Munich Personal RePEc Archive

On Measuring the Complexity of Urban

Living

Hasan, Lubna

Pakistan Institute of Development Economics

2007

Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/7413/
MPRA Paper No. 7413, posted 02 Mar 2008 18:29 UTC
On Measuring the Complexity of
Urban Living

Lubna Hasan
Pakistan Institute of Development Economics
2

CONTENTS

Page
Abstract 4

1. Introduction 5

2. Ranking Places and Urban Life 6

3. Methodological Issues in City Rankings 8

4. Major City Ranking Initiatives 14

5. Pakistani Cities in International Perspective 24

6. Conclusion and Recommendations 28

References 29
 3

Page
List of Tables

Table 1. QoL Factors Used to Assess Key City Rankings 12

Table 2. Summary of Dimensions Used in QoL Studies 13
Table 3. Items Considered Most Important in People’s Lives 14
Table 4. UN-HABITAT GUIP List of Indicators 15
Table 5. Calculation of CDI by UN-HABITAT GUIP 16
Table 6. Calculation of CDI by ADB CDB 17
Table 7. Weights of EIU Cost of Living Index 20
Table 8. Weights of EIU QoL Index 22
Table 9. Mercer Cost of Living Index 27

Appendix
Table A1. Dimensions of CDI as measured by ADB 33
4

ABSTRACT
This paper explores the concept of city ranking as a way to measure dynamics
and complexities of urban life. These rankings have various dimensions and
uses. Both the context in which these rankings are done, and their nature has
changed considerably overtime. These rankings are also afflicted with many
methodological and measurement problems. A review of major city rankings
and related literature is carried out to suggest a framework for measuring
Pakistani cities.

JEL classification: R12, O18, R23

Keywords: Quality of Life, Cities, Urbanization
 5

“Since the sources of the new economic growth are so various and finally
perhaps so fickle, the possibilities are endless. It is no accidents that, as never
before, ranking of cites dominate the media.” (Hall 1995).

“…you cannot properly measure what you don’t understand; and you cannot
improve what you don’t measure.” (Peter Newton, 2001)

1. Introduction
Cities have acquired a phenomenally important role in today’s world.
From being “isolated seats of power from where to govern rural holdings,” cities
have become the ultimate abode of humanity, and human beings are now a
predominantly city dwelling species. Today every second person inhabiting the
world is an urban dweller1. The trend is not going to change in near future as the
urban population is expected to grow at double the rate of growth of total world
population during 2005-2030 [UNCHS (2007)].
This has encouraged efforts at measuring diversity of urban life and of
cities as such2. Generally dubbed as ‘city rankings’ or ‘city ratings’, these
exercises are aimed at measuring and comparing cities on a variety of aspects-
quality of life (QoL), cost of living, business climate/opportunities, and other
criteria. These rankings are done by popular magazines, business consulting
firms, international agencies, and academic institutions, and attract a great deal
of media and public attention. In particular, QoL comparisons among areas
interest residents, business persons, politicians, and policymakers as evidence
compiles in favor of a link between area amenities and the location decisions of
households and firms (Blomquist, et al 1988).
The reduction of complexity of urban living to a single number is
appealing to politicians and media alike. For the media, it becomes an
interesting headline; for politicians, a political motive—if their constituency
ranks low on the QoL index, it can be used to demand higher development

Acknowledgements: The author wishes to thank Dr Nadeem Ul Haq for his encouragement
in writing this paper. It is his idea that a city ranking system should be developed for Pakistan.
Thanks are also due to Dr Musleh-ud Din and Dr G. M. Arif who provided incisive comments on an
earlier draft of this paper. The author also wishes to thank seminar participants at the Pakistan
Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad and participants of “the Cities Conference”,
Karachi, for their valuable comments. An earlier version of this paper entitled ‘On Ranking Cities:
Issues and Options” was published in Haque and Nayab (eds.) “Cities-Engines of Growth (2007),
Pakistan Institute of Development Economics. The usual disclaimer applies.
1
In 2005, 3.17 billion out of the total world population (6.45 billion) lived in cities
(UNCHS 2007).
2
The ‘diversity’ of urban life and why it is being measured is discussed below. Also see
Nayab (2007) for the role of cities in human life.
6

expenditure from the state on the pretext of initiating new programs that will
“enhance local quality of life”(Rogerson 1999).
This paper discusses city rankings as follows. It introduces the concept,
discusses the context in which these rankings are done, and then reviews
measurement issues in indicators. The paper also outlines a number of major
initiatives in ranking cities and discusses current efforts to measure Pakistani
cities. Finally, it puts forward suggestions for moving forward.

2. RANKING PLACES AND URBAN LIFE

Cities are considered desirable places in which to live. Cities are the
“super markets for employment, incubator of technology, suppliers of social
services and shelter, portals to the rest of the world, processors of agriculture
produce, adders of manufactured value, places to make money through trade,
industry, finance, real state” (United Nations Center for Human Settlement
2001: 7). They are the nexus of commerce and gateways to the world (ibid).
Cities are also the engines of growth—most wealth creation takes place
within their bounds. They also offer higher income levels than the national
average. Per capita income in African cities is 65% higher than the national
average (Overman and Venables 2005). Productivity is also far higher in cities:
Lima houses less than 30% of Peru’s population but adds 40% to the national
GDP (State of the World’s Cities 2001). The evidence suggests that labor
productivity increases with city size (Sveikaukas 1975). Cities offer many
amenities and agglomeration economies3 that motivate firms and industries to
locate there, with the result that most jobs are created in cities. Cities are also
hub of innovative activities. “The cramming of individuals, occupations, and
industries into close quarters provides an environment in which ideas flow
quickly from person to person” [Glaeser et al (1992:1127)]. As such cities act as
a nursery for new products and processes (Overman and Venables 2005).
The reality of city life is a mixture of diverse experiences, however.
Cities offer many amenities that make urban living a pleasant experience. City
dwellers have many privileges that residents of rural areas are deprived of –
provision of public and club goods e.g., roads, medical facilities, health clubs,
recreational facilities (cinemas, parks), cultural activities; a wider variety of
aforementioned services; a thick goods market; a more complete occupational
structure offering greater flexibility with respect to skill and time requirement of
job; chances of upward mobility; and greater personal freedom etc.
City life is not without costs, however. City dwellers have to face the ill
effects of congestion, pollution (air, water, and noise), long and stressful
commutes (Clark, Kahn and Ofek 1988). Cities are also hub of crimes, conflicts,

3
Agglomeration economies are positive externalities arising out of a concentration of
population and economic activity in one region: provision of pure public and club goods, e.g., roads,
medical facilities, health clubs, recreational facilities (cinemas and parks); a wider variety of the
aforementioned services; a more complete occupational structure (which gives greater flexibility
with respect to the skill and time requirement of a job); chances of upward mobility; and greater
personal freedom, etc.
 7

