Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 04 November 2014, At: 11:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Regional StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20
Quality of life, an objective and subjective variableanalysisTony J. Kuz aa Department of Geography , University of Winnipeg , Manitoba, CanadaPublished online: 04 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Tony J. Kuz (1978) Quality of life, an objective and subjective variable analysis, Regional Studies,12:4, 409-417, DOI: 10.1080/09595237800185361
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09595237800185361
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Regional Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 409--417. Pergamon Press, Ltd. 1978. Printed in Great Britain. © Regional Studies Association. 0034-3464/78/0801--4)409 $02.00/0
SfB Aa3 U D C 577.4:911.9
(712.7)
Quality of Life, an Objective and Variable Analysis
Subjective
T O N Y J. KUZ Department of Geography, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
(Received August 1977; in revised form February 1978)
Kuz T.J. (1978) Quality of life: an objective and subjective variable analysis, Reg. Studies 12, 409-417. Recently a large number of studies under the headings of quality of life, social indicators and levels of living have appeared. These studies have employed in most cases only the most readily available and accessible data. It is the contention of this research that quality of life studies based on only objective (counts of various types of phenomena) or subjective (measures based on people's perceptions and feelings) variables give very different results. This is well illustrated when applied to analysing quality of life variations in urban centres in Southern Manitoba, Canada as the correlation between the two indexes based on the two categories of variables is only r,=0"07.
Levels of living Manitoba, Canada Objective variables Quality of life Social indicators Subjective variables
I N T R O D U C T I O N
TRADITIONAL INDICATORS OF national and regional well-being such as average per capita incomes, unemployment rates and cost of living indexes are being increasingly con- sidered as inadequate in accounting fully for level of living or quality of life characteristics for a given observational unit. However regional and international disparities in life quality exist and to researchers, planning agencies and governments it is of paramount importance to be able to define through the use of more appropriate indicators those areas experiencing relatively lower living con- ditions with the ultimate goal of rectifying such inequities. Lately, much of the research effort concerned with such issues has appeared under the headings of quality of life or social indicators investigations (BAUER, 1966; WILSON, 1969, JONES and FLAX, 1970; FLAX, 1972, DALKEY, 1972; and ANDREWS and WrrrlEY, 1974) and levels of living research (NIEWIAROSKI, 1965, UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION, 1966; HARBISON, 1970; MCGRANAHAN, 1971; VAN DAM, 1974; and KNOX, 1974a). Here the similarities end as the definitions, variable selections, and analytical procedures vary widely amongst studies and academic disciplines.
Social indicators and quality of life studies are similar in that both attempt to define all the factors--objective (counts of various phenomena) and subjective (measures based
on people's perceptions and feelings)--that effect living conditions of the people con- cerned, while levels of living only emphasizes the objective characteristics. It has been noted that while 'quality of life is a vague and ethereal entity something that many people talk about, but which nobody knows very clearly what to do about,' (CAMVBELI., CONVERSE and RODGERS, 1976) level of living 'concepts . . . have a long history of development and use and are relatively well defined' (KNox, 1974b).
Although, in theory, the differences men- tioned should be reflected in the research designs carrying out quality of life and level of living studies, in fact, they are, highly similar employing only objective variables which are the most accessible and available. This has been rationalized in the following ways: 'The use of only measurable indicants in formulat- ing an overall index inevitably assumes that the correlation between the non-measurable and measurable indicants is high enough to give validity to results based solely upon the later' (KNox, 1974b), and since psychologi- cal inputs are not quantifiable, the [quality of life] output may be taken . . . as a positive function of those quantifiable, social, econ- omic, political, and environmental inputs' (BEN CHIEH LUI, 1975).
Numerous speculations are available as to the validity of the above stated assumptions. ANDREWS (1974), in discussing the need for"
409
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
11:
59 0
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
410 Tony J.
perceptual indicators concludes that 'in fact there is reason to believe that there exists only a loose linkage between the objective con- ditions of people's lives and individuals' perceptions of well-being.' Similarly P,.OJEK, CtEMENVE and SUMMERS (1975) feel that 'perception of the environment and its objective state are not necessarily equivalent.' EASTERtIN (1974) in relating objective indexes with those of happiness comes to a similar conclusion that ' . . . there is a real possibility that subjective reports may contradict objec- tive evidence.'
Unfortunately there are no empirical studies to substantiate or refute these assump- tions with the possible exception of the work by EASTERtIN (1974) based on data generated by CANTRIt (1965). EASTERLIN analysed the association between the objective conditions and measures of happiness for fourteen sample nations and found that there was virtually no positive correlation between the two variables at any given time, implying that each set of variables was measuring different characteristics of society and one set of measures could not be used as surrogates for another.
