A REVIEW OF THE NOTIONS OF QUALITY OF LIFE (QOL)
AND LIVABILITY BASED ON ACKOVIAN SYSTEMS THINKING
Joseph Kim-keung Ho
Independent
Trainer, Hong Kong, China
Abstract:
The notions
of quality of life (QOL) and livability have been employed in Housing Studies
and other social sciences subjects. Their underlying ideas and relationship are
reviewed here. The paper also undergoes an evaluation of them via R.L. Ackoff’s
systems thinking (i.e., Ackovian systems thinking) as well as a Facebook-based
questionnaire survey in the context of Hong Kong. The main survey findings
indicate that respondents in Hong Kong generally hold a more negative view on
QOL at the city and district levels than at the family and personal levels. The
paper also recommends the employment of systems thinking, notably Ackovian
systems thinking, to pursue QOL and livability at all levels of analysis. On
the whole, it makes additional clarification on the quality of life and livability
notions, which makes them more employable in research works, e.g., housing
studies.
Key
Words: Ackovian
systems thinking; Development; Facebook-based survey; Interactive Planning;
Livability; Multiple regression analysis; Quality of life
INTRODUCTION
The topic of quality of life (QOL) and
livability catch the writer’s attention in the course of dissertation project
supervision for his Housing Studies students. Right now, it is also quite a
social issue in Hong Kong where this writer is located, as witnessed by the
reported plunge in global ranking of Hong Kong as a livable city (Ejinsight,
2015; Ting, 2015; Lee, 2015). In this paper, the writer conducts a literature
review of the two closely related concepts of quality of life (QOL) and
livability. In particular, the two concepts are examined using R.L. Ackoff
(1981)’s systems thinking (i.e., Ackovian systems thinking). The discussion is
also informed by a Facebook-based survey on QOL and livability perceptions.
This study is intended to offer both academic and pedagogical values to readers
interested in these two concepts.
BASIC IDEAS ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE AND LIVABILITY
The ideas of quality of life (QOL) and
livability have been explained in different ways in the literature with
inspirations coming from ecology, city planning, sociology and biology
(Veehoven, 2005). What is done here is to offer a terse account of the two
ideas and their inter-relationship, which can subsequently be analyzed with the
systems thinking lens of R.L. Ackoff. Simply put, quality is life (QOL)
is “the general well-being of individuals and societies” (Wikipedia, 2015a),
wherein well-being is understood as “the condition of an individual or group,
for example their social, economic, psychological, spiritual or medical state”
(Wikipedia, 2015b). It is also tersely defined as “the degree to which a person
enjoys the important possibilities of his/her life” (The global development
research center. 2015), which underlines the subjectivity attribute of the QOL
notion. QOL differs from standards of living which is a much narrower measure
of “the quantity and quality of goods and services available to people” (The
global development research center, 2015). As to livability, it is taken
as “the sum of the factors that add up to a community’s quality of life –
including the built and natural environments, economic prosperity, social
stability and equity, educational opportunity, and cultural, entertainment and
recreation possibilities” (Partners’ for Livable Communities, 2015). These definitions
highlight two things: (i) livability examines a set of factors and the
summation of their contribution to the QOL of a society or community and (ii)
QOL encompasses livability with the additional coverage of the analysis level
in smaller social units, i.e., the family and personal levels. In this regard,
both notions have a spatial scope attribute (e.g., city and district) and a
social unit attribute (e.g., the community of a city or district, a family and
an individual). On the QOL/ livability factors per se, the writer adopts the
ones from Veehoven (2010) in developing his line reasoning, namely:
- Livability
of the environment, i.e., whether the
living condition is good or not.
- Life-ability
of the person, i.e., how
well-equipped we are to cope with life problems.
- Utility
of life, i.e., how good
life is for things of higher value, e.g., ecological preservation and
cultural development.
- Satisfaction
of life, i.e., the
subjective well-being and happiness for an individual.