riots, social unrest. All these constitute disamenities for urban residents. Urban
living is, therefore, influenced by the trade offs between positive city effects and
negative urban loads.4 City ranking studies of early seventies were designed to
capture these diverse area attributes and study their links with the urbanization
and migration trends and quality of life of urban residents.
Beginning 1990’s, these ranking exercises received a considerable make
over. Initially developed to measure QoL differences across metropolitan areas
and to assess their link with the location decisions of firms and individuals, these
rankings have assumed more dimensions over time. Now, they are used as a
promotional tool for city marketing (“to put the area on the map”) to attract
businesses and residents. The onset of globalization has changed the context
within which development takes place. It has altered considerably the geography
of capital (both physical and human). The ability of transnational corporations to
relocate their operations across the globe has placed cities in a new set of
relations with capital, where capital is highly mobile and the relative position of
cities much weaker (Rogerson 1999). The increased “fluidity of capital” has
enhanced the relevance of city rankings as cities try to create a niche for
themselves in this competitive environment by offering a “new set of local place
attributes”—the QoL being one such factor. “Cities tend to market themselves
rather like competing consumer goods… city administrations find themselves
impelled to establish some unique quality for their city, some magic ingredient
that no other city can precisely match” (Hall 1995: 13). It is in this context of
vigorous efforts by urban mangers to “place their area on the map” and make it
look more competitive that the roots of recent (popular) city rankings are
located.
Recent research also suggests that places attract human capital and talent
by offering a range of lifestyle amenities. Individuals with high levels of human
capital are economically more mobile and have more options in their location
decisions. Cities offering more lifestyle opportunities—termed “entertainment
machines” by Lloyd (2001)—draw such talent to themselves (Florida 2002).
Glaeser, Kolko, and Saiz (2001) write that high human capital workers increase
the productivity of a region; at the same time, high human capital areas are
pleasant places to live in. Cities must attract workers on the basis of QoL if they
are to remain strong. Urban amenities are crucial factors that determine urban
viability and growth. Shapiro (2006) contends that improvement in QoL
accounts for 40% of employment growth for college graduates in US
metropolitan areas. City rankings are used to attract human capital and
“consumer power”—consumers with money—into the region (Rogerson 1999).
These rankings are often used as a political tool as well. The European
Union, for example, considers “the improvement of QoL” as a principal
objective in its general framework of sustainable development. The Committee
of the Regions (1999) recommended setting up a “system of local and regional

4
Cicerchia (1999) qualifies positive city effect as ‘access to superior urban functions,
opportunities and services’, while urban load refers to congestions and environmental degradation
[cited from McCrea et al (2006)].
8

indicators of quality of life to inform policy makers,” to monitor the economic

and social progress of member countries5 (Biagi, et al 2006). Greenberg (2000)
writes that during the hay days of interurban competition in the 1980’s and
1990’s… ‘Quality of Life’ became the rallying cry of many big-city mayors…”
[cited from Jensen (2005): 4]. Despite their widespread use, measures of well-
being are afflicted with host of methodological issues. Langlois and Anderson
(2002) write that “the literature has been plagued by conceptual diversity,
measurement differences, and the absence of theoretical underpinnings”
[Langlois and Anderson (2002): 501]. We discuss these issues in the next
section.

3. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CITY RANKINGS

Measurement of complex dynamics of urban life and human well-being
has an extensive history.6 For long, GDP was considered as the sole measure of
well-being. During the second half of the twentieth century, dissatisfaction with
this measure mounted, and led to the search for a better metric [Ram (1982)]7.
The focus shifted to the extension of this approach to include basic needs (health
and education) of human life. Many indices were constructed that covered the
shortcomings of earlier approach. The physical quality of life index (PQLI)
developed by Morris (1979) included life expectancy at age 1, infant mortality
rate, and literacy rate [Slottje (1991)]. The human development index (HDI) of
the United Nations is another endeavor for better, more comprehensive measure
of well-being, which included longevity, knowledge and income as its
components8.
The term ‘quality of life’ was also coined to offset dissatisfaction with a
single dimension variable (per capita GDP) as a measure of wellbeing [Rahman,
Mittelhammer, and Wandschneider (2003), Cobb (2000), Crafts (1997)], and
included factors such as housing, public safety, climate, health and education
[Lanteigne (2005), Slottje (1991)]. The basic premise of this research was that
‘good life’ depended on a wider range of goods and services than mere income,
and was aided by the social indicators movement of the seventies. Sen (1993)
added another dimension to well-being research by arguing that quality of life
did not depend merely on opportunities, and was determined by human
capabilities as well9. Nussbaum and Sen (1993) have stressed the need to go

5
See also Fahey, Nolan, and Whelan (2003).
6
In particular, city rankings have been around for almost three and half decades. Ham, et al
(2004) write that the idea of rating places is not new and the earliest effort to rank areas goes as far
back to 17th century America when places with plentiful game, heavier livestock supply, and low
probability of death from Indian attacks were considered more “livable”.
7
This is cited from Slottje (1991).
8
See Booysen (2002) for a review of composite indices of development. Lijn (undated) has
also compared a modified HDI and PQLI for 133 countries.
9
Cobb (2000) summarizes Sen’s argument as: “QoL derives from states of being and
opportunities for doing... Without capabilities associated with being (such as health, social
connections, and self-esteem) and doing (political activity, intellectual challenges, and engaging
work) a person is not able to take advantage of the benefits… [Cobb (2000): 10].
 9

beyond the economic measures to include social, political, environmental, and

personal dimensions. Dasgupta (1993) also argues for an extension of this
approach to include civil and political liberties. Earlier Dasgupta and Weale
(1992) had included such measures in their estimation of quality of life in poor
countries [Cobbs (2000)].
The studies measuring civic quality have gone through many more
transformations over the years. The earliest studies measured ‘quality of life’
(QoL) differences across metropolitan areas and its link with the location
decisions of households and firms [Luger (1996)]. While, in the initial years
(late sixties and early seventies), the studies on QoL used ‘objective’ data
(literacy rates, infant mortality rates, life expectancy etc.), in the late 70’s the
focus shifted to the ‘subjective’ measures of wellbeing, which relied on
individual’s perception about his life [Costanza, Farley and Templet (2002)].
Since different individuals have different life experiences in a given
environment, it was deemed important to ask them how they viewed their life
[Veenhoven (2004)]10. However, these studies were confined to the academic
circles only [Rogerson (1999)].
These rating caught popular attention with the publication of the Places
Rated Almanac (Bayer and Savageau 1981). This study was US based and
ranked 354 metropolitan areas on the basis of various QoL factors—cost of
living, job outlook, transportation, education, healthcare, crime, art, recreation,
and climate—that characterized the livability of a place (Ham, et al 2004).
Interest in popular city ratings has surged in recent years. Popular magazines
[the Economist, Asia Week, and The Fortune Magazine], business consulting
firms [Mercer Human Resource Consulting, Cushman and Wakefield, USB],
international development organizations [UNDP, ADB] and national
governments now carry out city rankings on a regular basis.
Though, cities are ranked according to many attributes-QoL, Cost of
Living, business competitiveness, and composite city performance indicators
(e.g., city development index of habitat)-the QoL index is the most commonly
used. Despite its widespread use, QoL studies face many challenges. Indeed,
“the measurement and interpretation of measures of the quality of life have been
rather elusive” [Naude, Rossouw and Krugell (2006): 6]. The first issue deals
with the definition. What actually is meant by the term QoL? Consensus over
the definition is limited, and a host of terminologies (well being, happiness, life
satisfaction etc.) are used causing ambiguity [Bramston et al (2002)]. Liu (1976)
writes, “there are as many quality of life definitions as there are people” [Wish
(1986): 94]. Schuessler and Fisher (1985) state that “the concept lacks
specificity; it has as many meanings as life has aspects” [Costanza, Farley and
Templet (2002)]. To get a flavor of the ambiguity and vagueness surrounding
the concept, consider the definitions put forth by various authors in Box (1). In

10
The issues of definition and measurement of QoL, objective and subjective indicators will
be dealt with later in the paper.
10

essence, the QoL is a multidimensional concept, encompassing distinct domains

of life (personal as well as material, social, political and environmental).
 11

Box 1: The Various Shades of the Term ‘Quality of Life’

