Advertisement

The Evolution of Integrative Approaches to the Analysis of Quality of Urban Life

  • Rod McCreaEmail author
  • Robert Stimson
  • Robert W. Marans
Chapter
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 45)

Abstract

The focus in the chapter is on modeling relationships between attributes of urban environments and peoples’ subjective evaluations of QOL/QOUL at different levels of scale. This integrative approach has gained increasing attention in research on QOUL and has been greatly enhanced through the use of GIS technology. Much of the research has aimed at testing linkages between satisfaction with urban living and objective characteristics of the urban environment. That requires increasingly sophisticated research designs to understand the complex relationships between then objective conditions and situations and the subjective evaluation or assessment of the urban environment in which people live.

Keywords

Life Satisfaction Geographic Information System Urban Environment Subjective Evaluation Objective Dimension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Amerigo, M., & Aragones, J. I. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andelman, R., Board, R., Carman, L., Cummins, R., Ferriss, A., & Friedman, P. (1998). Quality of life definition and terminology: A discussion document from the international society of quality of life studies (Monograph). Blacksburg: International Society of Quality of Life Studies.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, F., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans perceptions of quality of life. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  4. Archibugi, F. (2001). City effect and urban overload as program indicators of the regional policy. Social Indicators Research, 54(2), 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001a) Census of population and housing: Basic community profiles, Retrieved September 2004.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001b). 2001 Census dictionary. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
  7. Baldassare, M., & Wilson, G. (1995). More trouble in paradise: Urbanization and the decline in suburban quality-of-life ratings. Urban Affairs Review, 30(5), 690–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blomquist, G. C., Berger, M. C., & Hoehn, J. P. (1988). New estimates of quality of life in urban areas. The American Economic Review, 78(1), 89–107.Google Scholar
  10. Bowling, A., & Windsor, J. (2001). Towards the good life: A population survey of dimensions of quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyer, R., & Savageau, D. (1981). Places rated almanac. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, L. A., & Moore, E. G. (1970). The intra-urban migration process: A perspective. Geografiska Annaler, 52, 368–381.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, D. L., Fuguitt, G. V., Heaton, T. B., & Waseem, S. (1997). Continuities in size of place preferences in the United States, 1972–1992. Rural Sociology, 62(4), 408–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell, A., Converse, P., & Rodgers, W. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Cantillon, D., Davidson, W. S., & Schweitzer, J. H. (2003). Measuring community social organization: Sense of community as a mediator in social disorganization theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(4), 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiang, L. N., & Hsu, J. R. (2005). Locational decisions and residential preferences of Taiwanese immigrants in Australia. GeoJournal, 64(1), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cicerchia, A. (1999). Measures of optimal centrality: Indicators of city effect and urban overloading. Social Indicators Research, 46(3), 276–299.Google Scholar
  18. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clark, W. A. V., & Ledwith, V. (2006). Mobility, housing stress, and neighborhood contexts: evidence from Los Angeles. Environment and Planning A, 38(6), 1077–1093.Google Scholar
  20. Cramer, V., Torgersen, S., & Kringlen, E. (2004). Quality of life in a city: The effect of population density. Social Indicators Research, 69(1), 103–116.Google Scholar
  21. Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (2003). The Chicago School: The city, social disorganization, and crime. In F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds.), Criminological theory: Past and present (pp. 95–103). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. Cummins, R. A. (2000). Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model. Social Indicators Research, 52(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cummins, R., McCabe, M., Romeo, Y., & Gullone, E. (1994). The comprehensive quality of life scale (ComQol): Instrument development and psychometric evaluation on college staff and students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Curry, G. N., Koczberski, G., & Selwood, J. (2001). Cashing out, cashing in: Rural change on the south coast of Western Australia. Australian Geographer, 32(1), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cutter, S. L. (1985). Rating places: A geographer’s view on quality of life. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers, Resource Publication in Geography.Google Scholar
  26. Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1991). The relationship between sense of community and subjective well-being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19(3), 246–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Desbarats, J. (1983). Spatial choice and constraints on behaviour. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 73(3), 340–357.Google Scholar
