Sustainable urban liveability : a practical proposal based on a composite indicator

sustainability Article Sustainable Urban Liveability: A Practical Proposal Based on a Composite Indicator Beatriz Valcárcel-Aguiar 1,* , Pilar Murias 1and David Rodríguez-González 2 1Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Santiago de Compostela, Av. Burgo das Nacións s/n, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain; mdelpilar[email protected] 2Department of Economics, Business and Economy School, University of A Coruña, Elviña Campus, A Coruña 15071, Spain; david.r[email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-881-811-555 Received: 15 November 2018; Accepted: 19 December 2018; Published: 24 December 2018   Abstract: This article presents a proposal for a composite index to assess the degree of sustainable urban liveability. It makes two key contributions to this field of study. The first is a proposal for the concept of sustainable urban liveability that includes the need to meet a minimum number of environmental conditions in terms of resource consumption and the deterioration of the environment. The second contribution is the use of a non-compensatory aggregation technique in order to construct the composite index. This kind of aggregation technique does not allow trade-offs between partial indicators. In the particular context of sustainable urban liveability, it prevents poor performance by the natural environment indicators from being compensated by positive results in the remaining indicators. The proposed composite index for sustainable urban liveability is applied to the case of 58 Spanish cities. The results reveal significant differences in the degree of sustainable urban liveability for this group of cities, but more importantly, they highlight the potential of this proposal for urban management. Keywords: sustainable urban liveability; urban liveability; composite indicator; goal programming; Spanish cities 1. Introduction Within the current context of growing urbanisation, improving residents’ liveability conditions has become a key objective in city planning and management [ 1 – 3 ]. Improved liveability requires the development of tools capable of providing prior estimates of the concept. Consequently, the last few years have seen numerous proposals for assessing the liveability conditions of certain urban environments [4–8]. These recent proposals have been accompanied by a growing amount of urban literature revealing the conflict between liveability and environmental sustainability in our cities, addressed from both a theoretical perspective [ 9 – 15 ] and based on empirical research [ 16 ]. Literature has shown that cities may experience temporarily high standards of liveability, albeit at the cost of the deterioration of the natural environment. This is a short-sighted approach given that the natural environment provides the biological conditions necessary to sustain human life, and also plays a crucial role in production and consumption processes [ 17 , 18 ]. For this reason, certain theoretical proposals for estimating liveability-associated concepts sustain that prior to assessing a city’s economic, social and physical conditions, it is necessary to determine a series of minimum environmental requirements that will guarantee the future sustainability of these conditions [ 19 , 20 ]. From an operational perspective, this would require the decision not to take advantage of better performance in economic, social and Sustainability 2019,11, 86; doi:10.3390/su11010086 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019,11, 86 2 of 18 physical conditions to compensate for poor environmental performance. For example, when estimating liveability, high levels of economic activity should not be used to offset high levels of air pollution since this influences the liveability of future generations. Whilst in empirical terms, most research addressing the issue of urban liveability includes environmental sustainability in the theoretical framework, very few studies have explicitly highlighted the conflict existing between these and other dimensions [ 21 , 22 ]. Indeed, we have no knowledge of liveability studies that consider this conflict from a non-compensatory approach between environmental considerations and the other dimensions included in the concept. This article therefore responds to the demand for instruments capable of looking beyond the short-term vision of urban liveability and provides an effective and long-term perspective. In this sense, the article attempts to make a twofold contribution in both theoretical and methodological terms. From a theoretical perspective (see Section 2), in order to overcome the limitations of the traditional concept of liveability a new sustainable urban liveability concept is proposed. Based on the classic concept, it focuses particularly on the environmental aspects of cities. It can therefore be defined as the set of attributes or physical, social and economic characteristics of a specific urban area, which, once improved, will have a positive impact on residents’ quality of life, yet without compromising the city’s future liveability. The methodological approach to the concept of sustainable urban liveability is based on a proposal for a composite index constructed using a multicriteria aggregation method based on goal programming [ 23 ]. The aggregation technique (see Section 3) employed is particularly appropriate for estimating sustainable urban liveability due to the fact that it allows for the non-compensation of certain indicators. Consequently, aggregation based on goal programming means that cities that fail to meet certain minimum environmental standards are not able to offset their poor performance in indicators relating to this dimension with positive performance levels for indicators in the remaining dimensions. Although the composite indicator for sustainable urban liveability could be applied to any developed urban context, for the purpose of this article, its effectiveness will be validated through its application to the case of 58 Spanish cities (see Section 4). In this sense, in addition to providing an insight into the degree of sustainable urban liveability Spanish cities offer, the results reveal the immense potential of this tool for urban managers and planners. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to highlight a major shortcoming of the traditional concept of urban liveability, namely the non-consideration of environmental sustainability as a sine qua non condition in ensuring perdurable liveability. In this context, the contribution of the article is twofold. On the one hand, the concept of sustainable urban liveability is posited as a means of complementing approaches to the concept by incorporating the need to satisfy natural requirements. On the other hand, the article also proposes an instrument to estimate this concept by using a composite indicator based on goal programming that allows for the non-compensation of partial indicators. Both research outcomes could be of particular use for urban managers and planners in order to implement policies that allow for enhancing the urban living conditions, not only in the present, but also in the future. 2. Sustainable Urban Liveability: Concept and Approach Newman [ 24 ] has proposed the use of the extended metabolism model of the city for urban planning, which intended to describe how cities operate as dynamic systems and their implicit complexities. This model highlights the crucial role of the natural environment, in that it provides the material and energy resources necessary in order to obtain a series of economic, social and physical infrastructures that create numerous opportunities for residents’ liveability. However, the physical and biological processes used to obtain these infrastructures also imply a series of unwanted effects that will impact on other urban considerations, as well as on the environment itself, both in terms of the overconsumption of resources and waste generation. Sustainability 2019,11, 86 3 of 18 The way urban systems work, outlined in Figure 1, reveals the conflict that may arise between cities’ degree of liveability and their sustainability. As a result, cities may offer a high level of liveability, albeit at the cost of environmental degradation [ 24 ]. For example, a city may be considered liveable due to considerable job opportunities and a high degree of economic activity. However, these apparent advantages may also have a negative impact on environmental conditions, such as excessive air pollution caused by traffic congestion. In this particular example, urban managers should implement public transport measures and more efficient transport infrastructures to avoid these effects. A negative environmental impact poses a real threat for cities’ capacity to maintain their level of liveability in the future. Given that cities should work to secure a sustainable liveability, some authors have addressed the various ways of improving liveability without undermining environmental sustainability [ 12 , 16 ]. However, these methods require a series of prior environmental considerations to add to the classic notion of liveability. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18 liveability, albeit at the cost of environmental degradation [24]. For example, a city may be considered liveable due to considerable job opportunities and a high degree of economic activity. However, these apparent advantages may also have a negative impact on environmental conditions, such as excessive air pollution caused by traffic congestion. In this particular example, urban managers should implement public transport measures and more efficient transport infrastructures to avoid these effects. A negative environmental impact poses a real threat for cities’ capacity to maintain their level of liveability in the future. Given that cities should work to secure a sustainable liveability, some authors have addressed the various ways of improving liveability without undermining environmental sustainability [12,16]. However, these methods require a series of prior environmental considerations to add to the classic notion of liveability. Figure 1. How an urban system works. Source: authors’ own based on Newman [25]. The concept of sustainable urban liveability posited in this article is based on the classic concept of urban liveability [15,16] applied to a long-term perspective. In this sense, we consider sustainable urban liveability to be the set of economic, social and physical attributes or characteristics of a certain urban area, which, when improved without deteriorating the environmental conditions, will have a positive impact on residents’ quality of life. Environmental sustainability is important in order to maintain liveability for future generations. Cities should therefore be capable of achieving this degree of liveability, whilst at the same time guaranteeing a minimum number of environmental conditions in terms of resource consumption and waste generation. The concept of sustainable urban liveability is complex in that it comprises multiple dimensions. It should therefore be centred on the analysis of two groups of considerations, which correspond to the two environments that make up an urban system: the built environment and the natural environment. The built environment refers to those elements created by humans and which have a greater presence in cities. In accordance with Newman’s model [24], liveability, based on the short-term approach, is associated with the combination of these elements. Regarding the classification of the elements that comprise the built environment and which determine the short term liveability of an urban area, literature has failed to reach a consensus beyond three broad areas: economic, social and physical [26,27]. As for the aspects included in each, urban agglomeration and city-based processes may have a positive impact (city effect) or a negative one (urban overload) [28]. Figure 1. How an urban system works. Source: authors’ own based on Newman [25]. The concept of sustainable urban liveability posited in this article is based on the classic concept of urban liveability [ 15 , 16 ] applied to a long-term perspective. In this sense, we consider sustainable urban liveability to be the set of economic, social and physical attributes or characteristics of a certain urban area, which, when improved without deteriorating the environmental conditions, will have a positive impact on residents’ quality of life. Environmental sustainability is important in order to maintain liveability for future generations. Cities should therefore be capable of achieving this degree of liveability, whilst at the same time guaranteeing a minimum number of environmental conditions in terms of resource consumption and waste generation. The concept of sustainable urban liveability is complex in that it comprises multiple dimensions. It should therefore be centred on the analysis of two groups of considerations, which correspond to the two environments that make up an urban system: the built environment and the natural environment. The built environment refers to those elements created by humans and which have a greater presence in cities. In accordance with Newman’s model [ 24 ], liveability, based on the short-term approach, is associated with the combination of these elements. Regarding the classification of the elements that comprise the built environment and which determine the short term liveability of an urban area, literature has failed to reach a consensus beyond three broad areas: economic, social and Sustainability 2019,11, 86 4 of 18 physical [ 26 , 27 ]. As for the aspects included in each, urban agglomeration and city-based processes may have a positive impact (city effect) or a negative one (urban overload) [28]. The economic dimension of the built environment refers to the city as a center of economic activity, considering specific aspects related to individual urban conditions [ 29 ]. Literature in this area considers that the agglomeration of people has a positive impact on certain aspects such as consumption capacity [ 30 – 32 ], employment [ 30 , 33 ] and economic activity [ 28 , 30 , 34 , 35 ]. In contrast, cities can impact negatively on other aspects of liveability in this dimension, such as economic inequality [ 36 , 37 ], which tends to be higher than that experienced in other types of territory. The social dimension provides a support network enabling urban residents to communicate with one another and take part in community life [ 26 ]. The high concentration of urban residents and activity levels have a positive impact on human capital [ 32 , 38 ]. However, urban agglomeration would appear to have an adverse effect on crucial social issues such as civic involvement in cooperation and volunteer networks [39,40] or citizen security [41,42]. The physical environment supports coexistence and provides a setting for urban residents [ 26 ]. There is a considerable degree of consensus regarding the twofold impact of agglomeration and processes on the physical environment of urban areas [ 28 , 31 , 43 ]. On the one hand, the density of urban populations is propitious for a series of infrastructures and education, health, transport and leisure services, which will have a positive impact on urban liveability. However, this same density has also led to the emergence and aggravation of problems such as the lack of housing and green areas, as well as traffic congestion. In turn, the natural environment refers to the biological characteristics of nature. They play a key role in urban systems in two essential ways: firstly, the natural environment provides the raw materials and energy resources necessary for urban systems, and secondly, it assimilates the waste generated as a result of the processes these systems require. It is therefore clear that the agglomeration of people and activities in cities will have an adverse impact on the natural environment [ 44 ]. This impact consists essentially of the overconsumption of natural resources and an increase in the amount of waste generated. A conceptual model for the two types of dimensions of the built and natural environment is provided in Figure 2. It illustrates various dimensions and sub-dimensions included in the sustainable urban liveability concept. As can be observed, the conceptual model attempts to differentiate between those sub-dimensions on which urban agglomeration has a positive impact (in bold) and those on which the impact is negative (in italics). Given that sustainable urban liveability is a multi-dimensional and abstract concept, it must be estimated rather than measured directly. The composite indicator methodology applied in this case is highly appropriate for estimating such concepts. It is based on an approach to the various dimensions included in the concept through the application of one or various empirical variables known as “partial indicators.” The partial indicators that are representative of each dimension are weighted and aggregated in a single concept measurement known as a composite indicator [ 45 ] (for further information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of composite indicator methodology, see Nardo et al. [46]). As occurs with all multidimensional concepts, no single dimension alone can guarantee a city’s liveability. Moreover, given that the objective is to ensure that the current situation will not compromise future liveability, positive performance in economic, social or physical dimensions would be pointless without compliance with a series of minimum environmental standards that are capable of guaranteeing that the level of urban liveability achieved can be sustained in the long term. In order to comply with the theoretical requirements provided, an aggregation technique is needed that will prevent positive outcomes for the built environment from offsetting the poor results obtained in the partial indicators of the natural environment. Sustainability 2019,11, 86 5 of 18 Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18 Figure 2. Conceptual framework of sustainable urban liveability. Given that sustainable urban liveability is a multi-dimensional and abstract concept, it must be estimated rather than measured directly. The composite indicator methodology applied in this case is highly appropriate for estimating