The best way of approaching quality of life measurement is to measure the

extent to which people's 'happiness requirements' are met – i.e., those
requirements which are a necessary (although not sufficient) condition of
anyone's happiness - those 'without which no member of the human race can
be happy.'
McCall, S. (1975) 'Quality of Life'. Social Indicators Research 2: 229-248
Quality of life to a greater or lesser extent consists of two basic ingredients,
an operational or environmental and a psychological milieu… These two
aspects, the psychological and environmental, need to be considered
simultaneously in operationalizing the quality of life.
Wish, N. B. (1986) Are Are We Really Measuring the QoL? Well-Being Has
Subjective Dimensions, as well as Objective Ones. American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, 45: January, 93-99.
A multidimensional evaluation of an individual’s current life circumstances in
the context of the culture in which they live and the values they hold. QoL is
primarily a subjective sense of well-being encompassing physical,
psychological, social, spiritual dimensions. In some circumstances, objective
indicators may supplement or serve as a proxy assessment of QoL.
Haas (1999) A Multidisciplinary Concept Analysis of Quality of Life. West
Journal of Nursing Research, 21(6): 728-743.
QoL comprised the possession of resources necessary to the satisfaction of
individual needs, wants and desires, participation in activities enabling
personal development and self-actualization and satisfactory comparison
between oneself and others
Holmes, S. (2004) Assessing the Quality of Life: Reality or Impossible
Dream. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42 (4): 493-501.
There are essentially two perspectives taken in quality of life research: social
indicators research which considers the elites' valuation of what the people
need, and conventional quality of life research which studies what people
want, in order to improve their quality of life.
- Quality of Life, Ramkrishna Mukherjee, Sage Publications, 1989
12

The second issue concerns the type of indicator to be used. There is

persistent debate in QoL research about the merits and demerits of objective
approach vis-à-vis subjective approach [see Veenhoven (2004), Rahman,
Mittelhammer, and Wandschneider (2003), Costanza, Farley and Templet
(2002), Cobb (2000), Diener and Suh (1997), Wish (1986)]. Objective QoL
indicators are based on attributes that can be measured, for example, by per
capita income, unemployment, literacy rate, infant mortality rate, and pollution
levels. These indicators are mostly based on registration based indices11. The
best known indicator is the human development index (HDI) developed by the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). These objective indicators of
quality are only proxies, i.e., they are indirect measures of true condition (QoL)
that researchers try to evaluate [Cobb (20000]. It is assumed that the objective
circumstances influence satisfaction within specific life domains [McCrea,
Shyy, and Stimson (2006)].
QoL indicators can also be subjective, i.e., based on people’s perceptions
of their happiness and satisfaction with living conditions. These indicators are
survey based, and directly enquire individuals about their satisfaction with life.
Examples are the New Zealand QoL reporting system and Australian unity well
being index. “Objective measurement is based on explicit criteria and performed
by external observer. Subjective measurement involves self reports based on
implicit criteria” [Veenhoven (2004): 1].
An increasing number of researchers are advocating a third type of
indicator, which combines quantitative data (objective approach) with
qualitative data (subjective approach) [Wish (1986), Rogerson (1997) Diener
and Suh (1997), Veenhoven (2004)]12. Rogerson (1997) conceptualizes this
approach by defining an environmental quality of life, which comprises both
material and personal arenas of life [Turksever and Atalik (2001)]. The link
between objective (quantitative) and subjective (qualitative) indices has also
been studied [McCrea et al (2006), Langlois and Anderson (2002), Diener and
Suh (1997)].
Since QoL is a multi dimensional concept (see Box 1), another issue in
the construction of index is to decide which dimensions of life to include. A
human life has many domains-economic, political, social, and environmental.
Each of these domains can be captured by a number of alternative indicators.
For example, social environment, which is one domain of living environment,
can be captured by the safety it provides, for the freedom it grants, or the degree
of fairness (equity) it allows [Veenhoven (2004)]. The economic aspect can be
captured by the city product, per capita income, household income,
employment/unemployment levels etc. A look at Table 1 shows diverse factors
included in QoL studies.

11
For example, birth and death registration, registration at unemployment bureaus etc.
12
Rogerson (1997) adopted this approach in measuring QoL in British counties. Turksever
and Atalik (2001) have also used this approach in estimating QoL in metropolitan areas of Istanbul,
Turkey.
 13

Table 1
QoL Factors Used to Assess Key City Rankings
QoL Factor Smith Liu Boyer and Rogerson, Burnley Hart, PCC
Savageau et al et al
1973 1976 1981 1988 1988 1989 1990
Environment/pollution X X X X X
Atmosphere/peace and X X X
quiet
Climate X X X
Lifestyle opportunities X
Employment X X
Retirement X
Housing costs and X X X X X X
access
Healthcare/public X X X X X X
health
Crime/public safety X X X X
Transport/traffic flow X X X X
Education X X X X X
provision/levels
Recreation X X
Economy/business X X X
climate
Arts/cultural diversity X X X X
State X
taxes/development aid
Commercial space X
Proximity to X
suppliers/market
Food costs/cost of X X
living
Political environment X X
Wages X X
Source: Rogerson (1999).

One weakness of Quality of Life studies is their ad hoc nature [Biagi et al

(2006), Cobb (2000), Diener and Suh (1997), Luger (1996)]. The lack of a clear
definition and absence of theoretical underpinning has made operationlisation of
the concept extremely vague. The choice of indicators used in each study is
dictated by factors such as data availability, aims of study and personal choice of
researchers [Biagi et al (2006), Lanteigne (2005)]. Further, Luger (1996)
14

contends that one limitation due to ad hoc nature of “livability comparisons” is

that they make no effort to link inputs (e.g., education expenditure) with output
(literacy rate).
While QoL studies are criticized for being atheoretic and ad hoc,
consensus is emerging around a group of indicators (economic opportunities,
physical environment, climate, pollution, crime, health and education) capturing
various domains of life [Rogerson (1999)]. Wish (1986) writes, “forming a
consensus on the conceptual definition for ‘Quality of Life’ is not a major
problem… they all include a situation or condition that is perceived by an area’s
residents and translated by them into varying degrees of a sense of well-being”
[Wish (1986): 95]. Lanteigne (2005) surveyed the QoL studies conducted
during 1996 to 2004. She comes up to the conclusion that a consensus has
emerged around the dimensions that are generally used in such studies. Table 2
summarizes these dimensions. It is clear that the economy, environment, social,
safety, education and health are included in majority of the studies, while
housing, urban amenities and transportation are also important indicators of
quality of life.

Table 2
Summary of Dimensions Used in QoL Studies
Dimension % of Studies Using
the Dimension
Economy 59
Environment 59
Social 59
Safety 53
Education 53
Health 47
Housing 41
Amenities 35
Transportation 35
Infrastructure 24
Density 12
Climate 6
Source: Lanteigne (2005)

But QoL indicators used in city marketing represent a shift in

conceptualization because they measure the “reality” of living—the shared
environment in which people live—against earlier work on this issue, which
focused on people’s happiness and satisfaction with life (Rogerson 1999). In
livability comparisons, the emphasis has moved from satisfaction with life to
 15

conditions of life. “These ranking exercises treat the attributes of a good life as
a location to be purchased” [Cobb (2000): 9], and have predominantly become
‘place based’ rather than ‘people based’.
Since the QoL index is a weighted index, another issue that needs to be
tackled is the weighing scheme. Early efforts to rank cities, e.g., by the Places
Rated Almanac, assigned equal weights to all categories. However, people do
not accord equal importance to different factors affecting their lives. Table 3
ranks those factors that people consider important to their lives. Rogerson
(1997) used the survey method to assign relative weights in which respondents
were asked to rank components of QoL index according to their priorities. The
principal component and hedonic methods can also be used to derive weighing
scheme (Slottje 1991).