These factors comprise the external and
internal states of well-being experience (i.e., factors (a), (c) and (d).) as
well as QOL enabling elements (i.e., factors (b) and (c).) In practice, QOL and
livability indexes, e.g., numbeo.com (2015) and the Hong Kong Quality of Life
Index (Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, 2015), focus mainly on
their outcome domains, e.g., cost of living and purchasing power, affordability
of housing, pollution, crime rats, health system quality and traffic (commute
times) (numbeo.com, 2015), thus crude in pointing out exactly what are the
fundamental causes or effective points of leverage to improve them in a
specific community[i]. For example, when it is
reported by the ECA International that Hong Kong has dropped in ranking in the
world’s most livable cities partly due to deteriorating political environment
with the Umbrella Movement, Chan kin-man, Occupy Central co-founder said that
“ECA only saw the surface of the problems in Hong Kong…. The development of the
city’s political system lags behind its social development, and that is the
hidden problem that led to unrest during the Umbrella Movement” (Ejinsight,
2015). The causal factor pointed out by Chan kin-man is not identified in the
QOL report of ECA International and, naturally, Chan’s view is not accepted by
his political opponents. More often than not, discussion of the fundamental
causes on QOL/ livability is controversial. Readers are referred to Ho (2015)
for additional basic information on the notions of QOL and livability. With the
main terms involved in quality of life and livability defined, it is now
feasible to synthesize the underlying ideas into the form of a Table, see Table
1.
Table 1: quality of
life and livability[ii]
with different levels of analysis
Quality of life (QOL) factors
|
City level
(level 3)
|
District level (level 2)
|
Family level (level 1)
|
Personal level (level 0)
|
QOL factor 1:
Livability of the environment
|
More aggregate
measurement
|
<---- o:p="">
|
---->
Less aggregate
measurement
QOL factor 2:
Life-ability of the person
More aggregate
measurement
<---- o:p="">
---->
Less aggregate
measurement
QOL factor 3:
Utility of life
More aggregate
measurement
<---- o:p="">
---->
Less aggregate
measurement
QOL factor 4:
Satisfaction with life
More aggregate
measurement
<---- o:p="">
---->
Less aggregate measurement
Table 1 consists of two dimensions, as
represented by the columns and rows of the table. Table column covers the level
of analysis, namely, the city level (level 3), the district level (level 2),
the family level (level 1) and the personal level (level 0) while table row
acknowledges the four QOL factors of Veehoven (2010). Moreover, Table 1 also
recognizes the main difference between the notions of QOL and livability. That
is, QOL can be employed at all levels of analysis (0 to 3) while livability is
only applied at the aggregate analysis levels of 2 and 3. It is unclear whether
this view of the writer on their difference is widely shared in the academic
community. By sticking to one version of explanation on all the key ideas
underlying QOL and livability and with the consolidated framework in the form
of Table 1, the writer portrays a neat and easily comprehensible view of these
two concepts to readers. Apparently, Table 1 is not the only way to synthesize
the underlying ideas of QOL and livability. For instances, the table does not
explicitly consider all the ingredient output domain measures of QOL and
livability; it does not cover other subcategories of QOL, e.g., physical
health, psychological well-being, functional status, life satisfaction, social
functioning and social relations of Addae-Dapaah (2008) and the being, belonging
and becoming domains of the global development research center (2015).
Lastly, it does not identify more refined and idiosyncratic causal factors of
QOL and livability.
AN ASSESSMENT OF QOL AND LIVABILITY VIA THE
ACKOVIAN SYSTEMS THINKING LENS
To start with, QOL and livability are the
outcome property from the interactions of a number of factors. In systems
thinking parlance, they are the emergent properties of a system
comprising a set of related QOL/livability factors. On the notion of system,
Ackoff (1980) explains that it “is a set of two or more elements of any kind”
with three properties:
Property 1:
“The properties or behavior of each element in the set has an effect on the
properties or behavior of the set as a whole”.
Property 2:
“The properties and behavior of each part and the way they affect the whole
depends on the properties and behavior of at least one other element in the
set”.
Property 3:
“Every possible subgroup of elements in the set has the first two properties;
that is, each has an effect, and none has an independent effect, on the whole”.
Recognizing the systemic nature of QOL and
livability, the writer primarily draws on the systems thinking works of Ackoff
(1980; 1981) in the discussion of them. So, for Ackoff (1981), who refers to
the ancient Greek philosophers, there are four pursuits that together lead to development
of men. They are: truth, plenty, good and beauty. These outcomes of the four pursuits
of development are similarly measured by a typical set of QOL
indicators, e.g., material living conditions, productive or main activity,
health, education, leisure and social interactions, economic and physical
safety, governance and basic rights, natural and living environment, and
overall experience of life (eurostat, 2015). More fundamentally, development
comprises a desire and an ability (Ackoff, 1981), therefore not able to be
given to a person by another person. Based on this view on development, (i) “a
developed men with limited resources can often improve his quality of life and
that of others more than a less developed man with unlimited resources”
(Ackoff, 1981: 36), and (ii) the QOL that can be realized “is the joint product
of their development and the resources available to them (Ackoff, 1981: 36). As
such, to be compatible with a development initiative, planning[iii] for a desirable future
for a community at the society and district level so as to improve QOL and
livability requires the endorsement of three operating principles (Ackoff,
1980; 1981):
(i) The participative principle: that
“the principal benefit of planning comes from engaging in it” (Ackoff, 1980).