At the other extreme of the research design continuum is the psychological approach to quality of life studies. This approach emphas- izes entirely the subjective variables and neglects the ' . . structural features and institutional arrangements that could either encourage or repress certain sets of attitudinal, cognitive, and motivational orientations of individuals' (KYOND-DONG KIM, 1973).
How valid are the research results employ- ing only one set of variables--objective or subjective--in defining variations in life quality? This is a question which is badly in need of testing. If, in fact, high correlations are found between the two categories of variables, one set can be used to accurately describe the living conditions. If they are, as EASTERLIN (1974) has indicated, little cor- related then it is obvious that useful insights are only possible by employing both sets of variables. EASTERLIN (1974) and CAMPBELL, CONVERSE and RODGERS (1976) have come to the same conclusion indicating 'both types of indicators of well-being have their character- istic virtues and defects and we would be better off in the long run if we were able to monitor both.'
S T U D Y A R E A A N D D A T A
In order to test for the similarities and differences in results obtained in level of living and quality of life variations by
Kuz
employing both objective and subjective variables, seventy-seven urban centres in Southern Manitoba were analysed (Fig. 1). These centres ranged in population size from over five hundred to slightly over thirty thousand in 1971 with the majority having populations around fifteen hundred. All together these seventy-seven centres con- tained approximately 15% of the total population in the Southern Manitoba region.
Manitoba is unique in that a very compre- hensive data base composed of objective and subjective measures is readily available (MANITOBA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE, 1974, 1975). This has largely been the result of an intensive regional planning and development program whose goals were to define existing conditions in the various urban centres and based on these findings encourage, through both private and government investments, creation of local employment opportunities in designated growth centres so as to discourage the prevailing trend of migration to the province's largest c i ty--Winnipeg: a city of over half-a-million _people--as well as mig- ration out of the province.
Extensive subjective data are available for each centre obtained through a questionnaire survey carried out in 1971 of approximately 50/0 of the total households in the survey region. The questions asked--a total of thir ty- two largely adapted from Miller (1970)--attempted to measure communi ty involvement and satisfaction. Some questions measured people's perceptions about com- munity solidarity, communi ty spirit, in- terpersonal relationships, family responsibi- lities toward the community, tension areas, as well as reactions toward schools, churches, and local government; others probed people's feelings about community services, com- munity involvement, and summary feelings about the community.
From an extensive listing, thirty-four variables were selected as indicants of level of living and quality of life in the Southern Manitoba urban centres for 1971, twenty-one of which are classified as objective and thirteen as subjective measures (Table 1). The selection of criteria and their representative measures are based on the emerging theory of social well-being as well as on data availab- ility. In the research by ANDREWS and WrrttEY (1974) and CAMVBELL, CONVERSE, and RODGERS (1976) in trying to define quality of life 'domains'--factors which are rooted in everyone's everyday life experiences--they have tentatively established the following
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
11:
59 0
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Quality of Life, an Objective and Subjective Variable Analysis 411
factors in descending order o f importance: family life, marriage, financial situation, housing,job, friendships, community, health, nonwork activities, national government, organizations, and religious faith. The objec- tive and subjective variables selected in this study are representative measures of the above domains, however only several o f these major domains are represented in the research design as data unavailability precluded the inclusion of all of them.
The selection of measures describing the criteria is most commonly influenced by what is readily available. Ideally the variables should be output descriptive and absolute in their measurement. Output descriptive mea-
sures are 'measures of the end products of social processes . . . ' (LAND, 1971) and in the area o f health would measure outputs such as 'infant mortal i ty . . , rather than expenditures on prenatal care; [or] the level of nutrition rather than expenditures on food' (EcoNoMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA, 1971), w h i l e abso lute variables are those where there are rather precisely established upper and lower levels for certain conditions like the minimum income needed to keep a family out of poverty. Relative indicators possess no such limits and simply indicate the position of a community on such things as health, educ- ation, housing and so forth. Relative in- dicators are more abundant than absolute
98 C A N A D A o 5OO I !
miles
I [ I
I | B~rch R,ve¢
L "
LAKE
WINNIPEG
Lg
I I
/ /
(~ 1 Monitol:m
Rtver
I I ! I
•Russell
IBmscarlh
+r°*° ,.L V~rder
!
[ Res,o'. I !
Merit t a
eM,nllona5
E~helber! •
Grandwew o
Gilher t PlaTn s
•Rossbum
°Shoal Lake
Hamiom
o.%o
0 2 0 4 0 I I I
M i l e s
!
