Transcript WP2 Quality of Life Indicators

WP2
Quality of Life Indicators
Charles University of Prague
Ludek Sykora
WP2: Quality of Life Indicators
Quality of Life: the Concept
SELMA proposal: The QoL of the individual
arising from non-residential deconcentration
Quality of Life is a personal and therefore
subjective matter
Environmental (external to an individual)
aspects that contribute to a subjective
perception of the quality of life
Which aspects are formed and transformed
by non-residential deconcentration?
SELMA pays attention to socio-economic and
environmental aspects
Socio-economic
Spatial mismatch of employment
Job opportnities
Social polarisation, exclusion
Community cohesion
Costs of infrastructure provision
Infrastructure accessibility
Opportunity
Environmental
Noise
Pollution
Water quality
Loss of open space
Congestion (???)
Structural or developmental view
QoL situation – link to the level of
deconcentration (structural) in the spatial
pattern
QoL change over 10 years – link to the
deconcentration (structural / developmental)
as a change in spatial pattern
SELMA proposal promised indicators of
change in the quality of life !!!
Proposal: combination of both approaches
Spatial level
Indicator for the whole metropolitan
area
Indicator for the zones in metropolitan
area (internal differentiation, relation
between compact city and suburbs)
Indicators for smaller spatial units
Scale
Metropolitan area (all cities)
Zones in metropolitan areas (all cities)
Smaller units within zones (in selected
instances all cities)
Grid (3 cities)
Qualitative and quantitative approaches
SELMA proposal promised a
combination of both qualitative and
quantitative assessment
Qualitative - Case study (whole
metropolitan area or localities ??)
Aggregate data
Efficiency and equity
3 cities versus all the others
What is the difference in the level of
analysis?
What is the difference in the approach?
3 – UrbanSim model, GIS, spatially
detail data
Question?
SELMA proposal hypothesize that QoL
impacts arising from non-residential
deconcentration will be VERY DIFFERENT to
those arising from residential deconcentration
IMPLICATIONS: SELMA does not study
residential deconcentration and thus can not
prove this hypothesis
Provided we take the hypothesis into account,
the traditional indicators are not very useful
for us. What is the alternative?
SELMA WP 2
QoL
Approach, Concepts and the
Purpose of Indicators
Main question: How changes in land
use patterns caused by non-residential
suburbanisation have affected quality of
life of individuals and households in
suburban areas and urban core of
metropolitan regions?
Approach, Concepts and the
Purpose of Indicators
intensive research of mechanism through
which suburbanisation impacts on the quality
of life
conceptualisation of mechanisms must
precede any assembly of large data sets and
their statistical analysis
we have to gather only such data and
construct indicators of quality of life that
reflect the impacts of non-residential
suburbanisation
Approach, Concepts and the
Purpose of Indicators
We have to start with a formulation of a
scheme that would reflect links between
different land use changes and changes of life
of different population sub-groups. –>
common work for WP 2, 3 and 5
Then we shall search for available indicators
that would best describe these impacts. –>
WP 4
The spatial scale and level of
complexity of our analysis
aggregated data and extensive research
case studies of places, non-residential
developments and inhabitants employing
intensive research techniques
Spatial scales
Metropolitan region as a whole (problem of
external boundary delimitation)
two zones in metropolitan region: suburban
zone and urban core (compact city boundary)
more detailed spatial scale: how large units in
terms of area and population size? (smallest
possible areas, in Prague ca 1000 units with
population ranging from 0-10000 inhabitants,
question for other metropolitan areas)
Case studies
impacts of particular non-residential
developments (out-of-town shopping and
entertainment zone; logistic, warehousing
and distribution complex; production facility
in new industrial zone) on the quality of life of
various population subgroups
intensive analysis can serve as a source of
data input to the model building, based on
existing factual relations rather than on
statistical relations generated by the
comparison of independent land use and
independent quality of life indicators
Population sub-groups
Who is benefiting from the use of the new
non-residential facilities? Who is negatively
affected by the use of these facilities? What is
the difference between various groups of
population in different places?
Several aspects of non-residential
suburbanisation affect every person. We have
to identify these aspects, analyse and assess
them.
Non-residential suburbanisation
impacts research
1) on an individual, non-aggregated level, i.e.
aspect by aspect for each individual
2) weighting of these individual aspects -> a
more complex assessment for an individual
(inclusion only of the most important aspects)
3) aggregation of individuals into subpopulations according to activities in daily life,
place of living, socio-economic and
demographic status
Quality of life impacts
One suburban non-residential development
impacts on the quality of life of one individual
in several instances. This development impacts
in various combinations of these instances on
various people. We shall identify the most
common combinations of these effects (the
number of affected people).
One person is influenced by many new
suburban non-residential developments. We
shall identify the most common impacts from
suburban projects (in their mutual
combination and complexity) on one person.
Then we have to aggregate the most common
combinations for population subgroups.
Quality of life impacts
the quality of daily life of individuals
information can be obtained only by an
intensive research on the level of individual
projects and individual people
implications for research method –
questionnaire survey of population and case
studies of selected typical developments
What are the impacts of non-residential
suburbanisation
on everyday life of people in
metropolitan area
suburban zone
urban core
immediate vicinity of non-residential
development
What are the impacts of non-residential
suburbanisation
on basic activities of everyday life?
Home/housing
Work/school
Services/shopping
Leisure time
What are the impacts of non-residential
suburbanisation
on different population groups by
socio-economic and
demographic/family status?
Wealthy
Middle class
Poor
Focus on CHANGE
We have to look on changes in land use
and changes in the quality of life.
Indicators must reflect the change.