(ii) The principle of continuity: that
planning “should be continuous” (Ackoff, 1980).
(iii) The holistic principle: that
“every part of a system and every level of it should be planned for
simultaneously and interdependently” (Ackoff, 1980).
Another
reason for embracing these three operating principles when dealing with QOL and
livability is that a community is a social system[iv].
Such a system is obsessed with three types of responsibility at the same time
(Ackoff, 1981): (i) “to the purposes of the system they manage (control)”,
(ii) to the purposes of the people who are part of the managed system (humanization),
and (iii) to the purposes of the containing system and other systems that it
contains (environmentalization)”. There is a corresponding
responsibility on QOL with these three types of social system responsibility on
its purposes at the society, district, family and personal levels.
Specifically, when applied to the QOL and livability concern, these three
operating principles of Ackoff point to requirement on the continuous pursuit
(the continuity principle) of QOL and livability by all the stakeholders
involved (the participative principle) at the society, district, family and
personal levels (re: Table1) (the holistic principle). In this case, the QOL
and livability indexes are not recommended to be used by planners to produce
some kind of optimization models to be employed in city and district planning
for its stakeholders. More explicitly, based on Ackovian systems thinking,
planners cannot simply plan for others with the QOL/ livability indexes.
Instead, QOL and livability indexes should be utilized by the stakeholders
involved to plan for themselves so as to cope with the emergent and systemic
nature of QOL and livability effectively. The holistic principle of Ackoff also
points to the need to consider QOL and livability indexes at different levels
of analysis (re: Table 1) simultaneously by the stakeholders involved in their
planning for themselves. At this point, one can contrast the Ackovian way
(i.e., interactive planning approach) to manage QOL and livability with that of
the “predict and prepare” approach of preactivism[v]
(Ackoff, 1981), as exemplified by Wyatt (2009) who states that: “…city planners
trying to boost urban livability can only adopt approximate and heuristic
strategies which they think might increase livability and which will probably
do no harm…”. From the Ackovian systems thinking perspective, such QOL/
livability planning approach based on preactivism simply does not work.
The
Ackovian systems thinking lens offers insights on clarifying and employing the
QOL and livability notions and indexes. It is quite prepared to consider both
the objective and subjective topics in QOL/ livability studies in its
interactive planning approach. Nevertheless, Ackoff’s systems thinking itself
has been subject to criticisms in the systems community. On that, interested
readers are referred to Jackson (2003: chapter 9) for details. Lastly, the
exercise of drawing a boundary on exactly what factors should be included in
various analysis levels of QOL requires an approach more critical than that of
Ackovian systems thinking. An example is Critical Systems Heuristics of Ulrich
(1983). The next section provides some empirical survey findings on people’s
perception on QOL in the context of Hong Kong.
FACEBOOK-BASED SURVEY FINDINGS ON THE PERCEPTIONS
OF QOL IN HONG KONG
A Facebook-based questionnaire survey was
conducted from August 15 to 17 on the writer’s Facebook by the writer. The
online questionnaire was created using the free-of-charge survey tool provided
by kwiksurveys.com. Readers interested in Facebook-based survey are referred to
Ho (2014) for a more detailed discussion. The question was posted on the
writer’s Facebook wall as well as a number of his Facebook groups on some
social sciences subjects. Invitations were also sent via the Facebook message
to the writer’s Facebook friends. These Facebook friends are mainly the
existing and former students of the writer. At the time of the survey, there
were 500 friends on his Facebook. Most of them are located in Hong Kong. Subsequently,
117 respondents participated in the survey; see Appendix 1 for the
survey questions and basic survey statistics. The survey questions cover the
respondents’ profile as well as their perceptions toward certain QOL concerns
in Hong Kong. The survey questions deliberately avoid using the more technical
term livability. Instead, they utilize the term quality of life (QOL), which is
more comprehensible to ordinary people. One set of questions focuses on QOL
issues at the society level; others deal with QOL issues at the district,
family and personal levels. Thus, the survey questions are informed by the
ideas underlying Table 1. The following are the five survey findings:
Finding 1
(re: survey questions 6, 7, 8 and 9): On perceived quality of life deterioration
over the last 2 years at different levels of analysis, the following statistics
are provided in Table 2:
Table 2: perception of
quality of life deterioration over the last 2 years at different levels of
analysis
Society level
|
District level
|
Family level
|
Personal level
|
|
Strongly agree
|
40.17%
|
26.5%
|
14.66%
|
19.66%
|
Mildly agree
|
44.44%
|
45.3%
|
35.34%
|
35.9%
|
Do not agree
|
13.68%
|
26.5%
|
45.69%
|
41.88%
|
No idea or comment
|
1.71%
|
1.71%
|
4.31%
|
2.56%
|
With reference to Table 2, the majority of the
respondents feel that the quality of life has deteriorated over the last 2
years at all analysis levels. Such QOL perceptions are stronger at the
macro-environmental levels, i.e., the society and the district levels, than at
the family and personal levels.
