In the 1960s, the first studies on quality of life appeared from a psychological or environmental point of view. Later, various studies carried out by geographers studying spatial differences on social indicators in the 1970s. These studies mainly focused on individual indicators of quality of life such as income, property, employment, an aspect of housing and therefore the quality of the environment in a place of residence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essayIn general, different theoretical frameworks on quality of life have developed in several disciplines, such as economics, medicine and social sciences. Each discipline has developed a completely different view of how quality of life should be conceptualized and measured. According to Van Hecke et al., (2018), among them, four of the most influential models are: Cummins' (2005) theory of subjective well-being homeostasis which examines the main area involving the objective-subjective dichotomy, the basic needs and areas that are currently under discussion. He proposed a conceptual model that distinguishes between causal and indicator variables within the framework of a homeostatic management system. Felce and Perry's (1995, 1997) quality of life model is based on an agreement that quality of life is multidimensional composed of objective and subjective aspects. They also state that the concept can be classified into five main dimensions: physical well-being, material well-being, social well-being, emotional well-being, and development and activity. The World Health Organization's quality of life model (1995) The Schalock and Verdugo (2002) quality of life model which emphasizes "contextual factors" and a "systems perspective" based on across six factor domains, including education, physical health care, mental and behavioral health, mental retardation and intellectual disability, aging, and families. As described by Van Kamp et al. (2003), the concept of quality of life is a concept deeply integrated into thinking about health. However, no uniform view of cause and effect is available on this topic. Mitchell (2000) has reached the point where there is still no unified agreement on quality of life, neither in the terminology, nor in the construction methods or indicators that make up quality of life. His view on quality of life is expressed as a combination of health, physical environment, natural resources, personal development and security (Mitchell et al. 2000). But according to Van Kamp et al., the field of economics is a missing part in his approach, while in others it is one of the three major pillars of quality. In this regard, Kolenikov (1999) explains that the quality of life characterized not only by external factors such as the individual or social group, production technology, infrastructure, relations with other groups or countries, institutions of society, the natural environment, but also by internal factors for example; interaction within society and the values ​​of a person or society. These factors define preferences in defining quality of life in a specific context. Overall, major research approaches to quality of life are generally based on a division between subjective and objective. While the main focus of the subjective (or endogenous) approach concerns the feelings, perceptions, ideas and mental states of the people or groups studied,.