Table 3
Items Considered Most Important in People’s Lives
Priority Item
1 Relationship with family/relatives
2 Own health
3 Health of close friend/family member
4 Finances/housing/standard of living
5 Relationships with other people
6 Availability of work/ability to work
7 Other (crime, politics, happiness/well being)
8 Social life/leisure activities
9 Conditions at work/job satisfaction
10 Education
11 Religion/spiritual lore
12 Environment (pollution, rubbish, noise, safety, and
cleanliness)
Source: Rogerson (1999).

Summing up, measuring the diversity of urban centre and urban life as
such is fraught with many methodological issues. These include: choice of
indicator (objective vs. subjective); dimensions to be included in the
construction of the indices; and questions regarding aggregation technique (e.g.,
weights to be assigned to different factors). Having discussed these, we now turn
to major city ranking initiatives being undertaken around the world.
16

4. MAJOR CITY RANKING INITIATIVES

This section discusses in detail the major city ranking initiatives. The list
is not exhaustive; rather, the purpose is to shed light on what is being measured
and how. These initiatives have been taken up at various levels and involve
many stakeholders including development agencies (The UN-HABITAT Habitat
Global Urban Indicators Program (GUIP) and the City Data Book (CDB)
Database of the Asian Development Bank (ADB)), national governments (New
Zealand QoL Reporting System, Canadian QoL Reporting System, Australian
Unity Well Being Index), business consultants (Mercer Human Resource
Consulting—Cost-of-Living/QoL Surveys, EIU—Worldwide Cost-of-
Living/QoL Surveys), as well as combination of academia and commercial
concerns (Creativity Index)

UN-HABITAT GUIP
The GUIP is an initiative under the United Nations Human Settlement
Program. The first Global Urban Indicator Database (GUID1) was launched in
1996,13 and data from 237 cities was collected using 1993 as the reference year.
A city development index was derived to rank cities according to their level of
development. The Istanbul+5 conference (2001) reviewed the indicators
program and another round of surveys was conducted in 1998. The second
Global Urban Indicators Database (GUID2) collected data from 232 cities in
113 countries. Data on a number of indicators (Table 4) were collected from
secondary sources based on the latest available information, and converted to
US dollars using guidelines provided by the International Monetary Fund
(IMF)’s International Statistics Yearbook 1998.

Table 4
UN-HABITAT GUIP List of Indicators
Tenure Tenure types, evictions, house price and rent-to-income ratios, land price
to income ratios
Infrastructure Water, sewerage, electricity, telephone
Health and Under-five mortality, life expectancy at birth, literacy rate, combined
education enrollment
Water Water consumption, water prices
Waste Wastewater treated, formal solid waste disposal, formally recycled
management
Population Total population (metropolitan area, urban agglomeration, national
urban, national), population growth rates

13
Established in 1988 as the Housing Indicator Program, its scope was later broadened in
1993 to measure sustainable urban development prior to the HABITAT II Conference in 1996.
 17

Economic GDP per capita, city product, household income, informal employment,
and unemployment rate
workforce
issues
Transport Travel time, transport modes to work
Safety Reported crime rates
Local Local government revenue and expenditures
government

In addition, it reports qualitative data on the following indicators:

• housing rights,
• decentralization,
• urban violence,
• citizens’ participation,
• disaster prevention and mitigation,
• transparency and accountability,
• local environmental plans,
• international cooperation, and
• public-private partnerships.
The CDI is the average of five subindices. These include city product,
infrastructure, waste, health, and education. Each subindex comprises several
indicators that are normalized so that their values range between 0 and 1. Table
5 indicates the formulae used to calculate the CDI. The weighing scheme is
derived using principal components analysis.

Table 5
Calculation of CDI by UN-HABITAT GUIP
Index Formula
Infrastructure 25 x water connections + 25 x sewerage + 25 x electricity + 25 x
telephone
Waste Wastewater treated x 50 + formal solid waste disposal x 50
Health (Life expectancy – 25) x 50/60 + (32 – child mortality) x 50/31.92
Education Literacy x 25 + combined enrolment x 25
Product (log city product – 4.61) x 100/5.99
CDI (Infrastructure index + waste index + education index + health index +
city product index) /5
Source: UN-HABITAT GUID2.

ADB CDB Database

18

This ADB initiative was launched in 1999 under regional technical

assistance for the development of a CDB for the Asian and Pacific Region, to
cater to the need for improved data, indicators, and benchmarking in managing
fast-growing cities in this region. The objective of this exercise was to “establish
a policy oriented urban indicators database for research, policy formulation,
monitoring of the development impact of the interventions in the urban sector,
comparison of performance between cities, and improving the efficiency of
urban service delivery” (ADB 2001: x). Data on 140 indicators was collected
from 16 cities.14 These indicators were grouped into 13 main divisions:
• population, migration, and urbanization;
• municipal services;
• income disparity, unemployment, and poverty;
• urban environment;
• health and education;
• urban transport;
• urban productivity and competitiveness;
• cultural factors;
• technology and connectivity;
• local government finance;
• housing;
• urban governance and management; and
• urban land.
This database is used to construct three indexes: (i) the CDI, (ii) the
congestion index, and (iii) the connectivity index.
The CDI is a city-level version of the HDI. It combines the city product
subindex with the health, education, infrastructure, and waste management
subindices. These subindices are constructed by normalizing their component
variables, which assigns them values between 0 and 1, and then taking a
weighted average. The weights are derived using principal component analysis.
The congestion index is composed of travel time, residential density, and city
population, and provides a measure of crowding. Finally, the connectivity index
measures a city’s connectedness with the outside world, and is calculated based
on information on internet connections, corporations, tourism, and flights.
Table 6 gives the formulae for the three indices. The weighing scheme is
derived using principal component analysis.

14
The participating cities include: Bangalore (India), Bishkek (Kyrgyz Republic), Cebu,
Mandaluyong, Naga (Philippines), Colombo (Sri Lanka), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Hanoi (Viet Nam),
Hohhot, Honk Kong (China), Kathmandu (Nepal), Lahore (Pakistan), Medan (Indonesia),
Melbourne (Australia), Phnom Penh (Cambodia), Seoul (Republic of Korea), Suva (Fiji Island), and
Ulan Bator (Mongolia).
 19

Table 6
Calculation of CDI by ADB CDB
Index Formula
Infrastructure 25 x water connections + 25 x sewerage + 25 x electricity + 25 x
telephone
Waste Wastewater treated x 50 + formal solid waste disposal x 50
Health (Life expectancy – 25) x 50/60 + (32 – child mortality) x 50/31.92
Education Literacy x 25 + primary enrollment x 25 + secondary enrollment x 25 +
graduates/350 x 25
Product (log city product – log 400) x 30/2.71 + (log of residential density –
1.98) x 30/4.86 + 40 x (log population – 2.78)/6.7
City (Infrastructure index + waste index + education index + health index +
development city product index)/5
Congestion (log travel time – 2.08) x 30/2.71 + (log of residential density – 1.98) x
30/4.86 + 40 x (log population-2.78)/6.7
Connectivity (log Internet + 0.71/6.34) + log corporations/6.7 + (log tourism –
3.42)/5.75 + (log flights – 4.33)/5.27 – 0.07/3.3
Source: ADB CDB Database (2001).

MERCER HUMAN RESOURCE CONSULTING

Mercer Human Resource Consulting is the consulting business of Marsh
& McLennan Companies, with offices in 39 countries and over 15000
employees. It conducts an annual Quality of Living Survey and twice a year
Cost of Living Survey with the governments and multinational companies as
their target audience. The purpose is to provide reliable information to these
agencies/companies so as to protect the purchasing power of their employees
and compensate them for any hardship they might face on their international
assignments.