Finding 2
(re: survey questions 10, 11, 12 and 13): On perceived ability deterioration to
improve quality of life in the coming 2 years at different levels of analysis,
the following statistics are provided in Table 3:
Table 3: perception of
ability deterioration to improve quality of life in the coming 2 years at
different levels of analysis
Society level by the government
|
District level by the government
|
Family level by the respondents’ family
|
Personal level by the respondent
|
|
Strongly agree
|
8.55%
|
3.45%
|
10.34%
|
20.51%
|
Mildly agree
|
12.82%
|
8.62%
|
38.79%
|
37.61%
|
Do not agree
|
73.5%
|
83.62%
|
43.97%
|
36.75%
|
No idea or comment
|
5.13%
|
4.31%
|
6.9%
|
5.13%
|
Regarding Table 3, the dominant majority of
survey respondents are not confident that the government is able to improve QOL
at the society and the district levels; about half of them have confidence that
they and their families are able to improve their own QOL in the coming 2
years. In short, they have higher confidence on their own and their families’
abilities to improve their own QOL than that of the government on the general
QOL at the society and district levels.
Finding 3
(re: survey questions 14, 15, 16 and 17): On personal feeling on present QOL at
different analysis levels, the statistics are summarized in Table 4:
Table 4: personal
feeling on present QOL at different analysis levels
Satisfied at the society level
|
Satisfied at the district level
|
Satisfied at the family level
|
Satisfied at the personal level
|
|
Strongly agree
|
3.42%
|
4.27%
|
8.62%
|
5.98%
|
Mildly agree
|
30.77%
|
38.46%
|
48.28%
|
47.86%
|
Do not agree
|
62.39%
|
53.85%
|
39.66%
|
43.59%
|
No idea or comment
|
3.42%
|
3.42%
|
3.45%
|
2.56%
|
About half of the respondents hold negative
personal feeling on the present QOL at all the analysis levels; nevertheless,
the respondents, relatively speaking, feel more satisfied with the present QOL
at the family and personal levels than at the macro level, i.e., the district
and society levels.
Finding 4
(re: survey questions 18, 19, 20 and 21): On the respondents’ feeling on
expected QOL change in the coming 2 years, the survey statistics are summarized
in Table 5.
Table 5: expected QOL
change in the coming 2 years at different analysis levels
Will get worse at the society level
|
Will get worse at the district level
|
Will get worse at the family level
|
Will get worse at the personal level
|
|
Strongly agree
|
25.22%
|
17.24%
|
10.26%
|
10.26%
|
Mildly agree
|
47.83%
|
49.14%
|
38.46%
|
35.04%
|
Do not agree
|
14.78%
|
18.97%
|
37.61%
|
37.61%
|
No idea or comment
|
12.17%
|
14.66%
|
13.68%
|
17.09%
|
With reference to Table 5, the majority of the respondents hold a rather
pessimistic view on QOL change at the society and district levels in the coming
2 years. In comparison, the sentiment of them is slightly less negative at the
family and personal levels. There is also a significant minority of respondents
who have no idea or comment on this topic, reflecting some uncertainty and
bewilderment on this topic.
Finding 5 (re: survey
questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16 and 17): By means of the statistical technique
of multiple regression analysis (Lind et
al., 2001) with the MS Excel tool, the following multiple regression
formula is formulated:
Interest in learning the subject of QOL (variable y) = a + b1 x (x1:
gender) + b2 x (x2: age group) + b3 x (x3: education background) + b4 x (x4:
self-perceived social class) + b5 x (x5: satisfaction with present QOL at the
society level) + b6 x (x6: satisfaction with the present QOL at the district
level) + b7 x (x7: satisfaction with the present QOL at the family level) + b8
x (x8: satisfaction with the present QOL at the personal level)
Additional information on the variables in the multiple regression
formula is as follows:
Interest in learning the subject of QOL (variable y) is
the dependent variable based on survey question 22.