I +o i
I
I I
I
R~verton
Arborg•
~=ssett•
Winnipeg Beach
I Teulon
Stonewall • S~lk~rk~
Stony M o ~ t a ~ /
~ WINNIPEG
Ste Anne
•Bea~¢~jour
• iver . . . .
St. Claude • II I
++ i/o Hartney Wawanesa° Glenl~ro t~Notre Dame Carman I
Q
• de Lourdes • Stembach
= N~neite _ _ • Mo~ns ~ •ST P~er r~ ~ome{set • Bo~sseva=n }S~. jean e -
• .Manltou Plurel il l ,tril l St e ~t M+I|O • Crystal C ly e - Wmklm
Delora,ne Kiellarne • • • eC°ulee ~ - Y Morden
Pilot Mound Ahonal i i J i i i IGr(~llta ~1 Elners°n ~ i ew ~ ~ ew
I ~ i i i ,, i ~ I ~
Fig. 1. Southern A, lanitoba urban centres.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
11:
59 0
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
412 Tony J. K u z
indicators consti tuting one o f the major reasons for their p redominan t uses in level o f living and quali ty o f life studies.
The variables selected for analysis in this s tudy are entirely relative indicators and measure both input and output characteristics o f each urban centre. In addition the major i ty o f the variables are considered to be n o r m a t i v e - - t h e higher the value on a given variable the better o f f the communi ty . The
variables which are obvious exceptions are; percent dwellings c rowded , several o f the educat ion measures, and percent labour force employed.
D A T A A N A L Y S I S To establish the interdependencies amo-
ngst the variables and the under ly ing patterns in the data, the matr ix o f seventy-seven observations by th i r ty- four variables was
Table 1. Objective and subjective indicators employed in the analysis of level of living variations for urban centres in Southern Manitoba
Variable Criteria Number description
I. Objective Measures A. Housing
B. Education
C. Affluence
D. Employment
E. Health
F. Leisure
G. Social security
H. Community infrastructures
II. Subjective Measures I. Community involvement
J. Community interaction and alienation
(1) % housing owned (2) % dwellings single detached (3) Average number of rooms (4) % dwellings crowded (5) % dwellings with running water (6) % dwellings with flush toilets
(7) % adult population with no schooling (8) % population not attending school
with grade eight or less (9) % population not attending school
with university education (10) % of school attenders in high school (1t) Education facilities index
(12) Average family income
(13) °/o unemployed (14) % labour force participation rate
(15) Health services index
(16) Recreation facilities index (17) Cultural facilities index
(18) Protection and Administrative services
(19) Utility services index (20) Transportation services index (21) Service index
(22) % discuss problems (23) % speak to leaders (24) % attend meetings (25) % involved in monetary participation
other than Church (26) % belong to an organization (27) % serve on committee(s) (28) °t/o interacting with other groups (29) % indicating that people work for community
(30) % indicating that friends are easy to find
(31) % indicating no discrimination (32) % indicating lots of things to do (33) % indicating that people are friendly
K. Community leadership (34) % indicating that leaders are capable
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
11:
59 0
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Quality of Life, an Objective and Subjective Variable Analysis 413
submit ted to a principal componen t s factor analysis and var imax rotation. The n o r m a - lized and standardized data when analysed de f i ned - - emp loy ing an eigenvalue constant o f o n e - - s e v e n patterns which all together accounted for almost 75O/o o f the original variance in the raw data matrix (Table 2).
The ou tpu t confirms that there are minimal correlations amongst the object ive and sub- jec t ive variables a n d each o f the patterns defined, wi th the exception o f factors I, II, and VII is defined entirely by one or the other set o f variables. The first pat tern is pr imari ly defined by all the variables measuring the infrastructure characteristics o f each centre; the second by the housing characteristics such as per cent dwellings wi th running water and
flushing toilets; the third b y the major i ty o f the subject ive variables especially those measur ing c o m m u n i t y invo lvemen t ; the four th b y educat ion and housing variables; the fifth by c o m m u n i t y activities and leader- ship indicators; the sixth e m p l o y m e n t status; and the seventh is defined by people are friendly and percent indicating no discrimi- nation variables.
It is impor tant to re-emphasize that the object ive and subjective variables do not load highly on the same componen t s but rather fo rm distinct and uncorre la ted patterns. Based on this initial evidence, i f one were to assume that similar results could be generated regarding quality o f life variations in Mani toba urban centres using only one set o f
Table 2. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation of thirty-four level of living variables
Factor loadings* Variables I II III IV V VI VII h 2
Average family income --.61 --'61 "80 % unemployed -"56 "68 °/o labour force participation rate "73 "76 % housing owned -75 "75 % dwellings single detached --60 "70 Average number of rooms --'70 "40 -74 9{) dwellings crowded -76 -75 ~o dwellings with running water --'81 -91 % dwellings with flushing toilets -79 -90 % adult population with no schooling - ' 48 -"49 "68 % population not attending school with
grade eight or less -81 -81 % population not attending school with
university education --'82 "71 % of school attenders in high school '54 "50 Utility services index - ' 59 "50 Transportation services index 0"83 .78 Protection and Administrative services 0"76 --'40 "79 Education services index 0-47 ---43 "69 Health facilities index 0"80 "74 Cultural facilities index 0-84 "77 Recreational services index 0"82 -79 Service index 0"87 "84 % discuss problems --'68 -69 % speak to leaders - ' 69 "59 °/o attend meetings - ' 75 -76 % belong to an organization - '81 -82 % serve on committee(s) - ' 77 "79 % interacting with other groups - ' 80 "82 % involved in monetary participation
other than Church --'74 '82 % indicating that friends are easy to find "57 "65 % indicating no discrimination - ' 50 "56 .76 % indicating lots of things to do 0"52 "51 "76 % indicating that people are friendly "70 "70 °/o indicating that people work for
community "75 "74 (~ indicating that leaders are capable -81 -78
Eigenvalue 5"84 4"44 4"40 3"01 2"83 2"21 2"17
Cumulative variance explained 17-18 30-25 43"21 52"08 60-42 66"93 73"32
*Only loading greater than -+'40 are listed.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
11:
59 0
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Tabl
e 3.
Sta
ndar
d sc
ores
and
ran
ks fo
r So
uthe
rn M
anit
oba
urba
n ce
ntre
s on
sev
en, f
our,
and
thr
ee q
ualit
y of
life
ind
icat
ors
-~
4~
Urb
an
cen
tre
-
~>
, ~
, ~
o =
.~
o ~~
' ~
~-
~ ~
o
£~
~
G
~ ~:
~ o
~
,...~
tt~
'F,-~
>
-~
• ~
~.~
~o
=
Alt
on
a A
rbo
rg
Bea
use
jou
r B
irch
Riv
er
Bir
tle
Bis
sett
B
oiss
evai
n B
ow
sman
B
ran
do
n
Cam
per
vil
le
Car
ber
ry
Car
man
C
ryst
al C
ity
D
aup
hin
D
elo
rain
e D
uck
Bay
E
lkh
orn
E
mer
son
E
rick
son
E
thel
ber
t G
ilb
ert
Pla
ins
Gim
li
Gla
dst
on
e G
len
bo
ro
Gra
nd
vie
w
Gre
tna
Ham
iota
H
artn
ey
Kil
larn
ey
Lac
du
Bo
nn
et
Lo
rett
e L
un
dar
0"14
0"
20
--'0
2
0"67
--
1"3
8 0"
59
0"59
0"
79
40
0"99
0"
76
--1"
37
1"15
0"
38
0"19
--
'02
0"
01
1"10
36
0"
92
0'2
9
0"29
--
'02
1.
00
--1
"29
--
1"1
7
--2
"09
--
2"99
61
1"
56
--'2
8
--2"
33
1"6
3
--'6
4
--'0
8
--'5
5
--'3
4
--2"
59
59
-- 1
"62
--'1
4
--'0
7
0"88
0"
30
0"10
0"
50
1"00
2'
57
25
0'9
7
0"45
--
2"0
4
0"88
--
1"9
0
--1
"29
1-
83
--1
-38
--
3"45
62
--
2"61
--
'55
0"
92
0"30
0"
75
0"38
0"
06
1-21
3"
07
18
-- 1
"65
--2
-23
--
'64
--
1'2
8
--'9
8
--'9
2
0"41
0"
20
--5"
44
72
--5"
13
1-42
1"
03
0'60
3"
40
--1
"20
--
'11
--
1"23
3"
91
9 6"
45
--1"
18
--2"
68
--1
-92
--
2"71
--
1"6
6
--2
"76
--
1"3
0
--14
"21
76
--10
"15
1"08
0"
81
--'0
2
0"10
--
"17
0"
94
0"01
2"
75
22
1"97
--
'55
0"
81
1"40
1"
00
--'2
7
0"32
--
1"2
3 1"
48
32
2"66
--
"81
0"29
0"
88
--'2
4
0"84
1"
38
1"32
3"
66
11
0"12
0"
29
1"0
3
--'0
2
1"97
0"
10
--"9
9
--'2
5
2"13
29
3"
27
0"00
0-
39
---0
2
0"36
0"
94
0-94
0-
49
3-10
17
0"
73
--3
"17
--
2"68
--
'80
--
2"71
--
1"7
6
--2
"94
--
2-2
6
--1
6.3
2
77
--9
"36
--
'28
0"
10
--1"
28
--'6
8
0"47
--
-02
--
-51
--
2"20
57
--
1"60
0-
45
0'2
9
0"30
--
'68
--
'55
--
'38
--
'60
--
1'1
7 53
0"
36
0"00
0-
59
1'40
--
'33
0"
28
0-41
1"
65
4"00
8
1"66
--
2-5
7 --
1"8
5
--'0
2
--'8
2
0"56
--
1"0
8 --
'76
--
6"5
3 73
--
5"2
5 --
'81
--
'64
--
1"2
8
--'0
8
1"5
9
---8
2
--2
"09
--
4"13
66
--
2"81
0-
45
1"03
1"
15
0"83
--
'08
0"
23
0-11
3"
72
10
3"46
0-
29
0-29
--
'02
0"
41
0"10
0"
68
-- 1
"08
0-67
41
0"
97
0"29
0-
92
0"30
0-
14
1-31
--
-11
1-
43
4-28
6
1"65
--
'41
0"
29
--'0
2
--'0
5
1"5
0
---9
9
0"69
1-
01
38
--'1
9
--1"
18
--'4
1
0"30
--
1"04
--
2"69
0-
85
---3
4
--4"
51
69
--2
'33
--
'28
0-
81
1'63
0"
08
1"31
1"
92
0"59
6"
06
1 2"
24
-- -6
8 0-
70
-- '0
2 --
"60
2"
34
0-41
0"
79
2-94
20
--
"60
0-
00
0"81
0"
30
1'13
0"
75
0"06
--
-34
2-
71
24
3"18
1"
26
0-92
--
'02
0'
28
-- 1
'01
0"68
--
1"3
0
1"31
33
2"
94
1"4
2
10"4
9 --
1-9
2
--1"
17
--'6
4
---8
2
--2
-71
--
5'3
5
71
--1
"18
0"
45
--1"
68
--1"
92
--'4
9
0"19
--
-02
0"
01
--3
"46
63
--
3"6
4
30
33
24
61
31 "5
66
62
73
1 77
21
11
40
5 35
76
60
38
22
75
67 3
31 "5
23
44
64
18
52
7 10
57
69
--
"20
0"18
--
4"55
--
"9
7 1"
60
--
"84
4"72
-
-'
31
--2
"54
--
4"0
6
0.78
--
1"1
8
3'5
4
--
1.14
2.
37
- 6.
96
I'6
0
--
1-
53
2-34
--
1"
28
--
1"32
0"
26
--
-30
2"63
1
"2
0
--2"
18
3"82
3"
54
--
-47
--
1-63
--
4"17
0"
18
45
38
76
54
17"5
53
2 48
68
72
25"5
57
5-
5 56
14
77
51 "5
60
15
58
59
33
47
12
22
64
3 5-
5 50
61
74
38
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
11:
59 0
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Mac
Gre
go
r M
anit
ou
M
eCre
ary
M
ehta
M
init
on
as
Min
ned
osa
M
ord
en
Mo
rris
N
eep
awa
Nin
ette
N
iver
vil
le
No
tre
Dam
e P
ilo
t M
ou
nd
P
inaw
a P
ine
Fal
ls
Plu
m C
ou
lee
Po
rtag
e la
Pra
irie
P
ow
erv
iew
R
esto
n
Riv
ers
Riv
erto
n
Ro
bli
n
Ro
ssb
urn
R
uss
ell
St.
Cla
ud
e S
te.
An
ne
Ste
. R
ose
du
Lac
S
t. J
ean
-Bap
tist
e S
t. M
alo
S
t. P
ierr
e S
hoal
Lak
e S
elki
rk
So
mer
set
Sou
ris
Ste
inb
ach
S
ton
ewal
l S
ton
y M
ou
nta
in
Sw
an R
iver
T
eulo
n
Tre
her
ne
Vir
den
W
awan
esa
Win
kle
r W
inn
ipeg
Bea
ch
Win
nip
ego
sis
--
'1
4
--
"55
--
"55
0.00
--
2"0
4 0"
29
0"60
0"
92
0"14
1"
25
0"92
--
1-
41
--
'1
4
2"12
0-
45
--
1"64
0-14
0"
14
1"25
0-
76
--
-68
--
"28
--
"41
--
'1
4
--
"55
--
-28
2"49
0"
45
1-59
0"29
--
-4
1 0-
45
--
-41
0"29
0"
76
0"76
0-
60
0"92
0-
14
--
-94
0-45
1"
08
--
"55
--
1-30
--
l-B
0
6"70
10
"92
--
"33
0"70
--
1"
42
0"59
0"
49
0"39
0"
70
--1"
13
0"59
--
"6
4 0"
01
1"14
0"
92
--
1"48
0"
92
--
-24
0"29
0"
81
--
1-77
0"20
--
"0
7 0"
10
--
"41
0"92
--
"0
7 0"
49
--
"24
1"14
--
"8
6 0"
59
0"59
0"
49
0"70
0"
29
0"20
0"
29
--
1-58
0"92
1-
03
0"29
0"
01
--
1-93
--
1"93
--
"02
0.30
-
.3
8
0"30
--
"8
0 0"
60
0"30
0"
30
0"30
--
"8
0 --
1"
28
0"88
--
"0
2 3"
75
0"88
--
3"46
--
"0
2 0"
30
--
1"28
0"60
--
"0
2 -
-'
80
0"60
0"
30
1"15
0"
30
--
"02
--
-38
--
1"28
0"88
--
"3
8 --
"0
2 0"
30
--
"02
--
"02
--
"02
--
"80
0"60
0"
60
--
"80
0.60
--
-8
0 --
"
80
--
1"28
--
"80
0"16
0"
18
--
"30
0"55
--
"9
8
0"96
1"
12
0"38
1"
19
--1"
10
--
"36
--
"60
0"05
--
1"
33
--
"98
--
"77
2"20
--
"4
6 --
"
27
--
'1
6
--
"42
1"10
--
"3
9 0"
51
--
"72
--
-49
0"24
--
"8
7 --
"7
7 0"
24
0"24
1"
79
--
"82
0"41
1-
34
0-28
--
1"10
1-
26
0"28
--
"0
5 1"
24
--
"68
0-73
--
"3
9 -
--
18
0"94
1"
31
2"62
0"
75
--
1"48
0"94
-
"55
--
"55
- "
73
--
"45
--
1"48
--
"92
0"56
0"
00
1 "03
--
"6
4 --
"
55
--
"55
0-28
0"
38
0"19
0"
38
0"28
0"
56
0"00
0"
84
0"56
0"
38
0-94
--
"5
5 0"
56
--
1"48
--
"82
0"84
--
1"
66
- "
08
--
"08
--
"36
0"19
1"
50
- "8
2 0"
94
--
1-85
0"19
0"
38
0"85
0"
85
0"94
0"
77
--
"82
1"65
1"
47
--
1"53
0"06
0"
23
--
"99
- "5
5 1"
03
--
"64
1"47
2-
09
- "4
6 -
"29
0"23
0"
41
--
"02
0"06
-
-29
--1"
17
--
"46
--
1-08
0"15
0"
41
--
1-08
--2"
23
--
"20
0"50
--
1"
26
0"32
--
1"
26
0"23
0"
23
--1
-17
--
"0
2 0"
94
0"15
1-
21
1-12
--
"0
2 --
1-
26
0"89
0"
01
1"32
--
1"
30
--
"92
- "1
6 0"
20
--
1"59
0"59
1"
65
--1"
15
--
"92
1"10
0"
59
1"21
--
1"
00
0"69
-
-'
16
0"79
0"
79
0"1
0"59
0"
79
0"01
0"
30
0"79
0"
89
--
"07
0-49
--
1"
30
0"01
--
1"
52
0"11
2"
11
0-39
0"
11
0"11
-
'5
1
0"01
0"
59
1"00
0"69
0-
79
0"01
0"
59
3"38
3"
02
3"32
1"
77
--8"
46
4"87
3"
63
--
1"68
2"25
-
3"50
--
3"75
4"
16
2"46
5"
63
4"98
--
6-9
0
2"92
--
1"
26
1"29
3"
59
--2"
71
1"25
0"
51
0"17
--
"6
9 1"
00
4"24
0"
41
--
"35
--
1"53
--
1-04
0-62
--
2"31
4"
44
0"25
1"
57
--
"84
1"03
--
"3
8 2"
16
3"65
2"
73
--
"55
--4"
72
-- 4
"50
15
19
16
30
75 4 13
56
27
64
65
67
26 2 3 74
21
54
34
14
60
35
43
46
50
39 7 44
47
55
52
42
58 5 45
31
51
37
48
28
12
23
49
70
68
0"70
0"
85
--
1"56
1"55
--
5"2
4 2"
44
2"51
1"
99
2"33
--
4"93
--
"1
3 --
1"
77
--
"23
5"58
1"
27
--2"
40
3"24
--
"2
6 --
"0
1 2"
01
--2"
89
0"22
--
"2
7 1"
06
--
"53
0-45
2-
64
--
"30
-7 "
70
2.-5
5 -1
.41
3.
12
- .3
4 1.
17
2.53
1.
31
-1.1
0
3.07
-
.5
6
- .8
7 3.
32
--
11
- .6
1
--
4"54
--4
-21
36
34
59
25
74
16
15
20
17
72
43
63
45 2 27
65 6 46
41
19
68
39
47
29
50
37
12
48
54
13
58 8 49
28
14
26
56 9 51
55 4 42
53
71
70
2"68
2"
17
4"88
0"
22
--3"
22
2"43
1'
12
--3"
67
--
"08
1"43
--
3"62
--
2"39
2
'69
--
"0
5 3"
71
--4"
50
--
"32
--
1"
00
1"30
1"
58
0"18
1"
03
0.78
--
'60
--
'1
6
0"55
1"
60
0"71
0"
35
--4"
08
0"37
--
2"50
--
1"
97
3"27
--
2"28
0"
26
0"26
--
2"04
0"
18
3"03
0-
33
2"84
0-
06
0"18
--
"2
9
11
16
1
35
69
13
23
71
43
20
70
66
10
42 4 75
49
55
21
19
38
24
25-5
51
-5
44
28
17.5
27
30
73
29
67
62
7 65
33
33
63
38 8
31 9 41
38
46
¢x
%
0 g~
h~
g~
t~
t~
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
11:
59 0
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
416 Tony J. Kuz
indicators, based on the assumption that high intercorrelation between the objective and subjective variables exist, would be without foundation. The differences in results ob- tained by using either one set or the other or a combination of the two will become even more apparent when applied to further analysis of level o f living variations in urban centres in Southern Manitoba.
L E V E L O F L I V I N G I N D E X Considering the data and analyses em-
ployed so far a level of living index can be constructed in one of two ways: by adding the scores on each of the seven factors, or, as the variables composing each factor are highly interrelated, select a single variable to repre- sent each of the seven patterns, normalize and standardize each distribution, and add them to form a single array of values. The latter approach has greater merit in that com- ponents are complex mathematical structures di~icult to interpret and relate in the real world while the interpretation of the original variables is relatively straightforward.
The seven variables selected for structuring the index were those with the highest loadings on each factor and they all had communali ty values exceeding 70% . They are:
(1) percent labour force participation rate,
(2) percent dwellings with running wa- ter,
(3) percent population not attending school with university education,
(4) service index, (5) percent belong to an organization, (6) percent indicating that people are
friendly, and (7) percent indicating that leaders are
capable. Index values were derived as follows:
I = ( z , ) i = t
I is the index value Z is the standard score i is the range over which the sum- mation is to apply.
A total of three indexes were constructed (Table 3). The first was based on all seven variables, the second on only the first four objective variables and the last on the remaining three subjective variables. All indexes were derived by summing the standardized values and then converting the values into ranks with the highest positive values being assigned a rank of one and the lowest a rank of seventy-seven.
The index based on seven variables defines Hamiota, a communi ty of almost a thousand population as having the highest quality of life while the two centres of Camperville and Duck Bay the lowest. The generalization that can be made about the index values is that large centres such as Brandon score high on the objective and low on the subjective variables, small centres such as Camperville and Duck Bay score exceedingly low on both, and the intermediate sized centres vary in a highly random fashion on the two major classes of variables.
The contribution that the objective and subjective variables make to the total index is best illustrated by disaggregating and struc- turing separate indexes; one based on the four objective and the other on the three subjective variables.
The index based on the four objective measures mirrors the hierarchical structure of the urban system with the largest populated places such as Brand•n, Portage la Prairie, and Dauphin scoring the highest, and poorly developed places with poor infrastructures scoring the lowest. The index based on the three subjective variables does not correlate highly with the size of centre distribution. It is the smaller communities such as McCreary and Boissevain with populations of slightly over five and fifteeen hundred that rank one and two respectively while Brandon ranks sixty-eight--a city that ranks first on the four objective variable index.
The rank order correlation between the objective and, subjective indexes is rs=0"07 indicating virtually no statistical association between the two distributions (Fig. 2). In the Southern Manitoba urban centres there is no
Z
X
Z
=,
LU
0
8O
7G
50
4O
3O
2O
I0
o
• o
o
t
J
o
• o
Q o
o
o o
• •
e •
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
SUBJECTIVE VARIABLE INDEX RANK
Fig. 2. Scattergram of objective and subjective variable index ranks.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
11:
59 0
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Quality of Life, an Objective and Subjective Variable Analysis 417
relationship be tween the structural reality o f a place and the w a y its residents perceive it as a place to organize, to interact, and to make friends.
