Subjective well-being scales have been researched for more than ten years and they show high construct validity so that they are comparable across individuals and societies. Subjective wellbeing is measured through self reports and this scale correlates well with a number of non-selfreport- or objective measures such as reports from colleagues and friends, memory measures and interviews ( Diener& Suh, 2000). Subjective well-being research has been based on surveys of population not only samples of college students It is important to note that measures of subjective wellbeing are not equal to measures of happiness. The first variable includes cognitive evaluations about achieving important values and goals in the life span of the individual as well as the affective measure of how well that person feels, whereas the second variable comprises only the affective elements of pleasure and avoiding pain. So, measures of happiness are not sufficient to fully evaluate quality of life of societies or cities because people have terminal and intermediate values that they try to achieve in addition to feel hedonism in particular events. Subjective wellbeing values important considerations such as human equality, respect for nature, and a sense of social justice, regardless of whether these things will make people happier or more satisfied. People hope to increase their subjective wellbeing through the quality of their social relationships and the attainment of goals and values and not only from instant pleasure has that may for example come from drugs use.

Measures of subjective wellbeing include an evaluation and a judgment of whether people are living a good life and include judgments that go beyond instant hedonism. Subjective wellbeing is one outcome measure by which people judge successful living. Additionally, human health and wellbeing are two important and good standards with which to start in judging a city and a society.

Subjective wellbeing can be measured from two different conceptual approaches: a top-down approach mainly developed by Diener (1985) or a bottom-up approach which measures facets or dimensions of the good life. The first approach has proposed a general measure of overall satisfaction with life in general which has shown good psychometrics qualities and a high validity and reliability. The second approach may be considered as the first deconstruction measure of the top down approach and it has been developed by the international wellbeing group a group whose academic leadership has been encouraged by Robert Cummins at Deakin University, Melbourne Australia.

# **4. International Well-being Index (IWI) and Personal Well-being Index (PWI):**

The International Well-being Index (IWI) is the international application of the Personal and National Wellbeing Index (PWI; NWI) which include only subjective measures wellbeing (Cummins &Lau, 2005). The international application of these indexes has been carried out by the international Wellbeing Group Index which was initiated by Cummins in order to explore its validity across cultures. The author of this paper is the primary researcher for Colombia and has made its application to the case of its capital city Bogotá. The index consists of seven domains of the overall measure of life-satisfaction. The domains are: i) satisfaction of standard of living, health, achieving in life, relationships, safety, community connectedness and future security.

NWI consists of six domains ( Tilouine, Cummins & Davern , 2006): satisfaction with economic situation of the country or city, state of the environment, social conditions, satisfaction with national or local government, business, and security.

The seven domains of PWI were regressed onto satisfaction with life as a whole (Diener, 1985). A factor analysis and reliability check was conducted in order to see if dimensions of PWI and NWI charge in one factor. The international reliability of the index was checked with Cronbach ́s alpha ( Cronbach, 1954) and item-domain correlations.

63