Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 94, Issue 2, pp 213–226 | Cite as

A Perception Survey for the Evaluation of Urban Quality of Life in Kocaeli and a Comparison of the Life Satisfaction with the European Cities

  • Nihal SenlierEmail author
  • Reyhan Yildiz
  • E. Diğdem Aktaş
Article

Abstract

Studies on urban quality of life (QoL) have been attracting lots of attention from various countries due to the deterioration of urban environment and decrease of the urban QoL. These studies that have been supported by international organizations such as United Nations, World Bank, OECD, European Commission and EUROSTAT (European Statistics) involve comparative assessment of life satisfaction in the European cities and comparing cities facilitate the exchange of experiment and improve the quality of local policies. The main objective of this study is to measure the local perceptions of QoL in Kocaeli, which is one of the important industrial cities of Turkey and compare the life satisfaction with the European cities. Generally, two different types of indicators have been used: objective and subjective indicators. The objective indicators cover five fields: socio-economic aspects, participation in civic life, education and training, environment and culture, and leisure. The subjective indicators are mainly for valuation of QoL perceptions in a city. In this research, a perception survey will be carried out to measure the local perceptions of QoL in Kocaeli. This survey will present on issues for which the residents in the Kocaeli had widely diverging opinions: employment opportunities, housing costs, safety, cleanliness of city, public transport, air quality and overall satisfaction with the QoL of their city. Thus, the study will become a major reference for local officials to improve QoL in Kocaeli and contribute to researches on QoL in cities.

Keywords

Urban quality of life Objective indicators Subjective indicators Perception survey European cities Kocaeli 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Gebze Institute of Technology Research Fund is gratefully acknowledged for supporting this study (Project number: GIT 2006-A-18).

References

  1. Commission of the European Communities. (1999). European spatial development perspective, towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union, European Commission, Luxembourg. From European Commission Web site: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/pdf/sum_en.pdf. Accessed June 2002.
  2. Cummins, R. A. (1999). A psychometric evaluation of the comprehensive quality of life scale. In L. L. Yuan, B. Yuen & C. Low (Eds.), Urban quality of life: Critical issues and options (5th ed., pp. 32–46). Singapore: Singapore University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Diener, E.D., & Lucas, R.E. (2000). Subjective emotional well-being. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (2nd ed.) (pp. 325–337). New York: Guilford. From University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Psychology Department Web site: http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~ediener/hottopic/paper2.html. Accessed Dec 2006.
  4. Giannias, D. A. (1998). A quality of life based ranking of Canadian cities. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 35(12), 2241–2251. doi: 10.1080/0042098983863.Google Scholar
  5. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (Eds.) (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., & Hollander, A. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1), 5–18. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00232-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lee, Y.J. (2005). Subjectively measuring the quality of life in Taipei. (Paper presented at the 8th International Conference of the Asian Planning Schools Association, Malaysia).Google Scholar
  8. Marans, R. W. (2003). Understanding environmental quality through quality of life study: The 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 73–83. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00239-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McCrea, R., Shyy, T., & Stimson, R. (2006). What is the strength of the link between objective and subjective indicators of urban quality of life? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1(1), 79–96. doi: 10.1007/s11482-006-9002-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mee, K. (2002). Prosperity and the suburban dream: Quality of life and affordability in western Sidney. The Australian Geographer, 33, 337–351. doi: 10.1080/0004918022000028725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moller, V. (2001). Monitoring quality of life in cities: The Durban case. Development Southern Africa, 18(2), 217–238. doi: 10.1080/03768350124208. Electronic version.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rapley, M., & Hopgood, L. (1997). Quality of life in community-based service in rural Australia. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 22(2), 125–141. doi: 10.1080/13668259700033351. Electronic version.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Santos, J.R.A. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of Extension, 37(2). From Journal of Extension Web site: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999April/tt3.html. Accessed July 2007.
  14. Seik, F. T. (2000). Subjective assessment of urban quality of life in Singapore (1997–1998). Habitat International, 24, 31–49. doi: 10.1016/S0197-3975(99)00026-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sinden, A. J. (1982). Application of quality of life indicators to socioeconomic problems: An extension of Liu’s method to evaluate policies for 26 Australian towns. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 41(4), 401–420. doi: 10.1111/j.1536-7150.1982.tb03047.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stimson, R. J., Western, J., Mullins, P., & Simpson, R. (1999). Urban metabolism as a framework for investigating quality of life and sustainable development in the Brisbane-southeast Queensland metro region. In L. L. Yuan, B. Yuen & C. Low (Eds.), Urban quality of life: Critical issues and options (pp. 143–169). Singapore: Singapore University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Sufian, A. J. M. (1993). A multivariate analysis of the determinants of urban quality of life in the world’s largest metropolitan areas. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 30(8), 1319–1329. doi: 10.1080/00420989320081281.Google Scholar
  18. Urban Audit Perception Survey (2004). Perception survey local perceptions of quality of life in 31 European cities. From Urban Audit Web site: http://www.urbanaudit.org/UAPS%20leaflet.pdf. Accessed Feb 2005.
  19. Wish, N. B. (1986). Are we measuring the quality of life? Well-being has subjective dimensions, as well as objective ones. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 45(1), 93–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1536-7150.1986.tb01906.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yuan, L. L., Yuen, B., & Low, C. (1999). Quality of life in cities—definition, approaches and research. In L. L. Yuan, B. Yuen & C. Low (Eds.), Urban quality of life: Critical issues and options (pp. 1–13). Singapore: Singapore University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nihal Senlier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Reyhan Yildiz
    • 1
  • E. Diğdem Aktaş
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of City and Regional Planning, Faculty of ArchitectureGebze Institute of TechnologyGebze, KocaeliTurkey

Personalised recommendations