Gender (x1) is an independent
variable based on survey question 1.
Age group (x2) is an
independent variable based on survey question 2.
Education background (x3) is an
independent variable based on survey question 3.
Self-perceived social class (x4) is an
independent variable based on survey question 4.
Satisfaction with present QOL at the
society level (x5) is an independent variable based on survey
question 14.
Satisfaction with the present QOL at the
district level (x6) is an independent variable based on survey
question 15.
Satisfaction with the present QOL at the
family level (x7) is an independent variable based on survey
question 16.
Satisfaction with the present QOL at the
personal level (x8) is an independent variable based on survey
question 17.
To enable Excel to produce the variable values for multiple regression
analysis, the following coding scheme is used:
For perception items:
Yes, very much so: 3
Yes, I have this feeling mildly: 2
No, I do not feel this way: 1
For gender:
Female: 1
Male: 2
For age group:
18 to 27: 22.5
28 to 37: 32.5
38 to 47: 42.5
48 to 57: 52.5
58 to 67: 62.5
68 or above: 72.5
For education background:
Finished Ph.D.
Degree study: 4
Finished Master
Degree study: 3
Finished
Undergraduate Degree study: 2
Not yet a
degree-holder: 1
For self-perceived
social class:
Upper class: 3
Middle class: 2
Lower class: 1
Based on the Excel report on the multiple regression analysis, the
following resultant formula is obtained (re: Appendix 2):
Interest in learning the subject of QOL (variable y) = 1.9228 – 0.17338
x (x1: gender) + 0.0118 x (x2: age group) – 0.2326 x (x3: education background)
+ 0.2544 x (x4: self-perceived social class) – 0.2421 x (x5: satisfaction with
present QOL at the society level) + 2.9448 x (x6: satisfaction with the present
QOL at the district level) + 0.7410 x (x7: satisfaction with the present QOL at
the family level) – 0.7650 x (x8: satisfaction with the present QOL at the
personal level)
Interpretation: The b1 value of
-0.17338 for x1 indicates that female respondents have slightly higher interest
in learning the subject of QOL than male respondents. Respondents with higher
level of education background, with b2 value at 0.0118, also have slightly
higher interest in learning QOL. Respondents with higher education level have
slightly lower interest in QOL learning (re: b3 value is -0.2326). Referring to
b4 (0.2544), respondents with higher self-perceived social class have slightly
higher interest in learning QOL. Regarding b5 (-0.2421), respondents who are
less satisfied with the present QOL at the society level have slightly higher
interest in learning QOL. Respondents who are more satisfied with the present
QOL at the district level (with b6 value at 2.9448) have higher interest in
learning QOL. Those who are more satisfied with QOL at the family level have
slightly more interest to learn QOL (re: b7 value is 0.7410). Finally, those
who have less satisfaction with QOL at the personal level have somewhat more
interest in learning QOL (re: b8 value is -0.7650). It is important to note
that only the last two independent variables of QOL at the family level
(variable x7) and personal level (variable x8) have p-value below 2.5% (or 5%
critical value for a two-tailed test), which implies that the null-hypotheses
of their b values (i.e., b7 and b8) being zero can be rejected. As to
independent variables x1 to x6, their corresponding p-values are all beyond the
2.5% critical value. Thus, the null hypothesis for their b-values being zero
cannot be rejected.
Overall,
the survey findings reveal that respondents have more confidence in their own
ability to improve their family and personal QOL than in what the government is
able to do for them on QOL. It is also clear that correlations among variables
per se, as shown in the multiple regression formula here, do not establish
cause-effect relationship among them. Such empirical findings lend support to
the appropriateness of the 3 operating principles of Ackoff’s interactive
planning as guidance for QOL and livability planning and management.
Concluding remarks
By focusing on the basic underling ideas of QOL and
livability, this paper comes up with a consolidated framework expressed in the
form of Table 1. Also, via the Ackovian systems thinking lens, the notions of
QOL and livability have been further clarified (point 1); the value of using
the Interactive Planning of Ackoff and its operating principles in managing QOL
and livability is underlined (point 2); and, the importance of human
development for the pursuit of QOL and livability is emphasized (point 3)[vi].
The findings from the Facebook-based survey on QOL and livability in the Hong
Kong context can be fruitfully interpreted with the main line of reasoning
anchored on Ackovian systems thinking. All in all, the paper illustrates the intellectual
value of the Ackovian systems thinking view on QOL and livability to
academicians and educators interested in QOL/ livability study. Additional
clarification on the two notions, done in this paper, also makes them more
comprehensible to employ in research works, e.g., in housing studies.
