Social Indicators Research

, Volume 7, Issue 1–4, pp 103–136 | Cite as

A human ecological approach to quality of life: Conceptual framework and results of a preliminary study

  • Margaret M. Bubolz
  • Joanne B. Eicher
  • Sandra J. Evers
  • M. Suzanne Sontag
Article

Abstract

A human ecological framework for study of quality of life is proposed and used in the study of the QOL of a rural sample in northern Michigan. The framework is based on an ecosystem, i.e., the interaction of humans, the environed units, with their interrelated environments. These are conceptualized as: natural, human constructed and human behavioral. Quality of life indicators can measure aspects of the environed units, environments, and their interaction.

Scales to measure perceived overall quality of life (POQL), community satisfaction (COMSAT), and the importance of and satisfaction with selected life concerns (SALI and SALS) were used. The life concerns represented human needs, attributes of the self, conditions and resources of the three environments, or implied interaction with or action upon the environment. Objectives were to study how these life concerns contributed to POQL; the relationship between SALI and SALS ratings and how this influenced POQL; the relationship between COMSAT and POQL; and whether or not satisfaction with these two variables varied by demographic characteristics.

A relatively high POQL was found; those with higher incomes and children living at home had higher scores. COMSAT was also generally high, but did not vary by demographic characteristics. POQL and COMSAT were significantly related. Family life, health, safety, house, and financial security ranked highest in importance; clothing, spare time activities, and fun ranked lowest. Family life, religious faith, food work, and safety ranked highest in satisfaction; national government, financial security, developing oneself, health, and an interesting life ranked the lowest. The various life concerns appear) to behave differently in regard to how the discrepancy between importance of a concern and satisfaction with it influences overall quality of life.

Satisfaction with accomplishments, family life, work and financial security accounted for over half the variance in POQL. These represent essential human needs which are satisfied with resources of the near environment, suggesting the salience of one's most proximate environment to evaluation of quality of life.

Findings, while preliminary, illustrate the viability of a human ecological model as a unifying framework for conceptualization and measurement of quality of life. Further specification and elaboration of the model are indicated.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bioliography

  1. AndrewsFrank M.: 1974, ‘Social indicators of perceived life quality’, Social Indicators Research 1, pp. 279–299.Google Scholar
  2. AndrewsFrank M. and StephenWithey: 1976, Social Indicators of Well-Being: Americans' Perceptions of Life Quality (New York, Plenum Publishing Corp.).Google Scholar
  3. AuerswaldE. H.: 1968, ‘Interdisciplinary versus ecological approach’, Family Process 7, pp. 202–215.Google Scholar
  4. Bubolz, Margaret, Joanne Eicher and M. Suzanne Sontag, 1979, ‘The Human Ecosystem: Conceptual Clarification’, Journal of Home Economics, pp. 28–31.Google Scholar
  5. Butler, Sara Long: 1977, A human ecological approach to quality of life: thirteen case studies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, E. Lansing).Google Scholar
  6. CampbellAngus, Philip E.Converse and Williard L.Rodgers: 1976, The quality of American life (New York: Russell Sage Foundation).Google Scholar
  7. CantrilHadley: 1965, The pattern of human concerns. (New Brunswick, Rutger's University Press).Google Scholar
  8. Eicher, Joanne B.: 1959, Social factors and social psychological explanation of nonmigration. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, E. Lansing).Google Scholar
  9. EicherJoanne, MargaretBubolz, SandraEvers and M. SuzanneSontag: 1978, Satisfaction with rural community: A longitudinal study in the upper peninsula; (Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report, No. 348, E. Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University).Google Scholar
  10. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Studies Division: 1973, The quality of life concept: A potential tool for decision-makers.Google Scholar
  11. EvansF.: 1956, ‘Ecosystem as the basic unit in ecology’, Science 123, pp. 1127–1128.Google Scholar
  12. GitterG. A. and D. L.Mostofsky: 1973, ‘The social indicator: An index of the quality of life’, Social Biology 20, pp. 289–297.Google Scholar
  13. LandKenneth and SeymourSpilerman; 1975, Social indicator models. (New York, Russell Sage Foundation).Google Scholar
  14. MaslowAbraham: 1954, Motivation and personality. (New York, Harper and Row).Google Scholar
  15. McCallS.: 1975, ‘Quality of life’, Social Indicators Research 2, pp. 229–248.Google Scholar
  16. MorrisonB. M.: 1974, ‘The importance of a balanced perspective: The environments of man’, Man-Environment Systems 4, pp. 171–178.Google Scholar
  17. SproutH. and M.Sprout: 1965, The ecological perspective on human affairs (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  18. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare/Education Division, Federal Interagency Committee on Education, Subcommittee on Environmental Education: 1976, Fundamentals of environmental education, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Co 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret M. Bubolz
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Joanne B. Eicher
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sandra J. Evers
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • M. Suzanne Sontag
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.University of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  3. 3.North Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA

Personalised recommendations