What is the Strength of the Link Between Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life?
- 809 Downloads
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.
Keywordsurban community quality of life objective subjective social indicators GIS
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Andrews F, Withey SB (1976) Social indicators of well-being: Americans perceptions of quality of life. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001a) Australian standard geographic classification. Australian Bureau of Statistics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001b) Census of population and housing: basic community profiles. Retrieved September 2004.Google Scholar
- Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001c) 2001 Census dictionary. Australian Bureau of Statistics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Blomquist GC, Berger MC, Hoehn JP (1988) New estimates of quality of life in urban areas. Am Econ Rev 78(1):89–107Google Scholar
- Boyer R, Savageau D (1981) Places rated almanac. Rand McNally, Chicago, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
- Campbell A, Converse P, Rodgers W (1976) The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations and satisfactions. Sage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Cicerchia A (1999) Measures of optimal centrality: indicators of city effect and urban overloading. Soc Indic Res 46:276–299Google Scholar
- 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
- Goodchild MF, Anselin L, Appelbaum RP, Harthorn BH (2000) Toward spatially integrated social science. Int Reg Sci Rev 23(2):139–159Google Scholar
- Kahneman D (1999) Objective happiness. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N (eds) Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology. Sage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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