Composite Index Development for Reforming Urban Livability Through the Subjective Quality of Life Indicators Approach in Salatiga City, Indonesia

A livable city and a high quality of life (QoL) are intrinsically linked. A livable city is an urban area that integrates multiple dimensions to provide a favorable, comfortable, and sustainable environment for its residents. A city considered comfortable to live in refers to a place where the built environment positively influences the well-being and quality of life of its inhabitants. The urban environment should be designed to enhance quality of life by meeting the basic needs of residents [9, 10] through the provision of accessible facilities for all groups—regardless of age, socioeconomic status, physical ability, or gender identity [11]. At its core, the principle is that urban planning, economic value, and social sustainability are inherently interconnected. Cities should promote a landscape that encourages healthy and sustainable living [12-14], while also considering ease of access, connectivity to central areas, the availability of open green spaces, economic vibrancy, and the general standard of living [15]. In this context, the increasing movement of people within urban areas necessitates a spatially interconnected urban configuration, both internally within cities as they grow, and externally between cities [16]. This is part of a continuous process aimed at fulfilling the living needs of urban populations, ultimately seeking to achieve the highest attainable quality of life. Wey [17] explained that quality of life is reflected in levels of happiness, life satisfaction, and fulfillment of personal aspirations. This includes both material well-being and the extent to which individuals derive benefit and enjoyment from their lives. A person's quality of life can be considered favorable when their state of well-being is adequately fulfilled. However, individual-level quality of life is closely linked to material-based economic development and macro-level growth, often measured through monetary indicators. It is important to note that high economic growth alone does not automatically translate to a favorable quality of life. Studies in developed countries initially revealed that conventional development strategies did not always achieve their intended outcomes. This led to the emergence of more targeted and innovative approaches centered around three key growth models: smart growth, sustainable growth, and inclusive growth. These strategies advocate for redefining urban development with a greater emphasis on the concept of growth—one that also integrates sustainability principles [14, 17] and also considers sustainability aspects [18]. In this regard, the sustainability component of a “sustainable city” framework emphasizes prioritizing the natural environment in urban policies, aligning this focus with the economic advantages of urban agglomeration [19]. The triad of economic, social, and environmental indicators is further emphasized by Junior et al. [20] who argue that a sustainable city is one where economic and social elements provide measurable socio-economic benefits for residents, while environmental thresholds are respected to ensure ecological well-being for all. Through such sustainability-driven cities, the quality of life of their inhabitants is expected to be progressively enhanced.

The formulation of indicators plays a central role in the planning and development of livable cities—spanning dimensions such as public safety, healthcare, transportation and public infrastructure, the natural environment, and arts and culture. These indicators serve as clear and measurable benchmarks to guide urban development, especially given the complex interplay between sustainability and quality of life improvements [21]. In another study, Benita et al. [22] identified eight key dimensions that define urban livability: public transportation, infrastructure, community amenities, open and public spaces, healthcare services, environmental and cultural features, education, and employment. Almatar [23] emphasizes that infrastructure development, such as road systems, must be designed to be inclusive and accessible to all, including persons with disabilities, children, and the elderly.

Livable city assessments also consider a variety of indicators, such as economic vitality, environmental integrity, political stability, healthcare, education, infrastructure, safety, social cohesion, and cultural vibrancy. The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), through its City Prosperity Index, evaluates urban well-being using six dimensions: economic productivity, quality of life, social equity, environmental sustainability, urban governance, and connectivity. More recently, UN-Habitat has introduced analytical tools utilizing spatial indicators. These include road connectivity, public space availability, and economic agglomeration—each offering clearer spatial mappings that enhance value assessments and better inform decision-making. A comprehensive assessment of urban livability and quality of life must combine both objective and subjective measurements [24]. Objective indicators alone are often considered insufficient to capture the complexities of livability [25]. Satisfaction—an essential component of livability—reflects the perceived gap between individual aspirations and the actual conditions experienced. On the other hand, subjective measures, while vital, may not fully reflect the physical environment in which people live. Livability and quality of life are influenced by perceptions, emotions, and personal values [7, 26]. This perspective is supported by findings from Okulicz-Kozaryn [12] and Lee and Sener [27] who argue that subjective indicators are indispensable for capturing the lived experiences of urban residents—rather than solely relying on expert-derived indices. Thus, public perspectives play a critical role in identifying key barriers and opportunities for enhancing livability within cities [10].