Mercer Human Resource Consulting—Cost-of-Living Survey

Mercer Human Resource Consulting conducts twice a year Cost of Living
Survey to measure differences in the cost of living that employees of
government agencies and multinational companies have to face on their
international postings, so as to ‘facilitate mobility’ and manage ‘international
assignment costs’ for the expatriates. It gather information about prices of 186
products and services in more than 250 cities in 39 countries. The goods and
services constitute a ‘standard shopping basket’ for the expatriates (Mercer
2006a). This information is then grouped into 10 categories:
• food at home,
• domestic services,
• alcohol and tobacco,
20

• utilities,
• household supplies,
• food away from home,
• health and personal care,
• transportation,
• clothing and footwear, and
• sports and leisure.
Information is also collected on additional 25 items to calculate
Accommodation costs table, Education costs table and Business Travel
expenses. Mercer calculates three cost-of-living indices: (i) the reversible mean-
to-mean index, (ii) the efficient index, and (iii) the convenience index. The
mean-to-mean index compares mean prices between the base city and host city.
The efficient index compares the average of low and mid-prices in the base city
with mean prices in the host city (for experienced consumers). The convenience
index compares the average of low and mid-prices in the base city with high
prices in the host city (for inexperienced consumers).

Mercer Human Resource Consulting—QoL Survey

Mercer Quality of Living Survey provides information on the differences
in the Quality of Life among cities around the world, with a view to assess
hardship allowance for expatriates on international assignments. “Hardship
refers to special compensation to expatriates who experience a significant
deterioration in living conditions once transferred” (Mercer 2006b).
This survey collects information on 39 QoL life determinants from 235
cities, using New York City as a base city. This information is then grouped into
ten categories:
• consumer goods (availability of food and other daily
consumption items);
• economic environment (currency exchange regulations and
banking services);
• housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, and
maintenance services);
• medical and healthcare (medical supplies and services,
infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, and air pollution);
• natural environment (climate and natural disasters);
• political and social environment (political stability, crime, and
law enforcement);
• public services and transport (electricity, water, public
transport, and traffic congestion);
• recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports, and leisure);
 21

• school and education (standards of education and availability

of schools); and
• sociocultural environment (censorship, limits on personal
freedom, etc.).

ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT

The Economist Intelligence Unit also conducts twice a year Cost of
Living Survey and an annual Quality of Living Survey. The purpose again is to
provide a tool to human resources managers and expatriate executives to
compare the cost of living and to ‘calculate fair compensation policies for
relocating employees’ in 130 cities around the world. “The purpose of a cost of
living allowance is to reimburse employees for excess living costs resulting
from a foreign assignment, based on the assumption that an expatriate has a right
to live at the assignment site in the same manner and with the same kind of
goods and services he would find at home” (EIU 2005a).

EIU—Worldwide Cost-of-Living Survey

This survey is conducted twice a year: in the first week of March for the
June (spring) edition, and in the first week of September for the December
(autumn) edition. The spring/autumn editions for the current year are compared
with the corresponding editions from the previous year. The survey collect
information on 50,000 different prices of about 160 items (products and
services) in over 130 cities across 86 countries. Prices are collected from three
types of retailers: (i) supermarkets, (ii) medium-priced retailers, and (iii) more
expensive specialty shops. They are grouped into 13 categories, ten of which are
used to calculate the weighted index, which are given below:
• shopping basket,
• utilities,
• alcohol beverages,
• clothing,
• household supplies,
• domestic help,
• personal care,
• recreation and entertainment,
• tobacco, and
• transportation.
Four other categories—housing rents, international schools, health and
sports, and business trip cost—are included in the price survey but not in the
index calculation. The cost-of-living index is calculated from this data by using
the average price (arithmetic mean) as the base. It is a weighted index and the
weights accorded to the ten categories are given in Table 7.
22

Table 7
Weights of EIU Cost-of-Living Index
Category Weight
Shopping basket 25.0
Alcohol beverages 3.5
Household supplies 4.5
Personal care 4.0
Tobacco 2.5
Utilities 6.5
Clothing 13.0
Domestic help 3.5
Recreation and entertainment 18.0
Transportation 19.5
Total 100

The EIU city report gives two indices: (i) the mean index, which
compares average prices in the home city with average prices in a foreign city;
and (ii) the high index, which compares average prices in the home city with the
highest prices in a foreign city [EIU (2005a)].

EIU—Worldwide QoL Survey

This indicator measures the level of hardship in a city. The 2005 survey
expands on previous surveys and collects information on 40 components of
hardship indicators, which are grouped into five categories. These indicators are
ranked on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 (at 0%) means no hardship and 5 (at 100%)
means extreme hardship.15 The groupings are as follows:
• Stability: prevalence of petty/violent crime, and threat of
military conflict, civil unrest/conflict, or terrorism.
• Healthcare: availability and quality of private healthcare,
availability and quality of public healthcare, availability of
over-the-counter drugs, and general healthcare indicators.
• Culture and environment: climate (humidity/temperature,
discomfort to travelers), cultural hardships (corruption,
social/religious restrictions, level of censorship, sports,

15
Individual indicators are given a rating of 1 to 5. They are then weighed according to the
above breakdown and converted into an overall index.
 23

culture), food and drink, and availability of consumer goods

and services.
• Education: availability and quality of private education, and
general public education indicators.
• Infrastructure: transport (quality of road networks, public
transport, and regional and international links); housing
(availability of good-quality housing); utilities (quality of
energy and water provision, and quality of telecommunication
infrastructure).
A combination of quantitative and qualitative data is used to construct the
index. It is accompanied by a detailed city report. Indicators are ranked on a
scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means that the QoL is similar and 5 means that it is
extremely challenging. The EIU’s QoL index is a weighted index, where 0
means that the QoL in the city is exceptional and 1 means that life is harsh [EIU
(2005b)]. The weights used in the calculation are given in Table 8 below.

Table 8
Weights of EIU QoL Index
Category Weight
Stability 25
Healthcare 20
Culture and environment 25
Education 10
Infrastructure 20
Total 100

New Zealand QoL Reporting System

The New Zealand QoL Reporting System was established in 1999. Its
aim was to measure the QoL in large urban areas of New Zealand through
perception-based surveys. The 2004 round covers 12 cities, providing
information on indicators (below) that are used to measure residents’
perceptions of different aspects of living and working in large cities:
• health,
• education,
• urban/built environment,
• employment and economy,
• sense of belonging/community cohesion,
• democracy/participation in community affairs,
24

• community safety,
• demographics, and
• housing.
About 7,800 respondents were interviewed via telephone (500 from each
city/district, and 1,500 from outside the sample cities/districts).

Canadian QoL Reporting System

The Canadian QoL Reporting System was developed in 1999 by the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It provides a QoL index for 20 urban
municipalities16 from indicators that are grouped into six factors:
• local economy,
• fairness and equity,
• natural and built environment,
• basic needs,
• personal goals and aspirations, and
• social inclusion.
The data for this exercise is derived from a larger reporting system
(Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ QoL Reporting System) that contained
hundreds of variables measuring changes in social, economic, and
environmental factors. These variables were grouped into 75 indicators.