Bibliography
- Ackoff, R.L.
1980. “2. The systems revolution” in Lockett, M. and R. Spear (editors) Organizations as Systems. The Open University Press, Milton
Keynes: 26-33.
- Ackoff, R.L.
1981. Creating the corporate future.
Wiley. Chichester.
- Ackoff, R.L.
and J. Gharajedaghi. 1996. “Reflection on Systems and their Models” Systems Research 13(1). Wiley:
13-23.
- Addae-Dapaah,
K. 2008. “Age Segregation and the Quality of Life of the Elderly People in
Studio Apartments” Journal of
Housing For the Elderly 22 (1-2). Routledge: 127-161.
- Ejinsight.
2015. “HK plummets in global ranking of livable cities” ejinsight January 23. (url address:
http://www.ejinsight.com/20150123-hk-plummets-in-global-ranking-of-livable-cities/) [visited at
August 14, 2015].
- Eurostat.
2015. “Quality of life indicators – measuring quality of life” Statistics
Explained June 1. Eurostat. (url address: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Quality_of_life_indicators_-_measuring_quality_of_life) [visited at
August 16, 2015].
- Ho J.K.K. 2014. “A Research Note on Facebook-based questionnaire
survey for academic research in business studies” European Academic Research 2(7) October: 9243-9257.
- Ho, J.K.K. 2015. “Livability and quality of life study” Facebook
Album of J.K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/josephho33/media_set?set=a.10153444326092090.1073742048.713727089&type=3)
[visited at August 26, 2015].
- Hong Kong
Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies. 2015. “Hong Kong Quality of Life Index”
Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of
Hong Kong (url address: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ssc/qol/eng/hkqol.html) [visited at
August 26, 2015].
- Jackson, M.C.
2003. Systems Thinking: Creative
Holism for Managers. Wiley. Chichester.
- KwikSurveys.com.
An online survey builder (url address: https://kwiksurveys.com/).
- Lee, E. 2015.
“Occupy protests hits Hong Kong’s liveability, says Economist Intelligence
Unit” South China Morning Post
August 18 (url address: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/1850420/occupy-protests-hit-hong-kongs-liveability-says-economist) [visited at
August 18, 2015].
- Lind, D.A.,
W.G. Marchal and R.D. Mason. 2001. Statistical
Techniques in Business & Economics. McGraw-Hill Irwin. Boston.
- Numbeo.com.
2015. “Quality of life index for country 2015 mid year” Numbeo.com (url
address: http://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp) [visited at
August 20, 2015].
- Partners for Livable
Communities. 2015. What is Livability. Partners for Livable Communities. 1429 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 (url address: http://livable.org/about-us/what-is-livability) [visited at August 16, 2015].
- Schmitt, R.B.
and H.H. Noll. 2000. “Towards a European System of Social Reporting and
Welfare Measurement: Conceptual Framework and Structure of a European
System of Social Indicators” EU Reporting
Working Paper 9, Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA).
- The global
development research center. 2015. “Notes on “Quality of Life”.” The
global development research center (url address: http://www.gdrc.org/uem/qol-define.html) [visited at
August 26, 2015].
- Ting, S. 2015. “H.K. Declines in Livable City Survey for Asian
Expats” Bloomberg January 23 (url address: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-23/hong-kong-falls-out-of-top-30-most-livable-cities-survey-shows) [visited at August 14, 2015].
- Ulrich, W.
1983. Critical Heuristics of Social
Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Wiley.
- Veehoven, R.
2005. “Is life getting better?” How long and happy people live in modern
society” European Psychology 10:
330-343.
- Veenhoven, R.
2010. “Capability and Happiness: Conceptual difference and reality links” Journal of Socio-Economics 30:
344-350.
- Wikipedia. 2015a. Quality of life. Wikipedia.com (url address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life) [visited August 16, 2015].
- Wikipedia.
2015b. Well-being. Wikipedia.com (url address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-being). [visited August 16, 2015].
- Wyatt, R.
2009. “Heuristic Approaches to Urban Livability” Malaysian Journal of Environmental Management 10(1): 43-65.
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: the Facebook-based survey questions (22
questions) and responses statistics (from August 15 to 17, 2015).