  28. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dokmeci, V., & Berkoz, L. (2000). Residential-location preferences according to demographic characteristics in Istanbul. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(1–2), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Evans, S., & Huxley, P. (2002). Studies of quality of life in the general population. International Review of Psychiatry, 14(3), 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Farrell, S. J., Aubry, T., & Coulombe, D. (2004). Neighborhoods and neighbors: Do they contribute to personal well-being? Journal of Community Psychology, 32(1), 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Filion, P., McSpurren, K., & Appleby, B. (2006). Wasted density? The impact of Toronto’s residential-density-distribution policies on public-transit use and walking. Environment and Planning A, 38(7), 1367–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fischer, C. S. (1984). The urban experience. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  34. Ge, J., & Hokao, K. (2006). Research on residential lifestyles in Japanese cities from the viewpoints of residential preference, residential choice and residential satisfaction. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Glaeser, E., Kolko, J., & Saiz, A. (2000). Consumer city (Working Paper 7790), Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  36. Goodchild, M. F. (2000). New horizons for the social sciences: Geographic information systems. In Social sciences for a digital world: Building infrastructure and databases for the future (2004) (pp. 163–172). Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  37. Goodchild, M. F., Anselin, L., Appelbaum, R. P., & Harthorn, B. H. (2000). Toward spatially integrated social science. International Regional Science Review, 23(2), 139–159.Google Scholar
  38. Headey, B., Holmstrom, E., & Wearing, A. (1984). The impact of life events and changes in domain satisfactions on well-being. Social Indicators Research, 15(3), 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schawrz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrated framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., & Wilkinson, R. G. (1999). Crime: Social disorganization and relative deprivation. Social Science & Medicine, 48(6), 719–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kemp, D., Manicaros, M., Mullins, P., Simpson, R., Stimson, R., & Western, J. (1997). Urban metabolism: A framework for evaluating the viability, livability and sustainability of South East Queensland. Brisbane: The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.Google Scholar
  43. Kim, T. K., Horner, M. W., & Marans, R. W. (2005). Life cycle and environmental factors in selecting residential and job locations. Housing Studies, 20(3), 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 374–402.Google Scholar
  45. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger (Ed.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18–66). New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  46. Li, S. M. (2004). Life course and residential mobility in Beijing, China. Environment and Planning A, 36(1), 27–43.Google Scholar
  47. Lu, M. (1998). Analyzing migration decisionmaking: Relationships between residential satisfaction, mobility intentions, and moving behavior. Environment and Planning A, 30(8), 1473–1495.Google Scholar
  48. Marans, R. W. (2002). Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies: The 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, 991, 1–11.Google Scholar
  49. Marans, R. W., & Rodgers, W. (1975). Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In A. Hawley & V. Rock (Eds.), Metropolitan America in contemporary perspective (pp. 299–352). New York: Halsted.Google Scholar
  50. Mastekaasa, A. (1984). Multiplicative and additive-models of job and life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 14(2), 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McCrea, R. (2007). Urban quality of life: Linking objective dimensions and subjective evaluations of the urban environment. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  52. McCrea, R. (2009). Explaining regional socio-spatial patterns in South East Queensland, Australia: Social homophily versus other attributes of neighborhoods. Environment and Planning A, 41(9), 2201–2214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McCrea, R., Stimson, R., & Western, J. (2005). Testing a moderated model of satisfaction with urban living using data for Brisbane-South East Queensland, Australia. Social Indicators Research, 72, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., & Stimson, R. (2006). What is the strength of the link between objective and subjective indicator of urban quality of life? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1, 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology and Health, 14(1), 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Michalos, A. C., & Zumbo, B. D. (1999). Public services and the quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 48(2), 125–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mitrany, M. (2005). High density neighborhoods: Who enjoys them? GeoJournal, 34, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Office of Urban Management. (2005). South East Queensland regional plan 2005–2026. Brisbane: Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation, Queensland Government.Google Scholar