such concepts. It is based on an approach to the various dimensions included in the concept through the application of one or various empirical variables known as “partial indicators.” The partial indicators that are representative of each dimension are weighted and aggregated in a single concept measurement known as a composite indicator [45] (for further information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of composite indicator methodology, see Nardo et al. [46]). As occurs with all multidimensional concepts, no single dimension alone can guarantee a city’s liveability. Moreover, given that the objective is to ensure that the current situation will not compromise future liveability, positive performance in economic, social or physical dimensions would be pointless without compliance with a series of minimum environmental standards that are capable of guaranteeing that the level of urban liveability achieved can be sustained in the long term. In order to comply with the theoretical requirements provided, an aggregation technique is needed that will prevent positive outcomes for the built environment from offsetting the poor results obtained in the partial indicators of the natural environment. 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. The Goal Programming Based Approach to Composite Indicator Construction Figure 2. Conceptual framework of sustainable urban liveability. 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. The Goal Programming Based Approach to Composite Indicator Construction The technique employed in the construction of the sustainable urban liveability composite indicator is based on goal programming, which originated in the field of operational research [ 47 – 49 ]. Following earlier research conducted by Díaz-Balteiro and Romero [50], the goal concept appears for the first time in the construction of composite indicators in an article by Blancas et al. [ 23 ], which attempted to estimate the sustainability of tourist destinations. This same technique was later applied to other research projects [51–57]. In order to illustrate how goal programming works in the context of the construction of composite indicators, let us suppose that a series of Nunits (e.g., cities) are to be evaluated by means of Minitial indicators. In line with their improvement direction, we have considered two types of indicators: positive ones, or the more the better, and negative ones, or the fewer the better. In this sense, we consider the existence of Lpositive indicators and Knegative ones, whereby L+K=M. The variable X il+ denotes the value of positive indicator lfor unit i(l=1, 2, . . . , L) and X ik− represents the value of negative indicator kfor unit i(k=1, 2, . . . , K). An aspiration level is determined for each of the Mindicators, representing an acceptable level of achievement (The aspiration level is exogenous to the model. These levels must be determined in accordance with external references, such as regulatory standards, determined by experts in the field Sustainability 2019,11, 86 6 of 18 or based on internal references as in the case of action objectives for the units evaluated. Nevertheless, it is often necessary to resort to alternative criteria [28], such as the use of empirically obtained levels (average values, minimum values or those obtained by benchmarking units). Although the use of these empirical levels implies acceptance of the status quo [ 58 ], this is an extremely common practice in the field of urban planning and management.). The value µl+ would be the aspiration level for positive indicator land µk− would refer to the aspiration level for negative indicator k. Associated with each indicator and aspiration level, we can define a goal using the deviation variables denoted as n, in the case of negative ones, and pin that of positive ones. These deviations represent the difference between the value of an indicator and its corresponding aspiration level, so that the interpretation of such varies according to the type of indicator involved. Consequently, in the case of a positive partial indicator X il+ , the variable n il+ would express a weakness in this indicator, while p il+ would be the desired variable, since it would indicate a strength in this unit. As a result, the goals would be formulated as: Xil++ nil+−pil+=µl+, where nil+, pil+≥0; nil+. pil+= 0, ∀l l = 1, 2, ..., L In the case of a negative partial indicator X ik− , the variable p ik− would be interpreted as a weakness in this indicator, while nik−would reflect a strength, representing the desired variable. Xik−+ nik−−pik−=µk−, where nik−, pij−≥0; nik−. pik−= 0, ∀k k = 1, 2, . . . , K Considering that the desirability of deviations depends on the positive/negative sign of the partial indicator, their interpretation may lead to confusion. Desirable deviations or strengths are therefore denoted as S im . These variables would be positive deviations p il+ , in the case of positive indicators, and negative deviations n ik− , in the case of negative indicators. In turn, W im denotes undesirable deviations or weaknesses, namely negative deviations n il+ when the indicator is positive, and positive deviations p ik− when the indicator is negative. Moreover, considering that partial indicators may be measured on different scales, the deviation variables might not be comparable. They must therefore be expressed in relative terms, in other words as a percentage of their respective aspiration levels. These deviation variables expressing strengths and weaknesses may be aggregated in a composite indicator to evaluate the performance of each unit considered in comparison with the predetermined aspiration levels. The use of this technique when constructing composite indicators holds numerous advantages over other statistical techniques; for instance, it does not require a sufficient difference between the number of units for analysis and the number of partial indicators employed in order to guarantee discrimination capacity [ 23 ], or the prior standardisation of the partial indicators for aggregation [50]. In addition, one of the greatest advantages of goal programming aggregation is that it is possible to consider the compensation or non-compensation of the deviation variables for each partial indicator. As a result, this technique is suitable for application both in contexts where full compensation between the strengths and weaknesses of the units evaluated could be recommendable, and in those where, from a theoretical perspective, the weaknesses a unit displays in certain indicators or dimensions cannot be compensated by strengths in others [23]. 