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index

The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index measures and monitors the
subjective wellbeing of Australian population. It is based on the perception that
QoL is both subjective (how people feel about life) as well as objective (the
material conditions in which they live).
The information used to construct this index comes from telephone
interview with 2,000 respondents. The sample is representative of the national
geographical distribution of the country’s population. The index incorporates
both personal and national perspectives, and assesses people’s perception of the
following factors:
• life as a whole,
• standard of living,
• health,
• achievements in life,
• personal relationships,
• personal safety,

16
The system started with 16 municipalities in 1999. It was expanded to include four more
municipalities by 2004 and covers 40% of population.
 25

• community connectedness, and

• future security.
The National Wellbeing Index measures how satisfied people are with
life in Australia. It evaluates people’s perception of the following four factors:
• life in Australia,
• economic situation,
• state of the environment, and
• social conditions.

Creativity Index
This composite index was developed by Richard Florida to measure the
creative capabilities of American cities. The creativity index is a combination of
four (equally weighted) indices: (i) the talent index, (ii) the high-tech index, (iii)
the innovation index, and (iv) the diversity index. The talent index measures the
creative class’s share of the workforce. The high-tech index is based on the
Milken Institute’s tech pole index. The innovation index measures patent per
capita, and the diversity index measures an area’s openness to different kinds of
people and ideas.

5. PAKISTANI CITIES IN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Before making any proposal for the development of a system for
measuring and ranking Pakistani cities, we explore efforts that have already
been carried out in ranking places in Pakistan. Interestingly, one notes that these
ranking exercises take districts as their unit of analysis and do not measure and
rank cities. Siddiqui (2007), in testing alternative theories for human
development, has ranked districts of Pakistan based on the ‘basic need’
approach. Jamal, Khan, Toor and Amir (2003) have also ranked districts of
Pakistan on the basis of deprivation indices. These indices are based on
education, housing quality and congestion, residential housing services and
employment sectors and are constructed from Population and Housing Census
data of 1998. Pasha et al (1998) develop a district ranking system for Pakistan
based on economic and social development. The social development indicator
includes education, health and water supply. Whereas, the economic
development indicators includes income and wealth, agriculture, housing
conditions, transport and labor.17 Hussain (2003) has also calculated Human
Development Index at the district level for Pakistan, following the same
methodology as used in the construction of cross country HDI. At the level of
government, Centre for Research on Poverty Reduction and Income Distribution

17
This is preceded by their earlier work on social development ranking of districts. See Pasha et al
(1996). Also see Pasha, Mallik and Jamal (1990), Jamal and Mallik (1988) and Pasha and Hasan
(1986).
26

(CRIPRID), Planning Commission, Government of Pakistan, provides a ranking

of districts on the progress of selected millennium development goals (MDG)
indicators [(Pakistan, Government of (2006b)]. Moreover, Government of
Pakistan, since 2004-05, also conducts Pakistan Social and Living Standards
Measurement Survey on annual basis. This survey collects data on education,
health and housing, water supply and sanitation and ranks districts on these
important indicators [Pakistan, Government of (2006a)].
At the city level, UN–Habitat’s Global Urban Indicators Program covers
Karachi and Lahore. This program has calculated a CDI for a sample of 162
countries according to which Lahore scores a value of 61.1—a below-average
score. The mean value for the CDI for this sample is 64.3 and the median is
68.1. Figure 1 shows the relative position of Lahore vis-à-vis other cities.

Figure 1
City Developemnt Index

120

100

80
CDI Value

60 CDI

40

20

0
rid

rta

d
s

s
ue

re

bo

on

sa
m

re

cu
ay
ul

nc

az
ar

da

on
ai
oh

eb
ol

ho

ha
ad

ci
ag

om
ka
Pa

Sp
Ai

ar

as
w

la

G
kh

gh

ag
D

un
La

ns
M

Pr

Ja
la

ab
ol
os

am
oc

Ba

tt
o

of

As
Bu

Ki
C

hi
Sa

as
en
St

rt

C
C
Po
Bu

e/
dr
An
o
nt
Sa

Figure 2 (below) plots CDI values against city ranks—Lahore, ranked at

89, lies at the lower end of the tail.
 27

Fig. 2
Ranking of World Cities by GUO City Development Index

120

100

80
CDI Value

60 L

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
CDI Rank

Lahore is also a participating city in ADB’s CDB for the Asia and Pacific
Region, according to which it falls in the “low-developed city” category,18
which ranks low on the connectivity index (24) and high on the congestion
index (73.1). Figure 3 plots connectivity index and figure 4 plots congestion
index.

Fig. 3
120

100

80

60

40

20

0
ng
ng

ne

nh

ar
du

an

bo

re

t
ek
u

ka

va

a
l

oi
ou

ho
or

eb

ag
an

at
ho
yo
ou

ha

Su

Pe
hk
Ko

an

ed

om
Se

oh
al

ba
C

N
H

La
lu

Bis
D
elb

ng

ol

H
m
g

an
da
th
on

C
Ba

no
M

Ka

la
an
H

Ph

U
M

Connectivity

18
The ADB CDI is similar to the UN-HABITAT’s CDI. We therefore do not discuss
Lahore’s position on this index.
28

Fig. 4

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
ng

nh

ar
e

ng

du

e
bo

an

k
t
ka

re
l

oi

va
ou

ho

ke

un
or

eb

ag
an

at
ho

yo

Pe
ha

Ko

an

Su
om

ed
Se

al

oh

sh

bo
ba

N
H
La

lu
D

m
ng

M
H

ol

m
g

Bi

el
an
da

th
on

C
Ba

no

M
Ka

la
an

Ph

U
M

Congestion

According to Mercer’s yearly cost-of-living index (Table 9), Karachi was

ranked at 140 in 2006, with a cost-of-living index of 56.1, having dropped many
places from its 2005 rank. It compares well with many other South Asian cities,
however, (Dhaka 62.5 and Bangalore 56.4) except for Mumbai, which stands at
68 (cost-of-living index = 79.9).

Table 9
Mercer Cost-of-Living Index
Rankings Cost-of-Living Index

March 2006 March 2005 City Country March 2006 March 2005
68 105 Mumbai India 79.9 70.8
131 127 Dhaka Bangladesh 62.5 62.5
139 141 Bangalore India 56.4 51.7
140 136 Karachi Pakistan 56.1 56.1
Source: Mercer Human Resource Consulting, Cost-of-Living Survey,
Worldwide Rankings 2006.

The EIU’s QoL index for 2005 rates life in Karachi as extremely hard,
with an index value of 60% (0% means no hardship and 100% means extreme
hardship, a score above 50% means that life is severely restricted due to
terrorism, etc.).
 29

It is evident that only two Pakistani cities (Karachi and Lahore) feature in
international/regional comparisons, while other major cities do not appear in the
picture.

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Cities are the loci of most human activities-economic, social as well as
cultural. With nearly half of world population living in cities, and prospects of
an ever increasing share in future, especially in Asia and Africa, cities in these
regions face many challenges. More jobs will have to be created for the
swarming labor force, urban amenities will also become under added pressure.
Further, globalization of economic activities has made both physical and human
capital highly mobile. Especially, people with skill and talent have preference
for areas offering ‘good life’. Cities face increasing competition to attract and
retain investment and human capital.
In this context, city rankings become important as they provide a tool to
gauge the multiple attributes of urban areas and to make inter-temporal or inter-
regional comparisons. However, Pakistan lacks a city ranking system at present.
The only notable efforts to measure Pakistani cities—UN-HABITAT’s GUIP
and ADB’s CDB—have limited scope: (i) they are restricted to a maximum of
two cities, (ii) their survey exercises are not carried out on a yearly basis, and
(iii) they are limited by their own agenda. The GUIP was developed to monitor
progress on UN-HABITAT’s agenda while ADB’s Urban Indicators for
Managing Cities scrutinizes the development of its urban strategy.
There is clearly a need to develop a city ranking system for Pakistan.
Many issues need to be addressed in designing such a system. Based on our
previous discussion we can classify these as: (1) choice of indicator-what do we
want to measure? (2) type of indicator-objective vs. subjective; (3) attributes to
be measured; and (4) weighing scheme.
Coming to the first question, three main types of indicators were
discussed- QoL, cost of living, and city performance. Of these, quality of life
studies are most widely used. National governments throughout the world
monitor quality of life of its citizens since improving well-being is an important
concern for any government. Recently it is also used as a promotional tool in
city marketing to attract residents and businesses. We propose that a nationwide
QoL monitoring system should be developed for Pakistan. But since QoL refers
to individuals only and do not measure city performance, this exercise may be
supplemented by a performance-based city ranking system for major cities in
Pakistan.
The second issue in QoL monitoring system is about the choice of
indicator, i.e., whether to opt for an objective or subjective indicator. Objective
indicators (infant mortality, literacy rate, infrastructure, etc.) have many
advantages: (i) they are easily defined and measured more precisely; (ii)
objectivity also means there is general consensus about the value of what is
being measured, e.g., everyone believes that infant mortality is bad and literacy
is good and does not rely on individual perception. They can “assess societal
qualities that do not rest solely on their influence on subjective well-being, but
30