C O N C L U S I O N
The intended purpose o f level o f living and quali ty o f life research is to establish measures o f relative happiness w h e r e b y variables such as nutrit ion, life expectancy, consumpt ion , and so forth are being inferred as indicants o f this state o f mind. It has been assumed that more consumpt ion is linearly associated wi th happiness where more will generate greater conten tment , perhaps even a more p ro - duct ive population. This assumed connect ion be tween the state o f mind and the en- v i ronmenta l realities has const i tuted the basic theory o f human psychology.
Results, such as the ones generated in this
paper, refute the above generalizations and substantiate the speculations made b y ANDREWS (1974), EASTERHN et al. (1974). Wha t then are the ramifications o f these findings for past and future quality o f life studies and some directional changes in research design to make them more relevant?
Firstly, the studies done to date using only objective variables, are highly suspect wi th regards to their usefulness in that they provide only one aspect o f a mul t id imens iona l problem. Future studies must incorporate a much more comprehens ive listing o f vari- ables reflecting b o t h the ob jec t ive and subjective realities o f the envi ronment . On ly in this w a y will it be possible to establish a reasonably accurate assessment o f life quality in a given area and then e m p l o y the findings to identify hidden pockets o f discontent and/or evaluate pol icy impact and effective- ness.
R E F E R E N C E S
ANDREWS F. M. (1974) Social indicators of perceived life quality, Journal of Social Indicators Research 1, 279-299. ANDREWS F. M. and WrrrIEY S. B. (1974) Developing measures of perceived life quality: results from several national
surveys, Journal of Sociat Indicators Research 1, 1-26. BAUER R. A. (Ed.) (1966) Social Indicators. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. CAMWErL A., CONVERSE P. E. and RODGERS W. L. (1976) The Quality of American Life. Russell Sage Foundation,
New York. CANTRIr H. (1965) Patterns of Human Concerns. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick. DALIiEY N. C., ROURKE D. L., LEWIS R. and SNYDER D. (1972) Studies in the Quality of Life. D. C. Heath and Co.,
Lexington, Massachusetts. EASTERrlN R. A. (1974) Does economic growth unprove the human lot? some empirical evidence, Nations are
Households in Economic Growth (P. A. DAVID and M. W. REDER, Eds.). Academic Press, New York. ECONOMIC COUNCIt OF CANADA (1971) Eighth Annual Review: Design for Decision Making. Information Canada,
Ottawa. Ft^x M.J. (1972) A Study in Comparative Urban Indicators: Conditions in Eighteen Large Metropolitan Areas. Urban
Institute, Washington. HARnISON F. H., MaRUriNIC J. and RESNICI(J. ti,. (1970) Quantitative Analysis of Modernization and Development.
Princeton University Press, Princeton. JONES D. M. and Frax M.J. (1970) The Quality of Life in Metropolitan Washington, D.C.: Some Statistical Benchmarks.
Urban Institute, Washington. KIM KYOND--DoNG (1973) Towards a sociological theory of development: a structural perspective, Rur. Sociol. 38,
462-476. KNox P. L. (1974a) Spatial variations in level oftiving in England and Wales in 1961, Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 62,1-24. KNOX P. L. (1974b) Level of living, a conceptual framework for monitoring regional variations in well-being, Reg.
Studies 8, 11-19. LAND K. C. (1971) On the definition of social indicators, Am. Sociol. 6, 322-325. Lui BEN-CmErI (1975) Differential net migration rates and the quality of life, The Review of Economics and Statistics,
LVII, 324-337. Marqrroi~a DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (1975) Regional Analysis Program Southern Manitoba. Update
Vols. 1 and 2. Winnipeg. MANrroBA DEVagrMENT OF INDUSTRY aND COMMERCE (1974) Analyses of Community Service and Facilities. Winnipeg. McGRANArtaN D. V. (1971) Analysis ofsocio-economic development through a system of indicators, The Annals of
the Academy of Political and Social Sciences 393, 65-81. MILLER D. C. (1970) Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement. David McKay Co. Inc., New York. NIEWIAROSKI D. H. (1965) The level of living of nations: meaning and measurement, Estadistica:Journal of the Inter-
American Statistical Institute, 3--.31. RoJECg D. G., CLEMEtCrE F. and SUMMERS G. F. (1975) Community satisfaction: a study of contentment with local
services, Rur. Sociot. 40, 177-192. UtqrrrD NATIONS O~CANIZ^T~ON (1966) The Levels of Living Index. Research Institute for Social Development,
Geneva. VAN DAM A. (1974) Future demand patterns in the emerging world, Long Range Planning 7, 34-38. WIrSONJ. O. (1969) Quality of Life in the United States: An Excursion into the New Frontier of Socio-Economic Indicators,
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
11:
59 0
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