The construction of the composite index follows the stages illustrated in Figure 3. After identifying the indicators (Table 2), the subsequent steps include structuring the indicators, standardization, weighting, and aggregation. The structuring of indicators is carried out using two statistical approaches: the KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. The determination of the total number of factors was carried out using the eigenvalue approach, with the criterion that only eigenvalues greater than 1 were considered valid for factor extraction. If the eigenvalue is less than 1, it does not meet the threshold and therefore is excluded from the factor count. The number of extracted factors reflects the proportion of variance explained by the set of indicators within each dimension. Prior to performing factor analysis, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were conducted to assess the appropriateness of the subjective indicators for each dimension (Table 4).

Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity

Table 4 demonstrates that the sample adequacy for factor analysis is satisfactory. This is evident from the KMO values for the dimensions of Physical Well-being, Economic Well-being, and Social Well-being, which are 0.784, 0.742, and 0.765, respectively, indicating that all three dimensions have very good sampling adequacy. Although the KMO value for the Mental Well-being dimension is the lowest at 0.647, it still falls within the acceptable range as it exceeds the minimum threshold of 0.50. Meanwhile, the results of Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity for all four dimensions show high Chi-Square values that are statistically significant (p < 0.001). These findings confirm the presence of sufficient correlations among items within each construct of urban livability being tested and indicate that the correlation matrices are not identity matrices. Therefore, all four well-being dimensions are statistically valid and appropriate for further analysis.

The result shows that five latent factors were extracted from the Physical Well-being dimension, reducing the original 15 indicators into five core components based on significant variance. The first factor accounts for 22.891%, the second for 15.724%, the third for 8.139%, the fourth for 7.160%, and the fifth for 6.730%, cumulatively explaining 60.644% of the total variance. This indicates that the five extracted factors are able to explain 60.644% of the variability within the 15 indicators measuring physical well-being. From the Mental Well-being dimension, eight original indicators were reduced into three principal factors. The first factor contributes 25.249% to the total variance, the second 14.864%, and the third 12.738%, resulting in a cumulative explanatory power of 52.851%. These three factors, therefore, account for 52.851% of the variability within the eight indicators related to mental well-being. Within the Economic Well-being dimension, 11 indicators were distilled into three main factors. The first factor explains 25.459% of the variance, the second 16.269%, and the third 10.342%, with a combined explanatory value of 52.069%. This shows that the three factors together explain 52.069% of the total variance of the economic well-being indicators. As for the Social Well-being dimension, 13 original indicators were reduced into four primary factors. According to the Total Variance Explained table, the first factor accounts for 24.197%, the second for 13.325%, the third for 9.398%, and the fourth for 7.831%, culminating in a total variance explanation of 54.751%. These four factors thus capture 54.751% of the variability within the 13 indicators reflecting social prosperity.

4.1 Aggregation and weighting

A greater weighting factor is derived by comparing the proportion of variance explained by a particular factor with the total variance explained by the dominant factors. Each indicator within a factor does not contribute equally; instead, every indicator plays a distinct role in forming the composite index. Therefore, an unequal weighting scheme is applied, reflecting how each factor influences the index [32].

The magnitude of each factor within a given dimension is expressed in terms of the percentage of explained variance, with proportional weighting. A normalized score (N-score) is then calculated for each factor. These factor scores are combined to generate a standardized z-score, which is subsequently rescaled to a score ranging from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 100 using min–max normalization multiplied by 100. The resulting variance percentages and respective weights are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 shows that the Economic Well-being dimension contributes the most to the Livable City Index, with the highest aggregation score of 55.64. This score is derived from indicators such as average income and expenditure, satisfaction with household economic conditions, and access to economic facilities. It is followed by Physical Well-being (51.98) and Social Well-being (49.31). Despite including the strongest factor component related to satisfaction with mental health, Mental Well-being records the lowest score (46.37). This suggests that although mental well-being is important, it has not yet emerged as a primary consideration in residents’ perceptions of Salatiga’s livability. Overall, the Livable City Index score for Salatiga is 50.82. Referring to the classification proposed by Azwar [33], this places Salatiga’s livability level in the moderate category.

The radar chart visualization (Figure 4) reveals that the primary strengths of Salatiga City lie in the dimensions of Economic Well-being and Physical Well-being. In contrast, the dimensions of Social Well-being and Mental Well-being remain below the ideal threshold, indicating weak social cohesion and heightened psychological stress within the community. This disparity suggests that, despite being economically and physically well-off, the balance and sustainability of a livable city require further improvement, particularly through strengthening mental and social well-being networks. The challenge of improving the environmental and social aspects of urban livability is also faced by the city of Faisalabad, located in Punjab Province, Pakistan. This city shares several characteristics with Salatiga, including the nature of its community, dependence on the local economy, and the state of its infrastructure development. Although Faisalabad scores higher on the livability index than Salatiga, it still faces the pressing need to enhance mental and social well-being, despite having a relatively stable economy [34].

Table 5. Weight dimensional factor weighing

The spatial planning and development of Salatiga City are integrated with national and provincial development agendas. Strategically located between major cities such as Jakarta, Semarang, and Surabaya to the north, and Magelang, Yogyakarta, and Surakarta to the south, Salatiga is often referred to as a 'Transit City'. This geographical advantage is expected to generate positive spillover effects across various dimensions of well-being, ultimately influencing the urban's overall livability.

4.png

Figure 4. Spider chart showing the performance of livability urban index

4.2 Dimension 1. Physical well-being

According to the indicators established by the Indonesian Association of Planners (IAP), the dimension of physical well-being in a livable city can be assessed through basic facilities (electricity, sanitation, and clean water), education and healthcare services, public transportation systems, and public infrastructure. In general, residents of Salatiga perceive the availability of electricity, sanitation, and clean water to be satisfactory, as these facilities are fairly evenly distributed throughout the city. Similar levels of satisfaction are observed with regard to access to healthcare and education services. More than 90% of respondents reported having active health insurance coverage (such as BPJS, private insurance, or company-provided plans), which enables them to easily access healthcare services. Public infrastructure, such as recreational open spaces and areas with ecological functions, is available and accessible from residential neighborhoods. Likewise, places of worship and shopping centers are widely distributed and easily reachable. Positive assessments of Salatiga’s physical indicators are also reflected in access to and the quality of energy infrastructure, information technology, and internet connectivity, which have shown notable development in urban areas. However, another finding reveals that public satisfaction with transportation remains limited, as many residents prefer using private vehicles or motorcycles over public transit. The underutilization of public transportation is primarily attributed to issues of inefficiency and lack of comfort. The misalignment between spatial planning and transportation systems, combined with the rise of online ride-hailing services, has further contributed to the declining use of conventional public transport in Salatiga. These conditions are consistent with the findings of Ashari and Budiono [35].

4.3 Dimensions 2. Mental well-being

The mental well-being dimension recorded the lowest contribution to the Livability Index of Salatiga City, at 46.37%. This finding is supported by data from the Salatiga City Health Office since 2022, indicating a rise in mental health issues, with 410 reported cases of mental disorders, including schizophrenia and psychotic conditions. The study reveals that the primary contributing factor is economic stress, particularly financial pressure, following the post-COVID-19 pandemic period in 2022. Survey results also show that the situation is exacerbated by the limited average leisure time among residents, which ranges from only 2 to 5 hours per week, thereby reducing opportunities for relaxation and mental recovery.