which are based on widely shared values” (Diener and Suh 1997: 194).
Moreover, objective indicators are easier to compare across time and
geographical space [Costanza, Farley and Templet (2002)]. Their weakness lies
in the fact that they are chosen in an ad hoc manner, depending on the subjective
opinion of the researcher selecting them. Diener (1995) has proposed a value-
based index of QoL that uses variables that reflect a society’s common values.
The greatest limitation of objective indicators is that they might not reflect
people’s experience of well being (ibid).
Subjective indicators, on the other hand, measure individual perceptions
of well being based on a respondent’s judgment rather than that of policymakers
or researchers. However, they suffer from the weakness that similar life
circumstances might be viewed differently by different respondents, making it
difficult to take individual responses as valid and accurate. Such indicators
might not reflect the objective quality of community life as much as
temperaments and personal relationship (Diener and Suh 1997).
Which factor should be given more importance is also controversial. How
should weights be assigned to different factors? In the initial years of city
rankings (the late 1970s and early 1980s), the practice was to weigh each factor
equally. This practice was discontinued since people are apt to differentiate
between the importances of different factors. Currently, statistical procedures
like principal component method and the hedonic approach are used to assign
weight. Rogerson (1997) has worked around this problem by using a survey
method in which respondents were asked to order different attributes according
to the priority they attached to each (cited from Rogerson 1999).
To estimate QoL in Pakistani cities, this paper recommends that objective
indicators be supplemented by subjective ones, since both capture different
dimensions of well being. Objective indicators measure “facts” (such as housing
and infrastructure) while subjective indicators focus on “softer” issues such as
the perceived adequacy of dwelling (Veenhoven 2004). The first type measure
attributes at the city level and the latter at a personal level. This is in line with
Rogerson (1999) and endorsed by Diener and Suh (1997) and Veenhoven
(2004). “What is good for the people cannot be determined without taking their
views into account” (Diener and Suh 1997: 207). An objective indicator should
include attributes around which consensus has emerged. These include measures
of economic well being, housing, health and education, work opportunities,
infrastructure (public services), transport, land, environment, public safety,
recreation, cultural activities, and urban governance. The exercise should be
done on an annual basis. This should be supplemented by an annual residents’
perception survey about their quality of life. With respect to the performance-
based city rating system for Pakistan, Table A1 (appendix) lists factors used in
the construction of City Development Index (CDI) for Lahore and Karachi,
which can serve as a useful starting point for developing such a system. The
next important issue in this exercise concerns data. City level data on most
indicators is not readily available. While previous studies [Jamal, Khan, Toor
and Amir (2003), Pasha et al (1998) etc.] had used census data for their analysis,
it is not a suitable source if conditions/performance of cities and quality of life is
 31

to be monitored on an annual basis. The study proposes to develop a databank

for the indicators discussed above. Initially a survey team could collect data
from the city governments and other government departments working at the
city level, which should be updated annually.

REFERENCES
ADB. 2001. Urban Indicators for Managing Cities: Cities Data Book. Eds., M.
S. Westfall and V. A. de Villa. Manila: ADB.
Biagi, B., D. Lambiri, and V. Royuela. 2006. Quality of Life in the Economic
and Urban Economics Literature. Working Paper No. 200610. Centre for
North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardina.
Available at: www.crenos.it/working/pdf/06-10.pdf
Blomquist, G. C., M. C. Berger, and J. P. Hoehn. 1988. New Estimates of
Quality of Life in Urban Areas. American Economic Review 41: 169–186.
Booysen, F. (2002) An Overview and Evaluation of Composite Indices of
Development. Social Indicators Research, 59: 115-151.
Bramston, P., G. Pretty and H. Chipuer (2002) Unravelling Subjective Quality
of Life: An Investigation of Individual and Community Determinants. Social
Indicators Research, 59:261-274.
Cobb, C. W. (2000) Measurement Tools and the Quality of Life. Redefining
Progress. San Francisco. USA. At: www.rprogress.org.
Costanza, R., J. Farley, and P. Templet (2002) Quality of Life and the
Distribution of Wealth and Resources, in R. Constanza and S. E. Jorgensen
(eds.) Understanding and Solving Environmental Problems in the 21st
Century. Elsevier Science Ltd.
Clark, D., J. Kahn, H, Ofek (1988) City Size, Quality of Life, and the
Urbanization Deflator of the GNP: 1910-1984. Southern Economic Journal
54: January, 701-714.
Crafts, N. F. R. (1997) Some Dimensions of the ‘Quality of Life’ During the
British Industrial Revolution. Economic History Review, L (4): 617-639.
Cummins, R. A., R. Eckersley, J. Pallant, J. Van Vugt, J. Shelley, M. Pusey, and
R. Misajon. 2001. Australian Unity Well-Being Index. Survey 1: Report 1.
Australian Unity Limited and Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin
University. Available at:
http://acqol.deakin.edu.au/index_wellbeing/index.htm
Diener, E., and E. Suh. 1997. Measuring Quality of Life: Economic, Social, and
Subjective Indicators. Social Indicators Research 40: 189–216.
Duranton, G. and D. Puga (2001) Nursery Cities: Urban Diversity, Process
Innovation and the Life Cycle of Products. American Economic Review 91:
December, 1454-1477.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2005a) World-wide Cost of Living Survey.
Available at: http://wcol.eiu.com
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2005b) World-wide QoL Survey. Available
at: http://wqol.eiu.com
32

