QoL and livability are pivotal concepts in neighborhood design, shaping the framework for sustainable and inclusive communities. According to the literature, QoL refers to the overall wellbeing and satisfaction of individuals encompassing factors such as health, economic opportunities, social relationships and access to essential services. It combines subjective aspects, like personal happiness, with objective indicators, such as income levels, housing quality and environmental conditions (Allah and Khalil, 2012). Livability, closely related to QoL, focuses on the characteristics of a city or neighborhood that make it suitable and desirable for living. This includes factors like accessibility, availability of green spaces, safety, cultural amenities and infrastructure (Tapsuwan et al., 2017). Together, QoL and livability serve as benchmarks for assessing the success of urban environments in meeting residents’ needs and their satisfaction. Effective urban planning plays a key role in ensuring these benchmarks are achieved by addressing challenges related to housing affordability, transportation systems, and environmental sustainability. In the literature, several studies underscores the importance of adopting integrated strategies that prioritize both individual and community wellbeing (Allah and Khalil, 2012; Tapsuwan et al., 2017).

In addition, global frameworks like the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals stress the importance of creating safe, inclusive, and resilient urban spaces. These frameworks provide a valuable structure for urban planners and policymakers to design cities that not only cater to the immediate needs of residents but also ensure long-term sustainability (Tapsuwan et al., 2017). Aligning urban strategies with these principles helps to create environments that balance economic development with social equity and environmental preservation.

By focusing on QoL and livability, urban planners, policymakers, portfolio and project manager’s efforts can ensure that cities become vibrant and functional spaces where individuals and communities can thrive. These concepts provide a lens through which the success of urban areas can be measured, offering a path forward for creating sustainable and adaptive environments in an increasingly urbanized world.

Residential developments are considered a key economic sector, which helps address the growing housing needs of the urban population. According to the literature, low-rise residential housing refers to houses or apartment buildings that are no more than three to four stories in height. This type of housing is often found in suburban or urban areas and is characterized by its low profile and intimate scale in comparison to other types of developments. On the other hand, gated communities are residential communities or neighborhoods that are enclosed by a physical barrier (such as a boundary wall or a gate) and is accessible only to residents and authorized visitors (Sekisov et al., 2020).

In the past 20 years, Dubai experienced massive growth in low-rise housing construction, including various developer-led low-rise residential gated communities (Ramos Stephen, 2016). Gated communities are becoming a part of the global trends of urbanization and part of the global movement that supports special urban governance (Serag El Din et al., 2013). However, the literature presents opposing views on gated housing communities. On one hand, they are safe and secure places that offer favorable urban life for residents (Mahgoub and Khalfani, 2012). On the other hand, some researchers suggest that gated housing estates represent fragmented settlement patterns that are disruptive to the urban fabric (Tawfiq, 2013; Vilčeková et al., 2018). However, the typologies of these housing units are based on a typical prototype that is mass produced to achieve the number of units within a community, facilitating effective management of urban growth and development (Le Goix and Webster 2006). Some studies have explored factors that are considered in designing low-rise residential housing. However, there are certain issues that may arise from fast-paced low-rise housing projects. For example, a survey of gated community residents in Qatar, a neighbouring Gulf country, reported that many prefer not to live in low-rise gated communities due to a preference for not sharing amenities to ensure their privacy is not compromised (Mahgoub and Khalfani, 2012). Therefore, when developing low-rise housing communities, it is critical that the perspective of residents and end-users are taken into consideration to understand their perspectives and investigate how it could shape the future low-rise housing projects and the surrounding communities and services.

According to Dubai 2040 vision and in alignment with real estate developers’ portfolios, this research considers low-rise housing communities an opportunity for enhancing the QoL for their residents and the built environment. Hence, the study will further explore the key aspects that can address the residents’ needs and contribute to their QoL in low-rise housing communities.

Real estate developers are considered influential in transforming a city’s economy and built fabric due to the scale and impact of their projects. Governments tend to encourage and support developers due to their ability to influence the economy, investment, city’s growth and diverse lifestyle they offer to nationals and expatriates (Grant et al., 2007). In Dubai, several real estate developers are leading the development process such as Emaar, Damac, Nakheel, and Dubai Properties; of which many of their projects are residential communities, ranging in scale and height between low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise buildings.

Each real estate developer has a distinct portfolio and projects, which are evident in the end products delivered to the market. Project Portfolio Management (PPM) is a common methodology that aligns an organization’s strategic goals with its projects and portfolios. According to Project Management Institute (2008), a portfolio is defined as a “collection of projects or programs and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives” (Alteneiji et al., 2019). Portfolio management is considered as the activities used to coordinate programs and projects to ensure they are achieving the organizational objectives. Given the scale and impact of a developer’s projects on the city, it is significant for them to manage their portfolios and projects effectively (Boanada-Fuchs and Boanada, 2022).

One of the challenges facing PPM in the practical world is the relationship between project management and an organization’s strategy. Strategic decisions are considered the responsibility of top management, whereas projects are managed by independent and distanced project managers (Kaiser et al., 2014). Table 1 summarizes the key indicators involved in measuring the effectiveness of an organization’s PPM based on the related literature.

Project performance and stakeholder satisfaction has been found to be common indicators across most references, which directs this study to focus on the quality of projects offered by real estate developers in Dubai. Further research has revealed that Forbes (Forbes Lists, 2021) issued a list of top 50 real estate developers in MENA, including the following in Dubai:

Emaar

By comparing projects’ information issued by these developers, the following project’s details were found common across their projects:

Developer’s name

These details are extracted based on a comparison between the developers’ marketing material that they present to the public on their websites Arada housing projects (2026), residential properties at Aldar (2023), Emaar’s Communities (2023), Nakheel (2022).

From an industry perspective, recent studies emphasize that developer-led residential projects are increasingly evaluated not only by delivery efficiency and financial performance, but also by their ability to generate long-term value through resident satisfaction, livability, and asset performance. Industry-oriented research highlights that early-stage planning and design decisions—particularly those related to spatial layouts, unit configurations, and community amenities—have a disproportionate influence on operational performance, market competitiveness, and long-term user satisfaction in residential developments (Boanada-Fuchs and Boanada, 2022). As a result, developers and portfolio managers are progressively integrating user-centered and performance-based indicators into their decision-making processes to enhance the overall quality and resilience of residential communities. At the portfolio level, practical decision-making frameworks increasingly incorporate performance-based indicators to optimize benefits across multiple projects and ensure alignment between strategic objectives and project outcomes (Bai et al., 2022). As a result, developers and portfolio managers are progressively integrating user-centered and performance-based indicators into their decision-making processes to enhance the overall quality and resilience of residential communities.

To understand the relationship of development-led projects on the population, a closer review is undertaken to outline the characteristics of housing neighborhoods and their impact on the community.

According to the literature, QoL is an interdisciplinary notion. It refers to the wellbeing of a population or an individual in terms of both positive and negative aspects of their existence at a certain period. Common aspects of QoL include like one’s relationships, education level, employment situation, social standing, wealth, sense of security and safety, freedom, decision-making autonomy, social belonging, and physical surroundings (Cai et al., 2021). Further, the term “quality of life” could also be ambiguous because it can be used to describe an individual’s perception of his or her own existence and the circumstances in which they live in; thus, it could be highly subjective rather than objective. Therefore, further investigation of the key indicators of QoL in residential communities is crucial to understand how it could be measured through the development of low-rise housing projects (Liu, 1975).

In the case of low-rise housing projects, planners, designers, and real estate developers have the upper hand in shaping the QoL in residential communities through several indicators further outlined in the literature review. Improving the QoL in low-rise housing communities is no longer just about physical improvements, but it also revolves around human satisfaction with various urban issues such as transportation, the quality of public spaces, recreational opportunities, land use patterns, population, building densities, ease of access to basic goods and services, public health, safety, education, social integration, promoting equality, and cultural identities (Anwar et al., 2021; Benedict et al., 2022). The concept of QoL began in the world in the late sixties and is an integral aspect of Dubai 2040s vision of residential communities. Designers and officials are interested in studying the priorities of various needs of the population and the extent of their satisfaction within residential areas (Martinez, 2018).

A resident’s satisfaction is defined as the feeling of contentment that a person has when he/she achieves his housing needs and desires (Abidin et al., 2019). This is a critical aspect to be considered by portfolio managers, developers, and policymakers in their housing projects. This research focuses specifically on monitoring and assessing the impact of real estate developers’ portfolios and projects on end users (residents) and their QoL.

Prior research on residential quality of life has emphasized the importance of adopting multi-dimensional assessment frameworks that capture both housing unit characteristics and neighborhood-level conditions. Studies in low-cost and conventional residential environments have operationalized QoL using combined indicators related to housing conditions, availability of services, accessibility, and the surrounding neighborhood environment, highlighting the interdependence between physical, social, and functional attributes (Ismail et al., 2015). Housing satisfaction has also been shown to vary according to socio-demographic and housing circumstances, including affordability, household characteristics, and tenure-related factors, indicating that residents’ perceptions are shaped by both spatial qualities and socio-economic context (Nguyen et al., 2017). At the scale of the dwelling, spatial layout and space utilization have been consistently linked to perceived housing quality, supporting the inclusion of unit configuration variables—such as room sizes, spatial organization, and functional relationships—in residential satisfaction studies (Özsoy and Gökmen, 2017).

Current studies on QoL have concentrated on two fundamental methods of measurement. The first is the “subjective wellbeing” quality which is a factor that reflects the self-assessments of a person’s life, indicating the micro level of life quality that is gathered from people and the characteristics of each person, such as ambition, satisfaction and values held by individuals. To determine the level of a person’s welfare, this sort of measurement relies on that person’s realization of themselves. It can be measured using interviews, questionnaires, and a Likert scale to analyze the responses (Babaei and Ajza Shokouhi, 2013). The other measurement method is called “objective” measurements of QoL quantitative indices, generally of social, economic, and health indicators that represent the degree to which human needs can be addressed and the capacity to engage in everyday routines (Generalova, 2018). It leads to quality of conditions which is divided into the quality of housing, social system, and ecological and physical wellbeing. For example, objective measures include indices of economic production, literacy rates, life expectancy and other data that can be gathered without directly surveying the individuals being assessed (Georgiou and Hancock, 2009).

A study (Omar et al., 2019) indicates that QoL in residential communities could be assessed through several aspects; each of them could be measured through indicators. The following are both aspects and its measuring indicators:

Urban Form: Considers elements of services, mobility, beauty needs, and privacy in urban form, safety, security and planning standards.

In Dubai, empirical studies show that indoor environmental factors such as daylight performance can influence both physical comfort and mental wellbeing in residential settings (Abdelaziz Mahmoud et al., 2022). Adequate access to natural light has been associated with improved occupants’ mood, visual comfort, and overall satisfaction with residential units, while insufficient daylight may negatively affect psychological wellbeing and perceived housing quality. These findings reinforce the importance of integrating indoor environmental quality considerations within the architectural and environmental dimensions of QoL assessment in low-rise housing communities, particularly in hot-climate contexts such as the UAE. Evidence from Dubai also indicates that residents’ housing choices reflect multi-criteria preferences that combine unit attributes, location, and community-level amenities (Jung et al., 2022).

To understand the impact of developer’s projects on residents’ QoL, several housing-related attributes have been considered from the residents’ perspectives as outlined in Table 2.

The reviewed literature establishes a clear set of housing and community-related indicators that shape residents’ quality of life in low-rise residential environments. Across previous studies, these indicators consistently fall into several domains, including architectural and spatial attributes, construction quality, economic considerations, social and environmental conditions, and the availability of community amenities. These domains collectively reinforce the importance of measuring both subjective satisfaction and objective characteristics of the built environment.

Beyond addressing a research gap, this study responds to a practical challenge faced by developers and planners involved in development-led residential projects, where early design and planning decisions are often guided by standardized templates and market assumptions rather than empirical evidence of residents’ quality-of-life priorities. Drawing from the established indicators in the literature, the present study adopts a structured, decision-support-oriented approach to evaluate residents’ satisfaction by translating the most recurrent variables into survey items and analytical measures. This approach enables the identification of priority housing and community attributes that can inform design optimization, amenity prioritization, and portfolio-level planning, while ensuring direct alignment between the theoretical foundations of quality of life and the methodological framework applied in this research.

Statistical assessment of the collected data was conducted using SAS 9.4 software to determine descriptive statistics and characterize the responses. The data was found to be reliable with a Cronbach alpha result of 0.88 indicating good internal consistency. The general demographics of the respondents are as follow:

Gender: 76% of the responses were by females, and 24% were by males. Figure 2 shows residents’ overall satisfaction of their housing unit (Y1) and community (Y2) based on gender. According to Figure 2, female respondents tend to be more satisfied of their housing unit and community than male respondents.

This section assesses residents’ satisfaction with various attributes of their housing units and surrounding community. A five-point Likert scale is used for all variables, where 1 represents the lowest satisfaction level and 5 represents the highest. A general overview of residents’ satisfaction reflects an average of (3.5 out of 5) on their satisfaction within their housing unit, and a relatively higher value (3.7 out of 5) on their satisfaction of the surrounding community and its amenities. Figures 5, 6 represent the average satisfaction on each of the characteristics within the housing unit and the surrounding community.

Within the housing unit residents are most satisfied with fenestrations (windows and balconies), exterior design (facades and terraces) and the size of living spaces. However, the average indicates they are least satisfied with the size of the kitchen and the quality of construction materials. On the other hand, and at the scale of the community, residents are most satisfied with landscape and security, both of which received an average satisfaction of 4 out of 5. However, residents are least satisfied with the community facilities, play areas and the quality of maintenance and operations. These results begin to provide a high-level categorization of the key indicators that can be considered by decision-makers regarding the present and future communities.

Given the exploratory nature of the study and the limited sample size, the statistical analyses are used to identify relative relationships and influential variables within the dataset rather than to establish definitive causal or generalizable conclusions. Linear regression analysis is used to identify the relationship between the characteristics of the housing units and the community in relation to residents’ satisfaction. This provides a hierarchical structure as to which characteristics are strongly associated with the residents’ satisfaction as well as estimating the dimension of their impact. Two multiple linear regression models were developed to explore relationships between residents’ satisfaction and housing and community attributes. The first model examines overall satisfaction with the housing unit (Y1) as the dependent variable, while the second model examines overall satisfaction with the community (Y2). Independent variables were selected based on recurrent indicators identified in the literature review. Given the exploratory nature of the study and the limited sample size, regression analysis is used to identify relative associations between variables rather than to establish causal or predictive relationships.