1 / 17

Kimberly Collins San Diego State University Judith Garcia Arturo Ranfla

Assessment of Perceptual and Objective Quality of Life Indicators in Calexico-Mexicali : Toward a Longitudinal Database for the U.S.- Mexican Border Region. Sergio Peña El Colegio de la Frontera Norte-Cd. Juárez Subhrajit Guhathakurta David Pijawka Edward Sadalla Arizona State University.

dalton-whitehead
Download Presentation

Kimberly Collins San Diego State University Judith Garcia Arturo Ranfla

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessment of Perceptual and Objective Quality of Life Indicators in Calexico-Mexicali: Toward a Longitudinal Database for the U.S.- Mexican Border Region Sergio Peña El Colegio de la Frontera Norte-Cd. Juárez Subhrajit Guhathakurta David Pijawka Edward Sadalla Arizona State University Kimberly Collins San Diego State University Judith Garcia Arturo Ranfla Universidad Autónoma de Baja California SCERP Technical Conference, December 5, 2008 Tempe, Arizona

  2. Project Goals and Rationale • Goals • 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

  3. 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 Objectives

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Chosen QoL Indicators • Community Assets • Education • Economy, Income, and Jobs • Public Safety • Housing • Environment • Transportation • Public Services • Health Care • Emotional Well Being

  7. SCHEMATIC OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM

  8. HIGHLIGHTS COMPARISON OF BORDER COMMUNITIES

  9. ECON SEC HOU ENV. PUB. S TRANS HEA MEX MEX USA USA MEX MEX USA USA

  10. SUBJECTIVE ECONOMIC SITUATION OBJECTIVE Annual per capita money income

  11. SUBJECTIVE HOUSING OBJECTIVE Owner occupied housing units

  12. SUBJECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVE Local government revenue per capita

  13. 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)

  14. 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

  15. http://bop.caed.asu.edu For much more information go to: COMMENTS? QUESTIONS?

More Related