Fahey, T., B. Nolan, and C. T. Whelan. 2003. Monitoring Quality of Life in

Europe. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions. Available at:
http://www.eurofound.eu.int/pubdocs/2002/108/en/1/ef02108en.pdf
Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2004. The FCM Quality of Life
Reporting System. Highlights Report 2004. Quality of Life in Canadian
Municipalities. Available at: http://www.fcm.ca/english/qol/reports.html
Florida, R. 2002. The Economic Geography of Talent. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 92 (4): 743–755.
Glaeser, E. L., H. D. Kallal, J. A. Scheinkman, and A. Shleifer (1992) Growth in
Cities. Journal of Political Economy 100: December, 1126-1152.
Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited. 2005. Quality of Life in New Zealand’s
Six Largest Cities—Residents’ Survey. Available at:
www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf2004/Quality_of_Life_2004_full_report.pdf
Hall, P. 1995. Towards a General Urban Theory. In J. Brocthie, M. Batty, E.
Blakely, eds., Cities in Competition. Melbourne: Longman.
Ham, S. A., S. Levin, A. I. Zlot, R. R. Andrews, and R. Miles. 2004. Ranking of
Cities According to Public Health Criteria: Pitfalls and Opportunities.
American Journal of Public Health 94 (4).
Haque, N. U. and D. Nayab (eds.) Cities: Engine of Growth. Pakistan Institute
of Development Economics. Islamabad.
Hasan, Lubna (2007) On Ranking Cities: Issues and Options, in Nadeem Ul
Haque and Durre Nayab (eds.) Cities: Engine of Growth. Pakistan Institute
of Development Economics. Islamabad.
Hussain, A. (2003) Poverty, Growth and Governance. Pakistan National Human
development Report. United Nations Development Programme.
Jamal, H., A. J. Khan, I. A. Toor and N. Amir (2003) Mapping the Spatial
Deprivation of Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review 42: Summer, 91-
111.
Jamal, H. and S. Malik (1988) Shifting patterns in development rank ordering:
A case study of the districts of Sindh Province, Pakistan Development
Review 27: Summer, 159-182.
Jensen, O. B. (2005) Branding the Contemporary City-Urban Branding as
Regional Growth Agenda? Plenary paper for Regional Studies Association
Conference ‘Regional Growth Agendas’. Aalborg, 28th to 31st May, 2005.
Aalborg, United Kingdom.
Langlois, A. and D. E. Anderson (2002) Resolving the Quality of Life/Well-
being Puzzle: Toward a New Model. Canadian Journal of Regional
Sciences, XXV: Autumn, 510-512.
Lanteigne, C. A. (2005) Quality of Life in Cities. Unpublished Master’s thesis.
The University of New Brunswick.
Lijn, N. V. D. (undated) Measuring Well-Being with Composite Indicators, HDI
PQLI, BWI for 133 Countries for 1975, 1980, 1985, 1988, 1992.
Luger, M. I. 1996. Quality of Life Differences and Urban and Regional
Outcomes: A Review. Housing Policy Debate 7 (4): 749–771.
 33

McCrea, R., T. Shyy and R. Stimson (2006) What is the strength of the Link
Between Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality? Applied
Research in Quality of Life, 1: 79-96.
Melbourne City Research. Undated. City Ranking and Livability—Summary of
Studies Available at:
www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/rsrc/PDFs/Research/CityBenchmarkingand
LiveabilitySummaryofStudiesSurveys.pdf
Mercer Human Resource Consulting (2006a) Cost of Living Report 2006.
Summary available at: http://www.mercerhr.com.
Mercer Human Resource Consulting (2006b) Quality of Living Survey 2006.
Available at: http://www.mercerhr.com.
Naude, W., S. Rossouw, & W. Krugell (2006) The Quality of Metropolitan City
Life in South Africa. Work Well Research Unit for People, Policy &
Performance, and School of Economics, Risk-Management and International
Trade, North-West University, Potchefstroom. South Africa.
Nayab, Durre (2007) The City in Human Life, in Nadeem Ul Haque and Durre
Nayab (eds.) Cities: Engine of Growth. Pakistan Institute of Development
Economics. Islamabad.
Nussbaum, M. and A. K. Sen (1993) The Quality of Life. Oxford. Clarendon
Press.
Pakistan, Government of (2006a) Pakistan Social and Living Standards
Measurement Survey (2004-2005). Federal Bureau of Statistics, Government
of Pakistan, Islamabad.
Pakistan, Government of (2006b) Pakistan Millennium Development Goals
Report 2006. Centre for Research on Poverty Reduction and Income
Distribution (CRIPRID), Planning Commission, Government of Pakistan,
Islamabad.
Pasha, H. A., S. Malik, and H. Jamal (1990) The changing profile of regional
development in Pakistan, Pakistan Journal of Applied Economics 9.
Pasha, A. G., H. Pasha, R. Ghaus, A. R. Khan, N. Ahmed and R. Khan (1996)
Social Development Ranking of Districts of Pakistan. SPDC Research
Report no. 10. Social Policy and Development Centre, Karachi
Pasha, A. G., H. Pasha, R. Ghaus, A. R. Khan, N. Ahmed and R. Khan (1998)
Social and Economic Development. SPDC Research Report no. 18. Social
Policy and Development Centre, Karachi.
Pasha, A. H and Tariq Hasan (1986) Development Ranking of Districts of
Pakistan in Ijaz Nabi (ed) The Quality of Life in Pakistan: Studies in Social
Sector Economics. Vanguard. Lahore.
Quigley J. M. (1998) Urban Diversity and Economic Growth. Journal of
Economic Perspectives 12: Spring, 127-138.
Rahman, T., R. C. Mittelhammer, and P. Wandschneider (2003) Measuring the
Quality of Life Across Countries: A Sensitivity Analysis of Well-Being
Indices. Paper prepared for presentation at WIDER International Conference
on Inequality, Poverty and Human Well-Being, May 30-31, 2003. Helsinki,
Finland.
34

Rogerson, R. J. 1999. Quality of Life and City Competitiveness. Urban Studies

36 (5–6): 969–985.
Shackman, G., Y. L. Liu, and X. Wang. 2005. Measuring Quality of Life Using
Free and Public Domain Data. Social Research Update 4. Available at:
www.soc.surrey.ac.ul/sru
Shapiro, J. M. 2006. Smart Cities: Quality of Life, Productivity, and the Growth
Effects of Human Capital. Review of Economics and Statistics 88 (2).
Siddiqui, R (2007) The Role of Household Income and Public Provision of
Social Services in Satisfaction of Basic Needs in Pakistan: A Cross-Districts
Analysis. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual General Meeting of the
Paksitan Society of Development Economics. Lahore, December 2006.
Sveikauskas, L (1975) The Productivity of Cities. Quarterly Journal of
Economics 89: August, 393-413.
Turksever, A. N. E. and G. Atalik (2001) Possibilities and Limitations for the
Measurement of the Quality of Life in Urban Areas. Social Indicators
Research, 53: 163-187.
United Nations Center for Human Settlement (UNCHS). 2007. The State of the
World’s Cities. UNCHS.
United Nations Center for Human Settlement (UNCHS). 2001. The State of the
World’s Cities. UNCHS.
Veenhoven, R. 2004. Subjective Measures of Well-being. Discussion Paper No.
2004/07. United Nations University. World Institute for Development Policy
Research.
Wish, N. B. (1986) Are We Really Measuring the QoL? Well-Being Has
Subjective Dimensions, as well as Objective Ones. American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, 45: January, 93-99.

Appendix

Table A1
Dimensions of CDI as measured by ADB
Demographic City Population

Health and Education Person per Hospital Bed/Doctor/Nurse

School Enrollment Rates
Tertiary Graduates
School Children per Classroom
Urban Productivity City Product
Employment by Industry
Unemployment
Household Expenditure
Housing House Price to Income Ratio
House Cost to Income Ratio
Infrastructure Water Connections
 35

Investment/ expenditure per capita

Electricity Connections
Investment/ expenditure per capita
Solid Waste Collection Household Number
Investment/ expenditure per capita
Urban Environment Solid Waste Generation
Sewage Disposal
Waste Water treated
Energy Usage
Noise Complaint
Pollution
Solid Waste Collection
Urban Transport Travel Time
Expenditure on Roads
Road Congestion
Automobile Ownership
New Technology Telephone Connections
Internet Connections
Culture News Papers/Media
Cultural Events/Attendance
Museums/Attendance
Public Safety Crimes
Urban Land Vacant Government Land
Vacant Land with Planning Permission
Public Open Space
Prime Commercial Land Price
Prime Rental Cost
Urban Governance Functions of Local government
Annual Plans
Voters Participation
Source: ADB (2001)