several towns and cities in
Metro Manila and across different classes. In the process, urban sustainability is
seriously threatened when key governance indicators and distribution issues
(resources including infrastructure development) are not paid much attention in
urban politics and development.

Finally, most QOL indicators like the MDGs must be updated and revised to take into
consideration two interrelated factors that threaten the sustainability of cities and com-
munities – climate change and the increasing inequality across/within nations and
258 Current Sociology Monograph 1 63(2)

communities. Any updating of MDGs after 2015 must take those factors into considera-
tion if we are to adapt and sustain our life on earth.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

References
Asiaweek (2000) Best cities in Asia: How we did it. Available at: www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/
features/asiacities2000/how.html.
Briones R et al. (2011) Assessing development strategies to achieve the MDGs in Asia: Philippines
(final report). Philippine Institute of Development Studies (Discussion Paper Series No.
2011-03).
Dom’s Ranking of Most Livable Cities (2009) Available at: www.walkablestreets.com/livable.
htm.
Galing Pook Foundation: Awardees (2013) Available at: www.galingpook.org/awardees.htm.
Leftwich A (1993) Governance, democracy and development in the Third World. Third World
Quarterly 14(3): 605–624.
London Sustainable Development Commission (2004) Report on London’s Quality of Life
Indicators. London: Greater London Authority.
National Statistical Coordination Board (Philippines) (2009) Government report on the progress of
MDGs (Data Base for MDG Applications).
Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Large Urban Areas (2007) Available at: www.bigcities.govt.nz/
indicators.htm.
Tan E-S (2007) Developing quality of life indicators: Lessons from the Singapore project. In:
Quality of Life Conference, Vietnam Open University, Ho Chi Minh City, 10–15 October
2007.
UNDP (United Nations Development Program) (2003) Millennium Development Goals: Compact
among nations to end poverty. In: Human Development Report 2003. New York: Oxford
University Press.
United Nations (2001) Indicators for sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies.
Available at: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/isd-ms2001isd.htm.
Urban Ecology Coalition (2013) Neighborhood indicators guidebook. Available at: www.crc-
works.org/guide.pdf (accessed 15 September 2013).

Author biography
Emma E Porio, PhD, is Professor of Sociology and chairperson of the Department of Sociology
and Anthropology (DSA) at the Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines, and member of the
International Sociological Association (ISA) Executive Board (2006–2014). Professor Porio has
lectured, researched, and written extensively on poverty and social inequality, governance, civil
society, gender, urban, and local development. Her books/publications include Urban Governance
and Poverty Alleviation in Southeast Asia, Pathways to Decentralization, Partnership with the
Poor, and Urban Transition and Development in the Philippines among others. Her work on cli-
mate change and adaptation was awarded ‘Outstanding Scholarly Work with Most Social Impact’
by the Ateneo de Manila University in 2012.
Porio 259

Résumé
Cet article examine trois cadres de travail utilisés pour évaluer la qualité de vie (QdV)
et la durabilité, à savoir (1) les objectifs du Millénaire pour le développement (OMD),
(2) la Commission des Nations Unies pour le développement durable (CDD) et (3)
des indicateurs de la qualité urbaine (IQU). L’étude pèse la rentabilité, la pertinence/
justesse et l’efficacité de ces cadres de travail en matière d’évaluation de la qualité de
vie dans divers centres urbains, particulièrement en référence au Grand Manille et à
d’autres villes. Qu’est-ce que ces indicateurs nous disent vraiment sur la qualité de
vie urbaine et qui sont les individus dont la qualité de vie est reflétée ou mesurée par
ces indicateurs ? L’article suggère que la compréhension et l’évaluation de la qualité de
vie urbaine peuvent être élargies et rendues plus pertinentes en tenant compte du fait
que les macro-indicateurs ne reflètent peut-être pas les réalités socio-économiques
de différents sous-groupes, notamment des groupes et classes urbains marginalisés
sur le plan politique et économique. En bref, ces cadres de travail et indicateurs de
la QdV ne sont pas sensibles aux problèmes d’exclusion sociale, d’inégalité et de
distribution des ressources parmi les sous-groupes, problèmes qui ont un impact
marqué sur la qualité de vie et la durabilité dans les villes du Nord comme dans
celles du Sud global. Pour atteindre cet objectif, une contextualisation, localisation
et décentralisation de la production et de l’utilisation des systèmes d’évaluation de la
QdV s’imposent.

Mots-clés
Objectifs du Millénaire pour le développement, qualité de vie, indicateurs sociaux,
développement durable

Resumen
Este trabajo estudia tres marcos utilizados para evaluar la calidad de vida (QQL, por
sus siglas en inglés) y la sustentabilidad, a saber: (1) los objetivos de desarrollo del
milenio (MDG (por sus siglas en inglés), (2) el marco para el desarrollo sostenible
de la comisión de las Naciones Unidas para el desarrollo sostenible (UNCSD,
por sus siglas en inglés) y (3) los indicadores de las ciudades más habitables (LCI,
por sus siglas en inglés). El estudio evalúa la eficiencia, pertinencia/adecuación y
efectividad de estos marcos en evaluar la calidad de vida urbana en las ciudades, con
especial referencia a Gran Manila y otras ciudades. ¿Qué nos dicen realmente estos
indicadores sobre la calidad de vida urbana, y la calidad de vida de quién se refleja
o se mide a través de estos indicadores? El trabajo sugiere que la comprensión
y la evaluación de la calidad de vida en las ciudades puede ampliarse y ser más
importante si tenemos en cuenta que los indicadores macroeconómicos tal vez no
reflejen las realidades socioeconómicas de los diferentes subgrupos, especialmente
de los grupos urbanos y las clases política y económicamente marginadas. En
resumen, estos marcos e indicadores de QQL no son sensibles a los temas de
exclusión social, desigualdad y distribución de los recursos entre los subgrupos, que
tienen una gran importancia en la calidad de vida y la sustentabilidad, tanto en las
ciudades del Norte y del Sur. Para avanzar hacia este objetivo, hay una necesidad
260 Current Sociology Monograph 1 63(2)

de contextualizar, localizar y descentralizar la producción y la utilización de los

sistemas de conocimiento de la QQL.

Palabras clave
Objetivos de desarrollo del milenio, calidad de vida, indicadores sociales, desarrollo
sostenible