3.2. A Proposal for a Sustainable Urban Liveability Index (SULI): the Case of Spain The goal programming-based aggregation technique described in the previous section will be used in the proposal for a composite index that will allow for the estimation of sustainable urban liveability. This technique will enable us to aggregate the various dimensions of sustainable urban liveability into a single measurement, whilst complying with the definition and theoretical framework of this concept. In this sense, goal programming-based aggregation allows for the non-compensation of the weaknesses of the natural environment for the strengths of the built environment in the case of cities that fail to meet minimum environmental aspiration levels. The construction of the sustainable urban liveability composite index is divided into two phases. Sustainability 2019,11, 86 7 of 18 The initial phase consists of the analysis of the deviation variables (strengths and weaknesses) obtained for the Jpartial indicators of the natural environment for each city i. If a city displays any weakness in these partial indicators, it will be eliminated from the analysis as the minimum environmental standards have not been verified. This is to ensure that a city does not reach a current high degree of liveability at the expense of the overconsumption of resources and the degradation of the environment. However, the model proposed here does imply the possibility of classifying the cities that fail to meet these requirements by means of the indicator R i . The indicator R i can be defined as the sum of the weighted relative weaknesses in environmental indicators, divided between the sum of the weighting of said indicators. Consequently, R i provides information of considerable use for cities that fail to meet the minimum environmental standards, enabling them to determine the percentage of non-compliance regarding the aspiration levels of these indicators. Ri= ∑J j=1 ωj·Wij µj ∑J j=1ωj ×100 (1) Once the cities that fail to meet the minimum environmental standards have been identified, the next stage consists of constructing the urban liveability composite indicator for those cities that have no weaknesses in any of the natural environment dimensions. Unlike the previous phase, any weaknesses in the built environment indicators may be compensated by their strengths in other dimensions. The sustainable urban liveability composite index is therefore constructed as a lineal aggregate of strengths and weaknesses in previously weighted relative terms. The composite indicator may adopt positive values in the case of certain cities and negative ones in others. The index value will be positive, provided that the city has more strengths than weaknesses, and will be negative when the weaknesses exceed the strengths. In this sense, the higher a city’s composite index, the greater the degree of liveability it offers its residents. SULIi= M ∑ m=1 ωm·Sim µm − M ∑ m=1 ωm·Wim µm(2) The sustainable urban liveability composite index proposed in this article has a key advantage over other indicators presented to date; namely that it guarantees that the degree of liveability not only takes into account current levels, but also cities’ capacity to sustain these levels over time. Another major advantage of this proposal is its outstanding utility for urban planning and management; presenting indicators as deviation variables simplifies the process of identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each city. The sustainable urban liveability composite index proposed here is applicable to all urban contexts in developed countries. However, in order to test the validity of our model, it was applied to a group of 58 Spanish cities. The initial idea was to analyse Spain’s 80 most important cities, not only in terms of population (cities with a minimum size of 100,000 inhabitants), but also including provincial and autonomous community capitals, which, despite their lower numbers of residents, play a relevant role within the urban system as centres for policy making and the provision of services at a regional level [ 59 ]. However, difficulties in obtaining data for certain partial indicators forced us to exclude 22 of these cities from our analysis (the following cities were excluded due to the lack of available data: Alcobendas, Alcorcón, Ávila, Cartagena, Cuenca, Dos Hermanas, Elche, Huesca, Lugo, Mérida, Móstoles, Parla, Pontevedra, Reus, San Cristóbal de la Laguna, Segovia, Soria, Telde, Terrassa, Teruel, Torrejón de Ardoz and Vigo). The first stage in applying the composite index to the case of Spain involved selecting the partial indicators that represent each of the dimensions included in the theoretical framework for sustainable urban liveability. The starting point for this selection was a review of the indicators used in recent research in line with the objectives of this article [ 5 , 6 , 8 , 20 – 22 , 29 , 60 – 66 ]. Table 1shows the final selection Sustainability 2019,11, 86 8 of 18 of partial indicators used to estimate the sustainable urban liveability composite index of Spanish cities, as well as their sign and the database they were obtained from and the year they refer to. Table 1. Partial indicators used in the application of the SULI in Spain. Sub-dimensions Partial indicator Abbreviation Sign Database Year Consumption capacity Average net disposable income per household INC + Urban indicators (Spanish National Statistics Office) 2011 Employment Unemployment rate UNE −Urban indicators (Spanish National Statistics Office) 2011 Economic dynamism No. of companies per 1000 inhabitants COM + Urban Audit (Eurostat) 2011 Human capital Percentage