Advertisement

Variations in Objective Quality of Urban Life Across a City Region: The Case of Phoenix

  • Subhrajit Guhathakurta
  • Ying Cao
Chapter
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 45)

Abstract

The chapter presents a case study illustrating how secondary analysis of aggregated spatial data is used to determine spatial variations in objective attributes of quality of life (QOL) across a large metro region in the USA. A set of QOUL attributes covering separate communities in the metro area are analyzed. The case study also uses longitudinal data on from previous household surveys in the metro area in weighting QOL attributes. The chapter discusses some of the methodological issues encountered in conducting this type of objective analysis including using the survey data to generate weighted aggregations of QOL attributes in order to rank communities by their overall QOL.

Keywords

Public Safety Metropolitan Region American Community Survey Crime Index Maricopa County 
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. Arizona Department of Education (2009) School Report Cards. Retrieved from. http://www10.ade.az.gov/ReportCard/Research.aspx
  2. Arizona Department of Public Safety (2009). Crime in Arizona (2008). Retrived from http://www.azdps.gov/About/Reports/docs/Crime_In_Arizona_Report_2008.pdf
  3. Diener, E. (1995). A value based index for measuring national quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 36(2), 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ellaway, A., Macintyre, S., & Kearns, A. (2001). Perceptions of place and health in socially contrasting neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2299–2316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Flowerdew, R., Manley, D. J., & Sabel, C. E. (2008). Neighbourhood effects on health: Does it matter where you draw the boundaries? Social Science and Medicine, 66(6), 1241–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frank, L. D., Andresen, M. A., & Schmid, T. L. (2004). Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(2), 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haynes, R., Daras, K., Reading, R., & Jones, A. (2007). Modifiable neighbourhood units, zone design and residents’ perceptions. Health & Place, 13(4), 812–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kahn, M. E. (1995). A revealed preference approach to ranking city quality of life. Journal of Urban Economics, 38(2), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. F. (2003). Neighborhoods and health (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lathey, V., Guhathakurta, S., & Aggarwal, R. M. (2009). The impact of subregional variations in urban sprawl on the prevalence of obesity and related morbidity. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(2), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marans, R. W., & Rodgers, W. (1975). Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In A. H. Hawley & V. P. Rock (Eds.), Metropolitan America in community perspective (pp. 299–352). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Morris, M. D. (1979). Measuring the condition of the world’s poor: The physical quality of life index. New York: Pergamon Press. Published for the Overseas Development Council.Google Scholar
  13. Morrison Institute for Public Policy (1997) What matters in greater Phoenix: Indicators of our quality of life. Tempe: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, School of Public Affairs, College of Public Programs, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  14. Morrison Institute for Public Policy (1998) What matters in greater Phoenix: Indicators of our quality of life. Tempe: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, School of Public Affairs, College of Public Programs, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  15. Morrison Institute for Public Policy (1999) What matters in greater Phoenix: Indicators of our quality of life. Tempe: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, School of Public Affairs, College of Public Programs, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  16. Morrison Institute for Public Policy (2004) What matters. Tempe: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, School of Public Affairs, College of Public Programs, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  17. Moudon, A. V., Lee, C., Cheadle, A. D., Garvin, C., Johnson, D., Schmid, T., Weathers, R. D., & Lin, L. (2006). Operational definitions of walkable neighborhood: Theoretical and empirical insights. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, S99–S117.Google Scholar
  18. Mukherjee, R. (1989). The quality of life: Valuation in social research. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Openshaw, S. (1984). The modifiable areal unit problem. Norwich: Geo Books.Google Scholar
  20. Perry, C. A., Heydecker, W. D., & Adams, T. (1929). Neighborhood and community planning. New York: Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs.Google Scholar
  21. Roback, J. (1982). Wages, rents, and the quality of life. The Journal of Political Economy, 90(6), 1257–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosen, S. (1979). Wage-based indexes of urban quality of life. In P. Mieszlow-ski & M. Straszheim (Eds.), Current issues in urban economics. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sadalla, E., Guhathakurta, S., & Ledlow, S. (2005). Environment and quality of life: A conceptual analysis and review of empirical literature. In The U.S.-Mexican border environment: Dynamics of human-environment interactions (SCERP monograph series, pp. 29–79). San Diego: San Diego State University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Schwartz, B. (1994). The costs of living: How market freedom erodes the best things in life. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  25. Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., & Brody, G. H. (2004). Collective socialization and child conduct problems: A multilevel analysis with an African American sample. Youth and Society, 35(3), 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stein, C. S. (1966). Toward new towns for America (3rd ed.). Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  27. U.S. Bureau of Census (2009). American Community Survey (2005–2008). Available at hhp://factfinder.census.gov
  28. U.S. Bureau of Census (2009). American Community Survey (2006–2008). Available at hhp://factfinder.census.gov

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and ComputationArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.School of City and Regional PlanningGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlandaUSA
  3. 3.College of Architecture and EnvironmentSichuan UniversityChengduChina

Personalised recommendations