WP2 Quality of Life Indicators

1
WP2 Quality of Life Indicators

• Charles University of Prague
• Ludek Sykora

2
WP2 Quality of Life Indicators
3
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

4
Socio-economic

• Spatial mismatch of employment
• Job opportnities
• Social polarisation, exclusion
• Community cohesion
• Costs of infrastructure provision
• Infrastructure accessibility
• Opportunity

5
Environmental

• Noise
• Pollution
• Water quality
• Loss of open space
• Congestion (???)

6
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

7
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

8
Scale

• Metropolitan area (all cities)
• Zones in metropolitan areas (all cities)
• Smaller units within zones (in selected instances
  all cities)
• Grid (3 cities)

9
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

10
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

11
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?

12
SELMA WP 2

• QoL

13
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?

14
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

15
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. gt common work for WP 2, 3
  and 5
• Then we shall search for available indicators
  that would best describe these impacts. gt WP 4

16
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

17
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)

18
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

19
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.

20
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 -gt a
  more complex assessment for an individual
  (inclusion only of the most important aspects)
• 3) aggregation of individuals into
  sub-populations according to activities in daily
  life, place of living, socio-economic and
  demographic status

21
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.

22
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

23
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

24
What are the impacts of non-residential
suburbanisation

• on basic activities of everyday life?
• Home/housing
• Work/school
• Services/shopping
• Leisure time

25
What are the impacts of non-residential
suburbanisation

• on different population groups by socio-economic
  and demographic/family status?
• Wealthy
• Middle class
• Poor

26
Focus on CHANGE

• We have to look on changes in land use and
  changes in the quality of life.
• Indicators must reflect the change.