of the population (25–64 years) with higher education per 1000 inhabitants EDU + Urban indicators (Spanish National Statistics Office) 2011 Social capital Percentage of the population that participates in volunteer work VOL + Population and housing census (Spanish National Statistics Office 2011 Insecurity No. of crimes and offenses per 1000 inhabitants CRI − Criminality Statistics System (Spanish Ministry of the Interior) 2013 Infrastructures and services No. of hospital beds per 1000 inhabitants HOS + National Catalogue of Hospitals (Spanish Ministry of Health) 2011 Number of reading /study spaces in libraries per 1000 inhabitants LIB + Public Library figures (Spanish Ministry of Education) 2011 No. of cinema seats per 1000 inhabitants CIN + Urban Audit (Eurostat) 2011 Percentage of travel to work by public transport TRA + Urban indicators (Spanish National Statistics Office) 2011 Congestion Surface area of publicly accessible green areas per inhabitant GRE + Urban Information System (Spanish Ministry of Public Works) 2009 Average length of journey to work TIM −Urban indicators (Spanish National Statistics Office) 2011 Average surface area of housing per person HOU + Urban Audit (Eurostat) 2011 Air quality Average annual concentration of PM10 AIR −Air Base (European Environment Agency) 2011 Waste Generation of solid waste per inhabitant WAS −Spanish Sustainability Observatory 2005 Resource consumption Domestic electricity consumption per inhabitant. ELE −Spanish Sustainability Observatory 2005 Regarding the partial indicators used, the lack of available data in terms of urban breakdown prevented the evaluation of the sub-dimension for economic inequality included in the theoretical framework. A cost of living indicator could not be included, and therefore the sub-dimension for “consumption capacity” was estimated using an income level indicator only. Likewise, an improved approach of the dimensions of natural environment requires the use of other major indicators such as the average concentration of NO 2 , the equivalent CO 2 or water pollution. Unfortunately, data for these indicators were not available on a city scale. This lack of data has also prevented the use of partial indicators that in theory were considered ideal, requiring the use of alternatives. This was the case of the education infrastructures sub-dimension, where in the light of the lack of data, such as the number of places offered in state education centres, we were forced to resort to the use of a proxy variable, namely the number of reading/study spaces in public libraries. The characteristics of the partial indicators in accordance with their descriptive statistics (mean value, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values) in the cities included in the study as well Sustainability 2019,11, 86 9 of 18 as the aspiration levels for each partial indicator are presented in Tables 2and 3. The corresponding analysis of the partial indicators reveals an average correlation of 0.236. Table 2. Descriptive statistics of partial indicators and aspiration levels. INC UNE COM EDU VOL CRI HOS LIB Mean 25,920.133 −0.209 72.723 0.290 0.031 − 48.823 6.816 4.277 Standard Deviation 5716.213 0.052 15.427 0.071 0.005 14.807 2.737 1.782 Maximum 61,300.000 −0.110 119.749 0.454 0.042 − 24.123 15.726 9.610 Minimum 17,438.130 −0.312 43.085 0.118 0.017 − 98.547 2.061 1.390 Aspiration level 25,920.133 −0.209 72.723 0.290 0.031 − 48.823 6.816 4.277 Table 3. Descriptive statistics of partial indicators and aspiration levels. CIN TRA GRE TIM HOU AIR WAS ELE Mean 23.637 14.043 21.152 − 21.544 34.842 − 25.363 −1.281 −5.253 Standard Deviation 10.003 6.639 12.857 4.839 2.905 5.427 0.228 1.887 Maximum 63.499 28.810 80.594 − 15.720 39.720 − 12.784 −0.800 −1.857 Minimum 0.000 4.650 1.291 − 35.310 26.650 − 36.688 −2.044 − 11.741 Aspiration level 23.637 14.043 21.152 − 21.544 34.842 − 40.000 −1.400 − 10.000 As the various partial indicators were to be used to construct a composite indicator, it was important to determine their internal coherence by means of some form of multivariate analysis technique. Cronbach’s Alpha [ 67 ], used mainly as an estimate of internal consistency of items in a model or survey [ 68 ], also allows for the assessment of how well a set of items (in our terminology individual indicators) measures a single uni-dimensional object [ 46 ]. In this case the value obtained for the Cronbach’s Alpha based on standardized items was 0.638. Nunnally [ 69 ] suggests 0.7 as an acceptable reliability threshold, while others are more lenient and suggest 0.6 [46]. As discussed above, both the aspiration levels and the weighting for each of the partial indicators are exogenous to the model. In other words, goal programming-based aggregation enables urban planners to determine both variables in accordance with the real situation, as well as the needs and objectives of the cities under analysis. When determining the aspiration levels of this proposal, external references were detected for the three natural environment indicators. In this sense, the aspiration level determined for the “average annual concentration of PM 10 ,” is the maximum value of 40 mcg/m 3 stipulated in European Directive 2008/50/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008. The aspiration levels selected for the indicators “generation of solid waste per inhabitant” (1.4 kg of waste per inhabitant per day), and “domestic electricity consumption per inhabitant” (10 MWh per person per year) were based on the maximum desirable values established in the Municipal Sustainable Indicators System drawn up by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs [ 70 ]. As for the built environment indicators, the lack of external references meant that the aspiration level had to be set empirically, as has occurred with previous research projects [ 23 , 50 ]. The decision was taken to use the value corresponding to the arithmetic mean of the observations for the 58 cities analysed. The specific aspiration levels for the 15 partial indicators are presented in Tables 2and 3. In the specific case of the application of the composite indicator to Spanish