Survey questions
|
Survey statistics
|
Question 1: What
is your gender?
|
Male: 49 (41.88%)
Female: 68
(58.12%)
Standard
deviation: 9.5
Responses: 117
|
Question 2: What
is your age?
|
18 to 27: 11
(9.4%)
28 to 37: 53
(45.3%)
38 to 47: 42
(35.9%)
48 to 57: 10
(8.55%)
58 to 67: 1
(0.85%)
68 or above: 0 (0%)
Standard
deviation: 20.47
Responses: 117
|
Question 3: What
is your education background?
|
Not yet a
degree-holder: 18 (15.38%)
Finished
University Undergraduate Degree study: 78 (66.67%)
Finished Master
Degree study: 21 (17.95%)
Finished Ph.D.
Degree study (or equivalent): 0 (0%)
Standard
deviation: 29.27
Responses: 117
|
Question 4: What
is your perceived own social class?
|
Upper class: 3
(2.56%)
Middle class: 65
(55.56%)
Lower class: 38
(32.48%)
Not applicable/
no idea: 11 (9.4%)
Standard
deviation: 24.38
Responses: 117
|
Question 5: What
is your marital status?
|
Single: 58
(49.57%)
Married: 53
(45.3%)
Complicated/ no
comment: 6 (5.13%)
Standard
deviation: 23.42
Responses: 117
|
Question 6: Do
you feel that the quality of life for the society as a whole has got worse
over the last 2 years?
|
Yes, very much
so: 47 (40.17%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 52 (44.44%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 16 (13.68%)
No idea/ no
comment: 2 (1.71%)
Standard
deviation: 20.92
Responses: 117
|
Question 7: Do
you feel that the quality of life at the district level of your residence has
got worse over the last 2 years?
|
Yes, very much
so: 31 (26.5%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 53 (45.3%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 31 (26.5%)
No idea/ no
comment: 2 (1.71%)
Standard
deviation: 18.12
Responses: 117
|
Question 8: Do
you feel that the quality of life at your family level has got worse over the
last 2 years?
|
Yes, very much
so: 17 (14.66%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 41 (35.34%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 53 (45.69%)
No idea/ no
comment: 5 (4.31%)
Standard
deviation: 18.97
Responses: 116
|
Question 9: Do
you feel that the quality of life at your personal level has got worse over
the last 2 years?
|
Yes, very much
so: 23 (19.66%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 42 (35.9%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 49 (41.88%)
No idea/ no
comment: 3 (2.56%)
Standard
deviation: 17.89
Responses: 117
|
Question 10: Do
you feel that the present Hong Kong government is able to improve the quality
of life at the society level in the coming 2 years?
|
Yes, very much
so: 10 (8.55%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 15 (12.82%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 86 (73.5%)
No idea/ no
comment: 6 (5.13%)
Standard
deviation: 32.92
Responses: 117
|
Question 11: Do
you feel that the present Hong Kong government is able to improve the quality
of life at the district level of your residence in the coming 2 years?
|
Yes, very much
so: 4 (3.45%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 10 (8.62%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 97 (83.62%)
No idea/ no
comment: 5 (4.31%)
Standard
deviation: 39.33
Responses: 116
|
Question 12: Do
you feel that your family is able to improve the quality of life at your
family level in the coming 2 years?
|
Yes, very much
so: 12 (10.34%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 45 (38.79%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 51 (43.97%)
No idea/ no
comment: 8 (6.9%)
Standard
deviation: 19.17
Responses: 116
|
Question 13: Do
you feel that you are able to improve the quality of life at your personal
level in the coming 2 years?
|
Yes, very much
so: 24 (20.51%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 44 (37.61%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 43 (36.75%)
No idea/ no
comment: 6 (5.13%)
Standard
deviation: 15.61
Responses: 117
|
Question 14: Do
you feel that you are satisfied with the present quality of life at the
society level?
|
Yes, very much
so: 4 (3.42%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 36 (30.77%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 73 (62.39%)
No idea/ no
comment: 4 (3.42%)
Standard
deviation: 28.44
Responses: 117
|
Question 15: Do
you feel that you are satisfied with the present quality of life at the district
level of your residence?
|
Yes, very much
so: 5 (4.27%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 45 (38.46%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 63 (53.85%)
No idea/ no
comment: 4 (3.42%)
Standard
deviation: 25.56
Responses: 117
|
Question 16: Do
you feel that you are satisfied with the present quality of life at your
family level?
|
Yes, very much
so: 10 (8.62%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 56 (48.28%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 46 (39.66%)
No idea/ no
comment: 4 (3.45%)
Standard
deviation: 22.38
Responses: 116
|
Question 17: Do
you feel that you are satisfied with the present quality of life at your
personal level?