According to Jayawardana et al. [36], it was found that poverty (low income) contributes to an increased risk of mental health. A relatively low perception of mental well-being has contributed to the decline in the livability score of Salatiga City. Therefore, enhancing access to mental health services and providing adequate public space facilities are crucial steps to improve mental well-being and, consequently, raise the city's livability index.

4.4 Dimensions 3. Economy well-being

The most significant and dominant factor in determining the livability of Salatiga City is the dimension of economic well-being, accounting for 55.64%. Employment, income, expenditure, purchasing power, and access to financial institutions are key indicators within this dimension. Most respondent, particularly those employed in the private sector, reported moderate to high levels of economic satisfaction, especially with economic indicators that significantly influence their perceived quality of life. These assessments reflect the critical role of economic capacity in meeting basic needs [37]. This finding suggests that stable income, prudent consumption behavior, and sufficient savings positively contribute to life satisfaction and individuals’ subjective well-being [38, 39]. Furthermore, awareness of economic independence, often influenced by educational attainment—also plays a role in enhancing personal happiness [40]. Another notable finding reveals that although a small segment of the population continues to face challenges and limited access, the majority experience ease in accessing financial facilities (such as banks and cooperatives) in Salatiga. This accessibility is facilitated by the widespread availability of financial services, including banks, ATMs, and cooperatives throughout the city. As a result, residents generally possess adequate economic capacity to meet their daily needs, which in turn enhances their sense of security, satisfaction, and financial stability—factors that significantly influence subsequent economic decision-making. These findings are consistent with Social Comparison Theory, which posits that relatively high asset ownership fosters psychological satisfaction [38]. The relatively stable economic conditions thus have a positive impact on residents’ happiness. Therefore, the economic dimension plays a pivotal role in shaping urban livability in Salatiga, indicating that the city provides a conducive environment for a comfortable and economically prosperous life.

4.5 Dimensions 4. Social well-being

Salatiga is a multicultural city predominantly inhabited by Javanese and Chinese ethnic groups. Despite being minorities, Batak, Minangkabau, Dayak, Ambonese, Buginese, and Papuan communities coexist peacefully. Various religious groups—such as Muslims, Christians, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, and followers of indigenous beliefs—demonstrate mutual tolerance in daily life, fostering a safe and harmonious atmosphere. The findings indicate that, on average, respondents have lived in Salatiga for more than 15 years. This suggests that beyond economic considerations, cultural values, psychological comfort, and social networks play significant roles in residential decision-making [41]. Another finding from the social well-being indicators reveals that most residents perceive Salatiga as a city with low levels of crime and social conflict. However, certain suburban areas exhibit slightly different perceptions due to sporadic incidents of theft. Additionally, the indicator related to environmental quality shows a decline in both air and water quality. This is supported byPanjaitan et al. [42] that monitored air conditions in industrial zones and found several parameters exceeding the permissible thresholds. Reports released by the Environmental Agency since 2021 also indicate that industrial activities along the Banyuputih and Jetis rivers are the main contributors to water pollution in Salatiga. Air quality monitoring in these industrial areas similarly reveals that several indicators surpass the recommended limits. In a livable city, air quality issues should not be overlooked or treated merely as a local concern. It is essential to understand the spatial interaction framework between regions, as these dynamics directly influence overall environmental quality [43, 44]. Hence, such issues must be addressed collaboratively with neighboring areas. The development of Salatiga should not only prioritize economic growth and the enhancement of local living standards but also consider potential externalities—particularly those related to air and water quality—arising from various activities. This approach ensures that residents can experience genuine social welfare while living in Salatiga.