Kimberly Collins San Diego State University Judith Garcia Arturo Ranfla

BORDER OBSERVATORY PROJECT

Assessment of Perceptual and Objective Quality of Life Indicators

in Calexico-Mexicali: Toward a Longitudinal Database

for the U.S.- Mexican Border Region

Kimberly CollinsSan Diego State University

Judith GarciaArturo Ranfla

Universidad Autónoma de Baja California

Sergio PeñaEl Colegio de la Frontera Norte-Cd. Juárez

Subhrajit GuhathakurtaDavid Pijawka

Edward SadallaArizona State University

SCERP Technical Conference, December 5, 2008

Tempe, Arizona


Project Goals and RationaleGoals

Assist borderland decision-makers in finding ways to maintain a satisfactory quality of life and a healthy, sustainable natural environment

Provide critical analysis, currently unavailable, on objective and subjective indicators of quality of life (QoL) at several twin-city border communities on a periodic basis

Rationale An accessible archive of QoL data could be used

to guide policy and business decisions that would have a positive impact on sustainable development in the border region


Objectives

Monitor both objective and subjective QoL indicators

Collect longitudinal data (long-term monitoring)

Provide intuitive and real-time access to this data through web interfaces for decision-makers and scholars

Periodically present timely, intelligent analysis of trends


Accomplishments to Date

Completed surveys for Calexico-Mexicali (2005), El Paso-Juarez and Yuma-San Luis RC regions (2006), and San Diego-Tijuana (2007)

Currently, collecting second set of data for Calexico-Mexicali

Compiled baseline objective data on the Calexico-Mexicali (2005), and El Paso-Juarez and Yuma-San Luis RC regions (2006)

Results have been reported in SCERP report (several presentations and papers are in process)

Web site http://bop.caed.asu.edu established to provide data, results and analysis


Sample Size of Each City Pair

400 surveys in Calexico-Mexicali in 2005 Face-to-face interviews

745 surveys in San Luis/Somerton-San Luis Rio Colorado in 2006 Face-to-face interviews

612 El Paso-Cd. Juarez in 2006 Face-to-face interviews

2000 surveys San Diego-Tijuana in 2007 SD = telephone interviews Tijuana = face-to-face interviews


Chosen QoL Indicators

Community Assets Education Economy, Income, and Jobs Public Safety Housing Environment Transportation Public Services Health Care Emotional Well Being



SCHEMATIC OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM


HIGHLIGHTS COMPARISON OF BORDER COMMUNITIES


Demographics of Border Communities, 1990 and 2000

Population 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000Population 18,633 27,109 601,938 784,269 515,342 564,280 798,499 1,218,817 9,494 22,588 110,530 145,006 Percent Change - 4.5% - 3.0% - 9.5% - 52.6% - 137.9% - 31.2%

Density (persons per sq. mile) 4,527 4,372 114 148 n/a 2,263 n/a 10,423 n/a 580 n/a n/a

Place of Birth

Native Born Country 52.6% 48.8% 96.0% 91.8% 76.6% 73.9% 94.6% 90.9% 41.2% 50.7% 95.3% 95.9%Born in Other State (Domestic Migrant) n/a n/a 35.0% 31.4% n/a n/a 28.6% 32.0% n/a n/a 37.2% 39.4%

Foreign Born 47.4% 51.2% 1.6% 2.0% 23.4% 26.1% 2.1% 2.6% 58.8% 49.3% 2.3% 3.2%Not Specified 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 6.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.9%

Source: U.S. Census, Census 1990 and 2000 and INEGI, Censo 1990 and 2000.

El Paso Cd. Juarez Som/ SL, AZ SLRCCalexico Mexicali

BORDER OBSERVATORY PROJECTECON SEC HOU ENV. PUB. S

TRANS HEA

ME

XU

SA

ME

XU

SA

ME

XU

SA

ME

XU

SA


ECONOMIC SITUATION

SUBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE

Annual per capita money income


HOUSING

SUBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE

Owner occupied housing units


LOCAL GOVERNMENT

SUBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE

Local government revenue per capita


CONCLUSIONS ABOUT COMPARING OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE INDICATORS

Comparing the demographics of the cities and overall perception of quality of life Ciudad Juárez has the poorest subjective rating among

all of the cities and the highest growth rate in population and could be worse now.

A comparison of the subjective and objective data provides differing conclusions There is a mismatch between the objective data and

subjective data – this can be for many differing reasons• Problems with the objective datasets • Need to conduct further analysis of the data to understand

possible correlations• The lag between the objective and subjective data collection

(Rinkevicius)• As seen in the risk management theory, it is difficult to see

the problems when you become accustomed to the risk (Slovic, Kaspersen)


FUTURE OUTLOOK Continue to develop the longitudinal data base for

the entire border region (twin-city urban communities)

Reconcile the objective and subjective indicators through statistical analysis and theory

Develop articles for publication

Develop decision tools to inform policies with the help of QoL indicators

Establish relationships with and feedback mechanisms from local officials and citizen groups, policy organizations and environmental agencies


http://bop.caed.asu.edu

For much more information go to:

COMMENTS?

QUESTIONS?

Documents

Kimberly Collins San Diego State University Judith Garcia Arturo Ranfla