Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 88, Issue 2, pp 297–310 | Cite as

Urban Quality of Life: A Case Study of Guwahati

  • Daisy DasEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper studies quality of life (QOL) in urban environment. The term environment has been used in broader sense, which includes physical, social and economic environment. A framework has been proposed which posits that QOL comprises objective condition of living and satisfaction from such living condition constitutes QOL. Such objective condition refers to objective QOL and satisfaction refers to subjective QOL. Dimension of QOL has been found to be multi dimensional. It has been found that both objective and subjective condition is important dimension of QOL. But correlation between objective and subjective QOL has been found not to be high. At the same time it has been found that satisfaction from condition of traffic is the lowest among all satisfaction variables.

Keywords

Subjective QOL Objective QOL Environment 

References

  1. Baschak, L. A., & Brown, R. D. (2003). An ecological framework for the planning, design and management of urban river greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33, 211–225.Google Scholar
  2. Beukes, E., & Colff, A. V. (1997). Aspects of the quality of life in black townships in a South African city: Implications for human development. Social Indicators Research, 41, 229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, J., Bowling A., & Flynn, T. (2004). Models of quality of life: A taxonomy, overview and systematic review of the literature. European Forum on Population Ageing Research.Google Scholar
  4. Bubolz, M. M., Eicher, J. B., Evers, S. J., & Sontag, M. S. (1979). A human ecological approach to quality of life: Conceptual framework and results of a preliminary study, Social Indicators Research, 7, 103–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan, A., Ofstedal, M. B., & Hermalin, A. I. (2002). Changes in subjective and objective measures of economic well-being and their interrelationship among the elderly in Singapore and Taiwan. Social Indicators Research, 57, 263–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christakopoulon, S., Dawson, J., & Gari, A. (2001). The community well-being questionnaire: Theoretical context and initial assessment of its reliability and validity, Social Indicators Research, 56, 321–351.Google Scholar
  7. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diener, E., & Re, L. (2000). Subjective emotional well being. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed.). New York.Google Scholar
  9. Fakhruddin, M. (1991). Quality of urban life. Jaipur: Rawat Publication.Google Scholar
  10. Garb, Y, Kamp, I. V., Kuijpers, M., Ourednicek, M., & Sykora, L. (2004). Special deconcentration of economic land use and quality of life in European metropolitan areas, Quality of Life Indicators Report (D02). Available at http://selma.rtdproject.net, accessed March 14, 2007.
  11. Kamp, I. V., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., & Hollander, A. D. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well being– Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kolenikov, S. (1998). The methods of the quality of life assessment. Master thesis. NES, Moscow. Retrieved from http://www.komkon.org/∼tacik/science/skolenik_nes_thesis.pdf, accessed February 28, 2007.
  13. Lever, J. P. (2000). The development of an instrument to measure quality of life in Mexico City. Social Indicators Research, 50, 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Matikka, L. M. (2001). Service oriented assessment of quality of life of adults with intellectual disabilities. Dissertation of Finnish Association of Mental Retardation (Electronic version), from http://acta.uta.fi, accessed April 7, 2007.
  15. Milbrath, L. W. (1979). Policy relevant quality of life research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 444, 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Misajon, R. A. (2002). The homeostatic mechanism: Subjective quality of life and chronic pain. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Deakin University, Australia.Google Scholar
  17. Rogerson, R. J. (1995). Environmental and health-related quality of life: Conceptual and methodological similarities, Social Science Medicine, 41(10), 1373–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shin, D. C., Rutkowski, C. P., & Park, C. M. (2003). The quality of life in Korea: Comparative and dynamic perspectives. Social Indicators Research, 62, 63, 3–36.Google Scholar
  19. Ulengin, B., Ulengin, F., & Guvenc, U. (2001). Living environment preferences of the inhabitants of Istanbul: A modified hierarchical information integration model. Social Indicators Research, 57, 13–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Whittington, D. (2000). Environmental issues. In M. Grosh & P. Glewwe (Eds.), Designing household survey questionnaires for developing countries. World Bank LSMS Survey.Google Scholar
  21. WHO-QOL Group (1995). The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL), Position Paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of Technology-GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations