Advertisement

Applied Research in Quality of Life

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 79–96 | Cite as

What is the Strength of the Link Between Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life?

  • Rod McCrea
  • Tung-Kai Shyy
  • Robert Stimson
Article

Abstract

Urban quality of life is usually measured by either subjective indicators using surveys of residents' perceptions, evaluations and satisfaction with urban living or by objective indicators using secondary data and relative weights for objective indicators of the urban environment. However, rarely are subjective and objective indicators of urban quality of life related to each other. In this paper, these two types of indicators were linked using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to both locate respondents to the “2003 Survey of Quality of Life in South East Queensland” and also to gather objective indicators about their urban environment within the region with regard to services, facilities and overcrowding. Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), the strength of the relationships between these objective indicators and subjective indicators was examined. The results show that relationships between objective and subjective indicators of urban QOL can be weak, and suggests care should be taken when making inferences about improvements in subjective urban QOL based on improvements in objective urban QOL. However, further research is needed into the links between objective and subjective indicators of urban QOL including examining other aspects of the urban environment, non-linear relationships, and moderating effects for individual differences.

Keywords

urban community quality of life objective subjective social indicators GIS 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews F, Withey SB (1976) Social indicators of well-being: Americans perceptions of quality of life. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001a) Australian standard geographic classification. Australian Bureau of Statistics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001b) Census of population and housing: basic community profiles. Retrieved September 2004.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001c) 2001 Census dictionary. Australian Bureau of Statistics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  5. Beattie P, Mackenroth T, Newman C (2004) Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan: for consultation. Queensland Government, Office of Urban Management, Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  6. Blomquist GC, Berger MC, Hoehn JP (1988) New estimates of quality of life in urban areas. Am Econ Rev 78(1):89–107Google Scholar
  7. Bowling A, Windsor J (2001) Towards the good life: a population survey of dimensions of quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies 2:55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyer R, Savageau D (1981) Places rated almanac. Rand McNally, Chicago, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell A, Converse P, Rodgers W (1976) The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations and satisfactions. Sage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Cicerchia A (1999) Measures of optimal centrality: indicators of city effect and urban overloading. Soc Indic Res 46:276–299Google Scholar
  11. Cummins RA (2000) Objective and subjective quality of life: an interactive model. Soc Indic Res 52(1):55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeNeve KM (1999) Happy as an extraverted clam? The role of personality for subjective well-being. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 8(5):141–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener E (1984) Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull 95(3):542–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL (1999) Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol Bull 125(2):276–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans S, Huxley P (2002) Studies of quality of life in the general population. Int Rev Psychiatry 14(3):203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodchild MF (2000) New horizons for the social sciences: Geographic information systems. In: Social Sciences for a Digital World: building Infrastructure and Databases for the Future (Vol. 2004). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, pp. 163–172Google Scholar
  17. Goodchild MF, Anselin L, Appelbaum RP, Harthorn BH (2000) Toward spatially integrated social science. Int Reg Sci Rev 23(2):139–159Google Scholar
  18. Hayes N, Joseph S (2003) Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-being. Pers Individ Differ 34(4):723–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Headey B, Wearing A (1989) Personality, life events, and subjective well-being-toward a dynamic equilibrium-model. J Pers Soc Psychol 57(4):731–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Headey B, Holmstrom E, Wearing A (1984) The impact of life events and changes in domain satisfactions on well-being. Soc Indic Res 15(3):203–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Headey B, Veenhoven R, Wearing A (1991) Top-down versus bottom-up theories of subjective well-being. Soc Indic Res 24(1):81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahneman D (1999) Objective happiness. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N (eds) Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology. Sage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Lance CE, Lautenschlager GJ, Sloan CE, Varca PE (1989) A comparison between bottom-up, top-down, and bidirectional models of relationships between global and life facet satisfaction. J Person 57(3):601–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marans RW, Rodgers W (1975) Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In: Hawley A, Rock, V (eds) Metropolitan America in contemporary perspective. Halsted, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. McCrea R, Stimson R, Western J (2005) Testing a moderated model of satisfaction with urban living using data for Brisbane-South East Queensland, Australia. Soc Indic Res 72(2):121–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Michalos AC, Zumbo BD (1999) Public services and the quality of life. Soc Indic Res 48(2):125–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogerson R, Findlay AM, Morris AS, Coombes MG (1989) Indicators of quality of life – some methodological issues. Environ Plann A 21(12):1655–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwarz N, Strack F (1999) Reports of subjective well-being: judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In: Kahneman D, Diener E (eds) Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology. Sage, New York, New York, pp. 61–84Google Scholar
  29. Schwarz N, Strack F, Kommer D, Wagner D (1987) Soccer, rooms, and the quality of your life – mood effects on judgments of satisfaction with life in general and with specific domains. Eur J Soc Psychol 17(1):69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwirian KP, Nelson AL, Schwirian PM (1995) Modeling urbanism – economic, social and environmental-stress in cities. Soc Indic Res 35(2):201–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sirgy MJ, Cornwell T (2001) Further validation of the Sirgy et al.'s measure of community quality of life. Soc Indic Res 56(2):125–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sirgy MJ, Cornwell T (2002) How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Soc Indic Res 59(1):79–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sirgy MJ, Rahtz DR, Cicic M, Underwood R (2000) A method for assessing residents' satisfaction with community-based services: a quality-of-life perspective. Soc Indic Res 49(3):279–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stover ME, Leven CL (1992) Methodological issues in the determination of the quality-of-life in urban areas. Urban Studies 29(5):737–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turksever ANE, Atalik G (2001) Possibilities and limitations for the measurement of the quality of life in urban areas. Soc Indic Res 53(2):163–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vitterso J, Nilsen F (2002) The conceptual and relational structure of subjective well-being, neuroticism, and extraversion: once again, neuroticism is the important predictor of happiness. Soc Indic Res 57(1):89–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. / The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research into Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures (CR-SURF), School of Geography, Planning and ArchitectureUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance Griffith University, Mt Gravatt CampusBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations