1 / 26

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

obert
Download Presentation

WP2 Quality of Life Indicators

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. 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. –> common work for WP 2, 3 and 5 • Then we shall search for available indicators that would best describe these impacts. –> 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 -> 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.

More Related