|
Yes, very much
so: 7 (5.98%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 56 (47.86%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 51 (43.59%)
No idea/ no
comment: 3 (2.56%)
Standard deviation:
24.36
Responses: 117
|
Question 18: Do
you feel that the quality of life at the society level will get worse in the
coming 2 years?
|
Yes, very much
so: 29 (25.22%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 55 (47.83%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 17 (14.78%)
No idea/ no
comment: 14 (12.17%)
Standard
deviation: 16.16
Responses: 115
|
Question 19: Do
you feel that the quality of life at your district level will get worse in
the coming 2 years?
|
Yes, very much
so: 20 (17.24%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 57 (49.14%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 22 (18.97%)
No idea/ no
comment: 17 (14.66%)
Standard
deviation: 16.26
Responses: 116
|
Question 20: Do
you feel that the quality of life at your family level will get worse in the
coming 2 years?
|
Yes, very much
so: 12 (10.26%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 45 (38.46%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 44 (37.61%)
No idea/ no
comment: 16 (13.68%)
Standard
deviation: 15.32
Responses: 117
|
Question 21: Do
you feel that the quality of life at your personal level will get worse in the
coming 2 years?
|
Yes, very much
so: 12 (10.26%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 41 (35.04%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 44 (37.61%)
No idea/ no
comment: 20 (17.09%)
Standard
deviation: 13.59
Responses: 117
|
Question 22: Do
you feel that you are interested in learning more about the subject of
quality of life?
|
Yes, very much
so: 35 (29.91%)
Yes, I have this
feeling mildly: 49 (41.88%)
No, I do not feel
this way: 21 (17.95%)
No idea/ no
comment: 12 (10.26%)
Standard
deviation: 14.04
Responses: 117
|
Appendix 2: Excel report on multiple regression
analysis.
SUMMARY
OUTPUT
|
||||
Regression Statistics
|
||||
Multiple
R
|
0.439092276
|
|||
R
Square
|
0.192802027
|
|||
Adjusted
R Square
|
0.083351455
|
|||
Standard
Error
|
0.712048932
|
|||
Observations
|
68
|
|||
ANOVA
|
||||
df
|
SS
|
MS
|
F
|
|
Regression
|
8
|
7.1450163
|
0.893127
|
1.761544253
|
Residual
|
59
|
29.91380723
|
0.5070137
|
|
Total
|
67
|
37.05882353
|
||
Coefficients
|
Standard Error
|
t Stat
|
P-value
|
|
Intercept
|
1.922845279
|
0.593164458
|
3.2416731
|
0.001956132
|
Gender
|
-0.173379721
|
0.189787053
|
-0.9135487
|
0.364672247
|
Age
group
|
0.011791454
|
0.010839019
|
1.0878709
|
0.281076209
|
Education
background
|
-0.232629615
|
0.168236102
|
-1.3827568
|
0.171950861
|
Self-perceived
social class
|
0.254382051
|
0.181747523
|
1.3996452
|
0.166855728
|
QOL
satisfaction at society level
|
-0.242129073
|
0.233914722
|
-1.0351169
|
0.304838494
|
QOL
satisfaction at district level
|
0.294475682
|
0.215048485
|
1.3693455
|
0.176081351
|
QOL
satisfaction at family level
|
0.740995643
|
0.276054465
|
2.6842371
|
0.009421134
|
QOL
satisfaction at personal level
|
-0.765048659
|
0.313619574
|
-2.4394162
|
0.017736761
|
[i] Some basic
cause-effect relationships among the component measures of QOL are suggested in
the systems model of QOL proposed by the University of Oklahoma School of
Social Work (The global development research center, 2015).
[ii] The notion of livability covers all the cells for
levels 2 (district level) and 3 (city level) in Table 1.
[iii] Such a planning
approach, which is a soft systems methodology, is called interactive planning (Ackoff (1981).
[iv] A social system possesses purposeful parts
and is also purposeful as a whole (Ackoff and Gharajedaghi, 1996).
[v] According to
Ackoff (1981: 58-59), preactivists believe in management by objectives and seek
for optimum solutions based on “quantitative science-based techniques”;
planning, for them, is about “predicting the future and preparing for it”.
[vi] A related
theoretical question on the value of creative
holism pursuit (Jackson, 2003) as a pathway for QOL/livability improvement
is not examined in this paper. [Creative
holism is a notion in critical systems thinking while development is a concept in Ackoff’s version of soft systems
thinking (Jackson, 2003).]
No comments:
Post a Comment