cities, and as discussed by a number of authors, the choice of weighting system was conditioned by the need for a balance between urban environment dimensions [ 26 ]. It is for this reason that the decision was taken to assign equal weighting to all four dimensions of sustainable urban liveability: economic, social, physical and natural. This weighting would likewise be distributed equally between the partial indicators included in each dimension in order to ensure that weighting patterns were not attributed to specific urban interests. Sustainability 2019,11, 86 16 of 18 9. Godschalk, D.R. Land use planning challenges: Coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2004,70, 5–13. [CrossRef] 10. Howley, P.; Scott, M.; Redmond, D. Sustainability versus liveability: An investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009,52, 847–864. [CrossRef] 11. Allen, T.F.H. Making livable sustainable systems unremarkable. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2010 ,27, 469–479. [CrossRef] 12. Chazal, J. A systems approach to livability and sustainability: Defining terms and mapping reationships to link desires with ecological opportunities and constraints. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2010 ,27, 585–597. [CrossRef] 13. Lewis, N.M.; Donald, B. A new rubric for ‘creative city’ potential in Canada’s smaller cities. Urban Stud. 2010,47, 29–54. [CrossRef] 14. Ruth, M.; Franklin, R.S. Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Appl. Geogr. 2014 ,49, 18–23. [CrossRef] 15. Gough, M.Z. Reconciling livability and sustainability: Conceptual and practical implications for planning. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2015,35, 145–160. [CrossRef] 16. Newton, P.W. Liveable and sustainable? Socio-technical challenges for twenty-first-century cities. J. Urban Technol. 2012,19, 81–102. [CrossRef] 17. Ekins, P.; Simon, S.; Deutsch, L.; Folke, C.; De Groot, R. A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2003,44, 165–185. [CrossRef] 18. Dietz, S.; Neumayer, E. Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement. Ecol. Econ. 2007,61, 617–626. [CrossRef] 19. Bithas, K.P.; Christofakis, M. Environmentally Sustainable Cities. Critical Review and Operational Conditions. Sustain. Dev. 2006,14, 177–189. [CrossRef] 20. Mori, K.; Fujii, T.; Yamashita, T.; Mimura, Y.; Uchiyama, Y.; Hayashi, K. Visualization of a City Sustainability Index (CSI): Towards transdisciplinary approaches involving multiple stakeholders. Sustainability 2015 ,7, 12402–12424. [CrossRef] 21. Higgins, P.; Campanera, J.M. (Sustainable) quality of life in English city locations. Cities 2011 ,28, 290–299. [CrossRef] 22. Zanella, A.; Camanho, A.S.; Dias, T.G. The assessment of cities’ livability integrating human wellbeing and environmental impact. Ann. Oper. Res. 2015,226, 695–726. [CrossRef] 23. Blancas, F.J.; Caballero, R.; González, M.; Lozano-Oyola, M.; Pérez, F. Goal programming synthetic indicators: An application for sustainable tourism in Andalusian coastal counties. Ecol. Econ. 2010 ,69, 2158–2172. [CrossRef] 24. Jones, C.; Newsome, D. Perth (Australia) as one of the world’s most liveable cities: A perspective on society, sustainability and environment. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2015,1, 18–35. [CrossRef] 25. Newman, P.W.G. Sustainability and cities: Extending the metabolism model. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999 ,44, 219–226. [CrossRef] 26. Shafer, C.S.; Lee, B.K.; Turner, S. A tale of three greenway trails: User perceptions related to quality of life. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000,49, 163–178. [CrossRef] 27. Das, D. Urban Quality of Life: A Case Study of Guwahati. Soc. Indic. Res. 2008,88, 297–310. [CrossRef] 28. Cicerchia, A. Measures of optimal centrality: Indicators of city effect and urban overloadin. Soc. Indic. Res. 1999,46, 273–299. [CrossRef] 29. Santos, L.D.; Martins, I. Monitoring urban quality of life: The Porto experience. Soc. Indic. Res. 2007 ,80, 411–425. [CrossRef] 30. Fujita, M.; Thisse, J.F. Economics of Agglomeration. J. Jpn. Int. Econ. 1996,10, 339–378. [CrossRef] 31. Glaeser, E.L.; Kolko, J.; Saiz, A. Consumer city. J. Econ. Geogr. 2001,1, 27–50. [CrossRef] 32. Glaeser, E.L.; Mare, D.C. Cities and Skills. J. Labor Econ. 2001,19, 316–342. [CrossRef] 33. Duranton, G.; Puga, D. Micro-Foundations of Urban Agglomeration Economies; National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004; Volume 9931. 34. Puga, D. The magnitude and causes of agglomeration economies. J. Reg. Sci. 2010,50, 203–219. [CrossRef] 35. Rodríguez-Pose, A. The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2018,11, 189–209. [CrossRef] 36. Wheeler, C. Cities, skills and inequality. Growth Chang. 2005,36, 329–353. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019,11, 86 17 of 18 37. Glaeser, E.L.; Ressenger, M.; Tobio, K. Urban Inequality; NBER Working Paper Series 14419; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008. 38. Abel, J.R.; Gabe, T.M.; Stolarick, K. Skills across the urban-rural hierarchy. Growth Chang. 2014,45, 499–517. [CrossRef] 39. Hughes, P.; Bellamy, J.; Black, A. Social trust: Locally and across Australia. Third Sect. Rev. 1999,5, 5–24. 40. Ziersch, A.M.; Baum, F.; Darmawan, I.G.N.; Kavanagh, A.M.; Bentley, R.J. Social capital and health in rural and urban communities in South Australia. Aust. N Z J. Public Health 2009,33, 7–16. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 41. Cullen, J.B.; Levitt, S.D. Crime, urban flight, and the consequences for cities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1999 ,81, 159–169. [CrossRef] 42. Glaeser, E.L.; Sacerdote, B. Why is there more crime in cities? J. Political Econ. 1999 ,107, S225–S258. [CrossRef] 43. Archibugi, F. City effect and urban overload as a program indicators of the regional policy. Soc. Indic. Res. 2001,54, 209–230. [CrossRef] 44. Berry, B.J.L. Urbanization. In The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years; Turner, B.L., Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F., Mathews, J.T., Meyer, W.B., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. 45. Saisana, M.; Tarantola, S. State-of-the-Art Report on Current Methodologies and Practices for Composite Indicator Development; European Commission, Joint Research Centre: Ispra, Italy, 2002. 46. Nardo, M.; Saisana, M.; Saltelli, A.; Tarantola, S.; Hoffman, A.; Giovannini, E. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2008. 47. Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1961. 48. Lee, S.M. Goal Programming for Decision Analysis; Auerbach: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1972. 49. Ignizio, J.P. Goal Programming and Extensions; Lexington Books: Lexington, UK, 1976. 50. Díaz-Balteiro, L.; Romero, C. Sustainability of forest management plans: A discrete goal programming approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2004,71, 351–359. [CrossRef] 51. Lozano-Oyola, M.; Blancas, F.J.; González, M.; Caballero, R. Sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations. Ecol. Indic. 2012,18, 659–675. [CrossRef] 52. Blancas, F.J.; Lozano-Oyola, M.; González, M. A European Sustainable Tourism Labels proposal using a composite indicator. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015,54, 39–54. [CrossRef] 53. Molinos-Senante, M.; Marques, R.C.; Pérez, F.; Gómez, T.; Sala-Garrido, R.; Caballero, R. Assessing the sustainability of water companies: A synthetic indicator approach. Ecol. Indic. 2016 ,61, 577–587. [CrossRef] 54. Pérez, V.; Hernández, A.; Guerrero, F.; León, M.A.; da Silva, C.L.; Caballero, R. Sustainability ranking for Cuban tourist destinations based on composite indexes. Soc. Indic. Res. 2016,129, 425–444. [CrossRef] 55. Blancas, F.J.; Lozano-Oyola, M.; González, M.; Caballero, R. A dynamic sustainable tourism evaluation using multiple benchmarks. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,174, 1190–1203. [CrossRef] 56. Cabello, J.M.; Navarro-Jurado, E.; Rodríguez, B.; Thiel-Ellul, D.; Ruiz, F. Dual weak-strong sustainability synthetic indicators using a double reference point scheme: The case of Andalucía, Spain. Oper. Res. 2018 . Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12351-018-0390-5 (accessed on 6 November 2018). [CrossRef] 57. Valcárcel-Aguiar, B.; Murias, P. Evaluation and management of urban liveability: A goal programming based composite indicator. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018 . Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s11205-018-1861-z (accessed on 6 November 2018). [CrossRef] 58. Delion, H.; Irmen, E. National report on Germany. In The Integration of Cities into Their Regional Government: Toward a European Urban Systems Concept and Policy; Archibugi, F., Ed.; Planning Studies Centre: Rome, Italy, 1996. 59. Bellet, C.; Llop, J.M. Miradas a otros espacios urbanos: Las ciudades intermedias. Scr. Nova Rev. Electron. Geogr. Cienc. Soc. 2004,165, 1–8. 60. Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Lefebvre, J.-F.; Lanoie, P. Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2010,10, 407–418. [CrossRef] 61. Han, J.; Liang, H.; Hara, K.; Uwasu, M.; Dong, L. Quality of life in China’s largest city, Shanghai: A 20-year subjective and objective composite assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,173, 135–142. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019,11, 86 18 of 18 62. Turcu, C. Re-thinking sustainability indicators: Local perspectives of urban sustainability. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013,56, 695–719. [CrossRef] 63. Braulio-Gonzalo, M.; Bovea, M.D.; Ruá, M.J. Sustainability on the urban scale: Proposal of a structure of indicators for the Spanish context. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015,53, 16–30. [CrossRef] 64. Nissi, E.; Sarra, A. A measure of well-being across the Italian urban areas: An integrated DEA-entropy approach. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018,136, 1183–1209. [CrossRef] 65. Peach, N.D.; Petach, L.A. Development and quality of life in cities. Econ. Dev. Q. 2016 ,30, 32–45. [CrossRef] 66. Arbab, P. City Prosperity Inititative Index: Using AHP method to recalculate the weights of dimensions and sub-dimensions in reference to Tehran Metropolis. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2017,6, 289–301. [CrossRef] 67. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951 ,16, 297–334. [CrossRef] 68. Boscarino, J.A.; Figley, C.R.; Adams, R.E. Compassion Fatigue following the September 11 Terrorist Attacks: A Study of Secondary Trauma among New York City Social Workers. Int. J. Emerg. Ment. Health 2004 ,6, 1–10. 69. Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. 70. Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs. Sistema Municipal de Indicadores de Sostenibilidad. IV Reunión del Grupo de Trabajo de Sostenibilidad de la Red de Redes de Desarrollo Local Sostenible. 2010. Available online: https://www.fomento.gob.es/recursos_mfom/pdf/82B973EA-597046F0-8AE6-65370D40A1F5/111505/SIST_MUNI_INDI_SOSTE_tcm7177732.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2018). 71. Murzyn-Kupisz, M. Cultural, economic and social sustainability of heritage tourism: Issues and challenges. Econ. Environ. Stud. 2012,12, 113–133. 72. Ghafari, F.; Lahmian, R. The role of tourism industry in the management of sustainable urban development (Case study: Coastal cities of Mazandaran province). Int. J. Hum. Cult. Stud. 2016 , 1381–1391. Available online: https://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/article/viewFile/1254/1116 (accessed on 21 December 2018). 73. González, E.; Cárcaba, A.; Ventura, J. The Importance of the Geographic Level of Analysis in the Assessment of the Quality of Life: The Case of Spain. Soc. Indic. Res. 2011,102, 209–228. [CrossRef] 74. González, E.; Cárcaba, A.; Ventura, J. Weight constrained DEA measurement of the quality of life in Spanish municipalities in 2011. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018,136, 1157–1182. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 75. ESPON. The Role, Specific Situation and Potentials of Urban Areas as Nodes in a Polycentric Development; Third Interim Report; ESPON: Luxembourg, 2003. © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).