Investigating Quality of Urban Life pp 369-384

Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 45) | Cite as

Disaggregating the Measurement of Quality of Urban Life Dimensions Across a Complex Metro Region: The Case of Metro Detroit

Chapter

Abstract

Quality of life (QOL) is influenced by multiple socioeconomic, psychological, and geographical factors. Earlier research has demonstrated that relationships exist between selected socioeconomic, demographic, and psychological factors and QOL. However, the influence of geographic factors on QOL has not been as extensively explored. This chapter investigates the geographic patterns of QOL in Metro Detroit and explores appropriate scales for examining spatial patterns showing QOL differences. Data from the 2001 Detroit Area Study are used to examine QOL at two geographic scales: the type of place where respondents live and their county of residence. Type of place is a composite measure consisting of type of governmental unit, its population size, and its geographic relation to the metro area’s urban core (Detroit). The analysis indicates that a more accurate picture of QOL differences within a large metropolitan area can be portrayed when considering both geographic scales simultaneously. Multiple-scale analysis enables policy makers to focus on specific geographic areas where enhancements might be made to improve the lives of people.

References

  1. Baker, D. A., & Palmer, R. J. (2006). Examing the effects of perceptions of community and recreation participation on quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 32, 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, S. L., Towsley, G. L., Caserta, M. S., Lindau, K., & Dudley, W. N. (2009). Symptom experiences and quality of life of rural and urban older adult cancer survivors. Cancer Nursing, 32(5), 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dillman, D. A., & Dobash, R. P. (1972). Preferences for community living and their implication for population redistribution. Pullman: Washington State University Agricultural Experimentation Station. Bulletin 764.Google Scholar
  5. Dillman, D. A., & Tremblay, K. R. (1977). The quality of life in rural America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 429, 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elgin, D., Thomas, T., Logothetti, T., & Cox, S. (1974). City size and the quality of life. Washington, DC: The Stanford Research Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Epley, D. R., & Menon, M. (2008). A method of assembling cross-sectional indicators into a community quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 88, 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flanagan, J. (1978). A research approach to improving our quality of life, American Psychologist, February, pp. 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frijters, P., Haisken-DeNew, J. P., & Shields, M. A. (2004). Money does matter! Evidence from increasing real income and life satisfaction in East Germany following reunification. American Economic Review, 94(3), 730–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guterbock, T. M. (1997). The polls-review: Why Money Magazine’s “Best Places” keep changing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(2), 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johansson, S. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring quality of life for national policy: From the Swedish level of living survey to an epistemology of the democratic process. Social Indicators Research, 58(1–3), 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levin, S. A. (1992). The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology, 73(6), 1943–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li, G., & Weng, Q. (2007). Measuring the quality of life in city of Indianapolis by integration of remote sensing and census data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 28(2), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lloyd, K., & Auld, C. (2002). The role of leisure in determining quality of life: Issues of content and measurement. Social Indicators Research, 58, 43–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marans, R. W., Dillman, D., & Keller, J. (1980). Perception of life quality in rural America: An analysis of survey data from Four studies. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  16. McMaster, R. B., & Sheppard, E. S. (2004). Introduction: Scale and geographic inquiry. In E. S. Sheppard & R. B. McMaster (Eds.), Scale and geographic inquiry (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moller, V. (1992). Spare time use and perceived well-being among black South African youth. Social Indicators Research, 26, 309–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reardon, S. F., Matthews, S. A., O’Sullivan, D., Lee, B. A., Firebaugh, G., Farrell, C. R., et al. (2008). The geographic scale of metropolitan racial segregation. Demography, 45(3), 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sugiyama, T., Thompson, C. W., & Alves, S. (2009). Associations between neighborhood open space attributes and quality of life for older people in Britain. Environment and Behavior, 41(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. The United States General Accounting Office. (2003). Forum on key national indicators: Assessing the nation’s position and progress. Washington, DC: GAO and The National Academies.Google Scholar
  21. Wahl, H.-W., Schilling, O., Oswald, F., & Iwarsson, S. (2009). The home environment and quality of life-related outcomes in advanced old age: Findings of the ENABLE_AGE project. European Journal of Ageing, 6, 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Walsh, S. J., Crews-Meyer, K. A., Crawford, T. W., & Welsh, W. F. (2004). Population and environment interactions: Spatial considerations in landscape characterization and modeling. In E. S. Sheppard & R. B. McMaster (Eds.), Scale and geographic inquiry (pp. 41–65). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Science & Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Social ResearchUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations