Multi-criteria approach to geographically visualize the quality of life in India

References

• Aghataher R, Delavar MR, Nami MH, Samnay N. 2008. A fuzzy-AHP decision support system for evaluation of cities vulnerability against earthquakes. World Appl Sci J. 3:66–72.
   Google Scholar
• Andrew K. 1999. Quality of life in cities. Cities. 16:221–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anonymous. 2014. How big is big data? Exploring the role of big data in official statistics (version 0.1, March 2014). United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE); [cited 2015 Sep 22]. Available from: http://www1.unece.org.
   Google Scholar
• Anselin L. 1995. Local indicators of spatial association – LISA. Geogr Anal. 27:93–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bederman SH, Hartshorn TA. 1984. Quality of life in Georgia: the 1980 experience. Southeast Geogr. 24:78–98.
   Google Scholar
• Cay T, Uyan M. 2013. Evaluation of reallocation criteria in land consolidation studies using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Land Use Policy. 30:541–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty A, Joshi PK. 2014. Mapping disaster vulnerability in India using analytical hierarchy process. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk. 19:1947–5705.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb CW. 2000. Measurement tools and the quality of life. Redefining progress, San Francisco (CA); p. 32; [cited 2015 Sep 15]. Available from: www.rprogress.org/pubs/pdf/measure_qol.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb CW, Clifford W, Craig R. 1998. Competing paradigms in the development of social and economic indicators. Paper presented at the CSLS Conference on the State of Living Standards and the Quality of Life in Canada; Oct 30–31; Ottawa.
   Google Scholar
• Costanza R, Fisher B, Ali S, Beer C, Bond L, Boumans R, Danigelis NL, Dickinson J, Elliott C, Farley J, et al. 2007. Quality of life: an approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecol Econ. 61:267–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cozannet GL, Garcin M, Bulteau T, Mirgon C, Yates ML, Méndez M, Baills A, Idier D, Oliveros C. 2013. An AHP-derived method for mapping the physical vulnerability of coastal areas at regional scales. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 13:1209–1227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dashora LK. 2009. Visualization of urban quality of life at neighbourhood level in Enschede [MSc thesis]. The Netherlands: ITC.
   Google Scholar
• Devuyst D, Hens L, De Lannoy W. 2001. How green is the city? Sustainability assessment and the management of urban environments? New York (NY): Columbia University Press; p. 457.
   Google Scholar
• Diener E. 1995. A value-based index for measuring national quality of life. Soc Indic Res. 36:107–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckersley R. 1998. Perspectives of progress: economic growth, quality of life and ecological sustainability’. In: Eckersley R, editor. Measuring progress. Is life getting better? Collingwood: CSIRO; p. 3–34.
   Google Scholar
• Efklides A, Moraitou D. 2013. A positive psychology perspective on quality of life. Social indicators research series. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Estes R. 1997. Social development trends in Europe, 1970–1994: development prospects for the new Europe. Soc Indic Res. 42:1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feneri AM, Vagiona D, Karanikolas N. 2013. Measuring quality of life (QoL) in urban environment: an integrated approach. Cest2013; Athens, Greece.
   Google Scholar
• Foo TS. 2001. Quality of life in cities. Cities. 18:1–2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs GR, Fries S, Mangabeira WC. 2002. The use of new technology in qualitative research. Introduction to issue 3(2) of FQS. FQS. 3(2). Art. 8. Available from: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs020287
   Google Scholar
• Givi AA, Karimi S, Foroughi N, Moarab Y, Nikzad V. 2015. Using fuzzy logic analysis in GIS and FAHP method for parks site selection in urban environment (case study: region 7, Tehran municipality). Curr World Environ. 10:432–444.
   Google Scholar
• Gkaitatzi O, Bekiaris E. 2008. Cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness analysis and socio-economic aspects. Seventh Framework Programme, Theme 3, Information and Communication Technologies; [cited 2015 Sep 22]. Available from: http://www.actibio.eu.
   Google Scholar
• Haslauer E, Delmelle EC, Keul A, Blaschke T, Prinz T. 2014. Comparing subjective and objective quality of life criteria: a case study of green space and public transport in Vienna, Austria. Soc Indic Res. 124:911–927.
   Google Scholar
• Janssen MA, Schoon ML, Ke W, Börner K. 2006. Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change. J Global Envir Change. 16:240–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp IV, Leidelmeijer K, Marsman G, de Hollander A. 2003. Urban environmental quality and human well-being towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landsc Urban Plan. 65:5–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobus D. 2005. Development and testing of a conceptual framework for assessment of progress towards achieving sustainable development in countries in transition. J Environ Asses Policy Manage. 7:457–491.
   Google Scholar
• Kolenikov S. 1998. The methods of quality of life assessments [PhD thesis]. Moscow: NES.
   Google Scholar
• Lambiri D, Biagi B, Royuela V. 2007. Quality of life in the economic and urban economic literature. Soc Indic Res. 84:1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Land KC, Michalos AC, Sirgy MJ. 2012. Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Laskar A. 2003. Integrating GIS and multicriteria decision making techniques for land resource planning [MSc thesis]. Netherlands: ITC; p. 71.
   Google Scholar
• Lee SY. 1995. An integrated model of land use/transportation system performance: system dynamics modeling approach [PhD thesis]. College Park: University of Maryland.
   Google Scholar
• Li G, Weng Q. 2007. Measuring the quality of life in city of Indianapolis by integration of remote sensing and census data. Int J Rem Sens. 28:249–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li S, Qiu W, Zhao QL, Liu ZM. 2006. Applying analytical hierarchy process to assess eco-environment quality of Heilongjiang province. Eur PubMed Central. 27:1031–1034.
   Google Scholar
• Lo CP, Faber BJ. 1997. Integration of Landsat-TM and census data for quality of life assessment. Remote Sens Environ. 62:143–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long L. 1985. Migration and residential mobility in the United States. New York (NY): Russel Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Malczewski J, Rinner C. 2005. Exploring multi criteria decision strategies in GIS with linguistic quantifiers: a case study of residential quality evaluation. J Geogr Syst. 7:249–268.
   Google Scholar
• Marans RW. 2012. Quality of urban life studies: an overview and implications for environment-behavior research. Proc Soc Behav Sci. 35:9–22.
   Google Scholar
• Markoczy L. 1994. Barriers to shared belief: the role of strategic interest, managerial characteristics and organizational factors [PhD thesis]. Cambridge: The University of Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Miringoff M, Miringoff ML. 1999. The social health of the nation. How America is really doing. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mukherjee R. 1981. On the quality of life in India: an exploratory survey. Soc Indic Res. 9:455–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nichol J, Wong MS. 2005. Modeling urban environmental quality in a tropical city. Landsc Urban Plan. 73:49–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noll HH. 2000a. Konzepte der Wohlfahrtsentwicklung: Lebensqualität und ‘neue’ Wohlfahrtskonzepte’. WZB-Discussionpapers P00-505. Berlin: Science Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Noll HH. 2000b. Social indicators and quality of life research – background, achievement and current trends. In: Genov N, editor. Advances in sociological knowledge over half a century. Paris: International Social Science Council.
   Google Scholar
• Noll HH. 2015. Social indicators and quality of life research – background, achievements and current trends; [cited 2015 Sep 22]. Available from: http://www.gesis.org.
   Google Scholar
• Osberg L, Sharpe A. 1998. An index of economic well-being for Canada. Working Paper R-99-3E. Hull: Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy Human Resources Development.
   Google Scholar
• Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C. 2012. Application of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran. Nat Hazards. 63:965–996.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramanathan R. 2001. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manage. 63:27–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao KRM, Kant Y, Gahlaut N, Roy PS. 2012. Assessment of quality of life in Uttarakhand, India using geospatial techniques. Geocarto Int. 27:315–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapley M. 2005. Quality of life research – a critical introduction. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rinner C. 2007. A geographic visualization approach to multi-criteria evaluation of urban quality of life. Int J Geogr Inf Sci. 21:907–919.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Shiovitz-Ezra S, Leitsch S, Graber J, Karraker A. 2009. Quality of life and psychological health indicators in the national social life, health, and aging project. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 64B:i30–i37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shukla R, Chakraborty A, Pk J. 2015. Vulnerability of agro-ecological zones in India under the earth system climate model scenarios. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. doi:10.1007/s11027-015-9677-5
   Google Scholar
• Singh K, Kaur J. 2014. India, quality of life. In: Michalos AC, editor. Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research, Volume 1. Dordrecht: Springer; p. 3187–3190.
   Google Scholar
• Sirgy MJ, Samli AC. 1995. New dimensions in marketing/quality of life research. Westport (CT): Quorum Books.
   Google Scholar
• Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA. 2004. The world health organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial a report from the WHOQOL group. Qual Life Res. 13:299–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sólnes J. 2003. Environmental quality indexing of large industrial development alternatives using AHP. Environ Impact Asses. 23:283–303.
   Google Scholar
• Srdjevic B. 2007. Linking analytic hierarchy process and social choice methods to support group decision-making in water management. Decis Support Syst. 42:2261–2273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ülengin B, Ülengin F, Güvenç Ü. 2001. A multidimensional approach to urban quality of life: the case of Istanbul. Eur J Oper Res. 130:361–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [UNCSD] United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. 1996. Indicators of sustainable development: framework and methodologies land use change; methodology fact sheet. New York (NY): United Nations Publication.
   Google Scholar
• [UNDP] United Nations Development Programme. 2001. Human development report 2001. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Veenhoven R. 1996. Happy Life-expectancy: a comprehensive measure of quality-of-life in nations. Soc Indic Res. 39:1–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogel J. 1997. The future direction of social indicator research. Soc Indic Res. 42:103–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber C, Hirsch J. 1992. Some urban measurements from SPOT data: urban life quality indices. Int J Rem Sens. 13:3251–3261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong C. 2001. The relationship between quality of life and local economic development: an empirical study of local authority areas in England. Cities. 18:25–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ying X, Zeng G-M, Chen G-Q, Tang L, Wang K-L, Huang D-Y. 2007. Combining AHP with GIS in synthetic evaluation of eco-environment quality—a case study of Hunan Province, China. Ecol Model. 209:97–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan LL, Yuen B, Low C. 1999. Urban quality of life: critical issues and options. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
   Google Scholar