  60. Pacione, M. (2003). Quality-of-life research in urban geography. Urban Geography, 24(4), 314–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Perz, S. G. (2000). The quality of urban environments in the Brazilian Amazon. Social Indicators Research, 49(2), 181–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Prezza, M., Amici, M., Roberti, T., & Tedeschi, G. (2001). Sense of community referred to the whole town: Its relations with neighboring, loneliness, life satisfaction, and area of residence. Journal of Community Psychology, 29(1), 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Putnam, R. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 664–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rogerson, R. J., Findlay, A. M., & Morris, A. S. (1989). Indicators of quality of life: Some methodological issues. Environment and Planning A, 21(12), 1655–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rogerson, R. J., Findlay, A. M., Paddison, R., & Morris, A. S. (1996). Class, consumption and quality of life. Progress in Planning, 45(1), 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Russell, L. B., Hubley, A. M., Palepu, A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2006). Does weighting capture what’s important? Revisiting subjective importance weighting with a quality of life measure. Social Indicators Research, 75(1), 141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Savage, M., Warde, A., & Ward, K. (2003). Urban sociology, capitalism and modernity (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  70. Schwanen, T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2004). The extent and determinants of dissonance between actual and preferred residential neighborhood type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(5), 759–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In D. Kahneman & E. Diener (Eds.), Well being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61–84). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Schwirian, K. P., Nelson, A. L., & Schwirian, P. M. (1995). Modeling urbanism: Economic, social and environmental-stress in cities. Social Indicators Research, 35(2), 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Senecal, G., & Hamel, P. J. (2001). Compact city and quality of life: Discussions of the Canadian approach to sustainability indicators. Canadian Geographer-Geographie Canadien, 45(2), 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  75. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  76. Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2001). Further validation of the Sirgy et al.’s measure of community quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 56(2), 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2002). How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 59(1), 79–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sirgy, M. J., Rahtz, D. R., Cicic, M., & Underwood, R. (2000). A method for assessing residents’ satisfaction with community-based services: A quality-of-life perspective. Social Indicators Research, 49(3), 279–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stover, M. E., & Leven, C. L. (1992). Methodological issues in the determination of the quality-of-life in urban Areas. Urban Studies, 29(5), 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Taylor, R. B. (1996). Neighborhood responses to disorder and local attachments: The systemic model of attachment, social disorganization, and neighborhood use value. Sociological Forum, 11(1), 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Trauer, T., & Mackinnon, A. (2001). Why are we weighting? The role of importance ratings in quality of life measurement. Quality of Life Research, 10(7), 579–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Turksever, A. N. E., & Atalik, G. (2001). Possibilities and limitations for the measurement of the quality of life in urban areas. Social Indicators Research, 53(2), 163–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., et al. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. van den Berg, A. E., Hartig, T. M., & Staats, H. (2007). Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vogt, C. A., & Marans, R. W. (2004). Natural resources and open space in the residential decision process: A study of recent movers to fringe counties in southeast Michigan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2–3), 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Walmsley, D. J. (1988). Urban living: The individual in the city. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  87. Walmsley, D. J., Epps, W. R., & Duncan, C. J. (1998). Migration to the New South Wales north coast 1986–1991: Lifestyle motivated counterurbanisation. Geoforum, 29(1), 105–118.Google Scholar
  88. Western, J., & Larnach, A. (1998). The social and spatial structure of South-East Queensland. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 4(2), 215–237.Google Scholar
  89. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. The American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006). Do we need to weight item satisfaction by item importance? A perspective from Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis. Social Indicators Research, 79(3), 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Social Science ResearchThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Urban Research, Infrastructure Network (AURIN), Faculty of Architecture, Building and PlanningUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Institute for Social ResearchUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations