journal article·2024-11-27Open access

Smart Cities and Resident Well-Being: Using the BTOPSIS Method to Assess Citizen Life Satisfaction in European Cities

Ewa Roszkowska, Tomasz Wachowicz

Applied Sciences· Volume 14· Issue 23

Abstract

With rapid urbanization, maintaining a high quality of life (QoL) for city residents has become a critical challenge for policy-makers and urban planners. Smart cities, leveraging advanced technologies and data analytics, present a promising pathway to enhance urban services and promote sustainability. This paper introduces an innovative adaptation of the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method, integrating a Belief Structure (BTOPSIS) to improve the evaluation and interpretation of survey data. Our approach effectively addresses the distribution of responses across categories and the uncertainty often present in such data, including missing or ambiguous answers. Additionally, we perform a sensitivity analysis to assess the stability of the BTOPSIS rankings under varying utility function parameters, further validating the robustness of our method. We apply this framework to the 2023 ‘Quality of Life in European Cities’ survey, analyzing diverse urban factors such as public transport, healthcare, cultural facilities, green spaces, education, air quality, noise levels, and cleanliness. Additionally, our study offers a comparative analysis of BTOPSIS against other multi-criteria methods used for evaluation data from this report, showcasing its strengths and limitations in addressing the dataset’s complexity. Our findings reveal significant variations in residents’ perceived QoL across European cities, both between cities and within countries. Zurich and Groningen rank highest in satisfaction, while Tirana, Skopje, and Palermo are ranked lowest. Notably, residents of cities with populations under 500,000 report higher satisfaction levels than those in larger cities, and satisfaction levels are generally higher in EU and EFTA cities compared to those in the Western Balkans, with the highest satisfaction observed in northern and western Member States. To aid urban planners and policy-makers, we propose a ranking tool using the BTOPSIS method, capturing nuanced resident perceptions of living conditions across cities. These insights provide valuable guidance for strategic urban development and advancing the smart city agenda across Europe.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Smart Cities and Technologies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Faculty of Computer Science, Bialystok University of Technology, Wiejska 45A, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland

Department of Operations Research, University of Economics in Katowice, 1 Maja 50, 40-287 Katowice, Poland

Funding

Polish Ministry of Education and Science · Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education

References (76)

Show source-provided references
1. Berishvili, N. (2020). Agenda 2030 and the EU on Sustainable Cities and Communities. Implementing Sustainable Development Goals in Europe, Edward Elgar Publishing.10.4337/9781789909975.00013 ↗
2. The Urban Sustainable Development Goal: Indicators, Complexity and the Politics of Measuring Cities10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.019 ↗
3. Mishra, P., and Singh, G. (2023). Sustainable Smart Cities: Enabling Technologies, Energy Trends and Potential Applications, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-031-33354-5 ↗
4. Smart Sustainable Cities of the Future: An Extensive Interdisciplinary Literature Review10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.016 ↗
5. Sustainable Development of Smart Cities: A Systematic Review of the Literature10.1186/s40852-017-0063-2 ↗
6. Role of Smart Cities in Creating Sustainable Cities and Communities: A Systematic Literature Review10.1007/978-3-030-20671-0_21 ↗
7. Michalos, A.C. (2014). Objective Quality of Life. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5 ↗
8. Angur, M.G., Widgery, R., and Angur, S.G. (2004). Congruence among Objective and Subjective Quality-of-Life (QOL) Indicators. Alliance J. Bus. Res., 47–54. Available online: https://www.ajbr.org/Archives/Congruence%20among%20Objective%20and%20Subjective%20Quality-of-Life%20(QOL)%20indicators.pdf.
9. Objective and Subjective Quality of Life: An Interactive Model10.1023/A:1007027822521 ↗
10. The Intuitionistic Fuzzy Synthetic Measure in a Dynamic Analysis of the Subjective Quality of Life of Citizens of European Cities
11. Measurement Scale of Subjective Quality of Life in Cross-Border Regions
12. Coronicova Hurajova, J., and Hajduova, Z. (2021). Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Using TOPSIS and WSA Method for Quality of Life: The Case of Slovakia Regions. Mathematics, 9.10.3390/math9192440 ↗
13. Reflective, Causal, and Composite Indicators of Quality of Life: A Conceptual or an Empirical Distinction?10.1007/s11136-015-0954-2 ↗
14. Measuring Quality of Life: Economic, Social, and Subjective Indicators10.1023/A:1006859511756 ↗
15. A Reference Point-Based Proposal to Build Regional Quality of Life Composite Indicators
16. Głowicka-Wołoszyn, R., Wołoszyn, A., and Wysocki, F. (2018, January 7–8). Quality Of Life In Polish Farmers’ Households Assessment With Topsis Method. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference 381 “Economic Sciences for Agribusiness and Rural Economy”, Warsaw, Poland.10.22630/ESARE.2018.2.34 ↗
17. Measuring Quality of Life in Small Areas over Different Periods of Time10.1023/A:1024789306734 ↗
18. Measuring of Subjective Quality of Life10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01466-5 ↗
19. De Dominicis, L., Berlingieri, F., d’Hombres, B., Gentile, C., Mauri, C., Stepanova, E., Pontarollo, N., and European Commission (2023). Report on the Quality of Life in European Cities, 2023, Publications Office. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/reports/qol2023/2023_quality_life_european_cities_en.pdf.
20. Building Composite Indicators Using Multicriteria Methods: A Review
21. On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9 ↗
22. A Framework Based on Statistical Analysis and Stakeholders’ Preferences to Inform Weighting in Composite Indicators10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105208 ↗
23. A Review on TOPSIS Method and Its Extensions for Different Applications with Recent Development10.1007/s00500-023-09011-0 ↗
24. Hwang, C.L., and Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making-Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9 ↗
25. A Bibliometric-Based Survey on AHP and TOPSIS Techniques10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.016 ↗
26. The Fuzzy TOPSIS Applications in the Last Decade10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.404 ↗
27. A State-of the-Art Survey of TOPSIS Applications10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056 ↗
28. Development of TOPSIS Method to Solve Complicated Decision-Making Problems—An Overview on Developments from 2000 to 201510.1142/S0219622016300019 ↗
29. Zastosowanie Metody Taksonomicznej Do Typologicznego Podziału Krajów Ze Względu Na Poziom Ich Rozwoju Oraz Zasoby i Strukturę Wykwalifikowanych Kadr [Application of the Taxonomic Method to the Typological Division of Countries According to the Level of Their Development and the Resources and Structure of Qualified Personnel]
30. Roszkowska, E. (2024). A Comprehensive Exploration of Hellwig’s Taxonomic Measure of Development and Its Modifications—A Systematic Review of Algorithms and Applications. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app142110029 ↗
31. Basílio, M.P., Pereira, V., Costa, H.G., Santos, M., and Ghosh, A. (2022). A Systematic Review of the Applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Methods (1977–2022). Electronics, 11.10.3390/electronics11111720 ↗
32. Hung, C.-C., and Chen, L.-H. (2009, January 18–20). A Fuzzy TOPSIS Decision Making Model with Entropy Weight under Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment. Proceedings of the International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, IMECS, Hong Kong, China.10.1007/978-90-481-3517-2_2 ↗
33. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models by Applying the TOPSIS Method to Crisp and Interval Data
34. Distance Measure for Ordinal Data
35. Jefmański, B., and Sagan, A. (2021). Item Response Theory Models for the Fuzzy TOPSIS in the Analysis of Survey Data. Symmetry, 13.10.3390/sym13020223 ↗
36. The Sensitivity of the SERVQUAL Score to the Choice of the Fuzzy Conversion Scale10.15611/ekt.2017.3.05 ↗
37. Computing with Words in Decision Support Systems: An Overview on Models and Applications
38. Extensions of the TOPSIS for Group Decision-Making under Fuzzy Environment10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1 ↗
39. A Synthetic Measure for Ranking Overall Satisfaction Based on Multidimensional Ordinal Data. The Case of Airlines on the TripAdvisor Website
40. Application of Generalized Distance Measure to the Construction of a Synthetic Index of Subjective Sense of Financial Security of Farmers’households10.22630/MIBE.2017.18.3.46 ↗
41. Comparison of Several Linear Ordering Methods for Selection of Locations in Order-picking by Means of the Simulation Methods10.18778/0208-6018.338.05 ↗
42. Łuczak, A., and Kalinowski, S. (2023). The Measurement of Subjective Household Poverty: Concepts and Application. Res. Artic.10.21203/rs.3.rs-3159844/v1 ↗
43. Jefmański, B., Roszkowska, E., and Kusterka-Jefmańska, M. (2021). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Synthetic Measure on the Basis of Survey Responses and Aggregated Ordinal Data. Entropy, 23.10.3390/e23121636 ↗
44. Roszkowska, E., Kusterka-Jefmańska, M., and Jefmański, B. (2021). Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS as a Method for Assessing Socioeconomic Phenomena on the Basis of Survey Data. Entropy, 23.10.3390/e23050563 ↗
45. Jefmański, B. (2019, January 18–20). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Synthetic Measure for Ordinal Data. Proceedings of the Conference of the Section on Classification and Data Analysis of the Polish Statistical Association, Szczecin, Poland.
46. TOPSIS with Belief Structure for Group Belief Multiple Criteria Decision Making10.1007/s11633-010-0515-7 ↗
47. (2024, October 19). Inforegio—Quality of Life in European Cities. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information-sources/maps/quality-of-life_en.
48. Smart Cities—A Structured Literature Review10.3390/smartcities6040080 ↗
49. A Decade Review on Smart Cities: Paradigms, Challenges and Opportunities10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3184710 ↗
50. Topcu, Y.I., Özaydın, Ö., Kabak, Ö., and Önsel Ekici, Ş. (2021). Assessing Smartness and Urban Development of the European Cities:An Integrated Approach of Entropy and VIKOR. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Springer International Publishing. Contributions to Management Science.10.1007/978-3-030-52406-7 ↗
51. Research on Residential Lifestyles in Japanese Cities from the Viewpoints of Residential Preference, Residential Choice and Residential Satisfaction10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.07.004 ↗
52. Quality of Urban Life & Environmental Sustainability Studies: Future Linkage Opportunities10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.019 ↗
53. Smart City and Quality of Life: Citizens’ Perception in a Brazilian Case Study10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.078 ↗
54. City Life Satisfaction: A Measurement for Smart and Sustainable Cities from the Citizens’ Perspective10.1504/IJKBD.2019.105126 ↗
55. Džunić, M., Stanković, J.J., and Marinković, S. (2022, January 20). Smart Cities and Quality of Life: The Analysis of Perceptions Data. Proceedings of the 27th International Scientific Conference–Strategic Management and Decision Support Systems in Strategic Management, Novi Sad, Serbia.10.46541/978-86-7233-406-7_187 ↗
56. Smart Cities and Quality of Life: A Quantitative Analysis of Citizens’ Support for Smart City Development10.1108/ITP-07-2021-0577 ↗
57. Governance and Quality of Life in Smart Cities: Towards Sustainable Development Goals10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119926 ↗
58. A General Multi-Level Evaluation Process for Hybrid MADM with Uncertainty10.1109/21.310529 ↗
59. On the Evidential Reasoning Algorithm for Multiple Attribute Decision Analysis under Uncertainty10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802746 ↗
60. The Evidential Reasoning Approach for MADA under Both Probabilistic and Fuzzy Uncertainties10.1016/j.ejor.2004.09.017 ↗
61. TOPSIS with Fuzzy Belief Structure for Group Belief Multiple Criteria Decision Making10.1016/j.eswa.2011.01.128 ↗
62. Guo, P., and Pedrycz, W. (2014). Decision-Making Under Conditions of Multiple Values and Variation in Conditions of Risk and Uncertainty. Human-Centric Decision-Making Models for Social Sciences, Springer. Studies in Computational Intelligence.10.1007/978-3-642-39307-5 ↗
63. A New FMEA Method by Integrating Fuzzy Belief Structure and TOPSIS to Improve Risk Evaluation Process10.1007/s00170-014-6466-3 ↗
64. Fuzzy Belief Structure Based Vikor Method: An Application for Ranking Delay Causes of Tehran Metro System by FMEA Criteria10.3846/16484142.2016.1133454 ↗
65. A TOPSIS, VIKOR and DEA Integrated Evaluation Method with Belief Structure under Uncertainty to Rank Alternatives10.1504/IJAOM.2019.100708 ↗
66. Elicitation of Criteria Weights for Multicriteria Models: Bibliometrics, Typologies, Characteristics and Applications
67. Zardari, N.H., Ahmed, K., Shirazi, S.M., and Yusop, Z.B. (2015). Weighting Methods and Their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-12586-2 ↗
68. Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision Making Technique
69. Ayan, B., Abacıoğlu, S., and Basilio, M.P. (2023). A Comprehensive Review of the Novel Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Information, 14.10.3390/info14050285 ↗
70. Weights in Multidimensional Indices of Wellbeing: An Overview: Econometric Reviews10.1080/07474938.2012.690641 ↗
71. Maggino, F., and Ruviglioni, E. (2009). Obtaining Weights: From Objective to Subjective Approaches in View of More Participative Methods in the Construction of Composite Indicators. Proc. NTTS New Tech. Technol. Stat., 37–46. Available online: https://iris.uniroma1.it/handle/11573/959288.
72. When to Use What: Methods for Weighting and Aggregating Sustainability Indicators10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.068 ↗
73. Roszkowska, E., Filipowicz-Chomko, M., Kusterka-Jefmańska, M., and Jefmański, B. (2023). The Impact of the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Entropy-Based Weights on the Results of Subjective Quality of Life Measurement Using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Synthetic Measure. Entropy, 25.10.3390/e25070961 ↗
74. Bolsi, P., de Dominics, L., Castelli, C., d’Hombres, B., Montalt, V., and Pontarollo, N. (2024, October 01). Report on the Quality of Life in European Cities, 2020. Eur. Union Bruss. Belg., Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/work/qol2020/quality_life_european_cities_en.pdf.
75. Stochastic Dominance in Multicriterion Analysis under Risk10.1007/BF01078868 ↗
76. Jajuga, K., Dehnel, G., and Walesiak, M. (2022). Application of the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Synthetic Measure in the Subjective Quality of Life Measurement Based on Survey Data. Modern Classification and Data Analysis, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-031-10190-8 ↗