Efficient and Nice – Urban Sustainability and Quality of Life: The Socioeconomic Perspective

Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

The concept of quality of life has changed in both significance and signifiers in recent years. Global, national, or regional problems have time and time again influenced the quality of life and well-being (Veleardi 2007). A greater knowledge of environmental issues and/or a greater sensitivity regarding certain social issues has led to the consideration of additional elements that can contribute to increasing the quality of life. Following the realization that economic growth is unsustainable (Meadows et al. 1972; IUSN, UNWP, WWF 1980), the concept of quality of life has become strongly linked to that of sustainable growth. In the long term, current needs cannot ignore the effect that satisfaction of them can have on future generations (WCED 1987: Brundtland Report).

References

  1. AmbienteItalia (2003) European common indicators. Towards a local sustainability profile. Final report for the European Commission. Available at http://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/eci_final_report.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2017
  2. Battaglia M, Meloni E, Cautillo A (2014) Technical assessment and public perception of environmental issues: the case of the municipality of Pisa. Local Environ 19(7):786–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brusa G (2008) La percezione del valore. Maggioli, MilanGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell A, Converse PE, Rodgers WL (1976) The quality of American life: perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Easterlin RA (1974) Does economic growth improve human lot? Some empirical evidence. In: David PA, Melvin WR (eds) Nation and households in economic growth: essays in honour of Moses Abramowitz. Academic, New York, pp 89–125Google Scholar
  6. European Commission (2015) Indicators for sustainable cities. doi: https://doi.org/10.2779/61700
  7. EUROSTAT (2010) Crime and criminal justice, Statistics in Focus, 58/2010Google Scholar
  8. Glatzer W (1984) In: Zapf W (ed) Lebensqualität in der Bundesrepublik: objektive Lebensbedingungen und subjektives, Wohlbefinden edn. Campus-Verlag, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  9. IUSN, UNWP, WWF (1980) World conservation strategy. Available at https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/wcs-004.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2017
  10. Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2004) Strategy maps: converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. Martincigh L (2003) Qualità urbana e Mobilità sostenibile. In: Urbanistica tre. Edicola del Dipartimento di Studi Urbani, Università degli Studi Roma TreGoogle Scholar
  12. McLoughlin JP (1969) Urban & regional planning: a systems approach. Faber & Faber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Meadows DH, Randers J, Meadows D, Behrens WW (1972) The limits to growth. Universe Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Stevenson B, Wolfers J (2008) Economic growth and subjective well-being: reassessing the Easterlin paradox, Brooking Panel on Economic Activity, Spring 2008Google Scholar
  15. Strümpel B, Scitovsky T (1976) The joyless economy: an inquiry into human satisfaction and consumer dissatisfaction. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 147–149Google Scholar
  16. Velardi (2007) Rapporto Economico e Sociale, AUR, 2007Google Scholar
  17. WCED (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. Available at http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2017
  18. Zajczyk F (1997) Il mondo degli indicatori sociali: una guida alla ricerca sulla qualità della vita, vol 318. Carocci, RomeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of ManagementSant’Anna School of Advanced Studies of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations