Malaysia Quality Of Life
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Malaysia Quality Of Life as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 6,720
- Pages: 35
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa TRP 513: SOCIAL ASPECT OF sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf PLANNING ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj Quality of Life klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv Ai'da Fazihrah Nazri bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz xcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm By;
2007275618
Quality of Life
1.0
Introduction
Since the 1970s, there have been many attempts to measure how environment and growth affect the health and well being of people or what is generally referred to as QoL (QoL). QoL is a multifaceted concept that embraces not only the material aspects of life such as level of living, availability of physical and social infrastructural facilities but also the less tangible aspects of life such as good health and opportunities for recreation and play. Unlike standard of living, QoL is not a tangible thing, and cannot be measured directly.
1.1
Definition of Quality of Life
According to Dr Dasimah Omar, more than 100 definitions of QoL have been noted in the different disciplines. Some use QoL interchangeably with other concepts such as subjective well-being, happiness, life satisfaction and the good life. Although diverse strands of research have been investigated individually, they have not been successful in providing us with a holistic understanding of QoL and how to improve it.
In international comparisons, a major challenge is to cope with the diversity of societies arising from different economic development and the nature of the societies. For instance, the comparison of large populous societies, dominated by agriculture and rural population with those of small but highly urbanized societies would need to be considered carefully.
2
Quality of Life Cultural and religious factors can influence the measure of QoL which is affected by different characteristics of the respondents giving their assessment – their education, sex, age, life stage, social status and experiences. People defining QoL would vary accordingly to where they live and work. The diversity of these factors points to a multi-dimensional approach to understanding the concept of QoL. However, within a context, that is, a given time, place and society, some agreements can usually be reached on what would constitute QoL. In other words, people’s needs and the fulfillment of their aspirations and needs can be defined in a relatively precise manner within a specific cultural context. There are sufficient elements of QoL held in common by members of a society for the concept of QoL to be meaningful. 3 While there is no certainty as to what QoL means, QoL had been define as the degree of well-being, satisfaction and standard of living. It is also believed that the quality of a person’s life is directly related to the person’s capability. A capability is defined as the ability or potential to do or be something or more technically to achieve a certain level of functioning such as health and education.
Quality of Life 1.2
Approaches to Determining Quality of Life
The notion of measuring QoL could include the measurement of practically anything of interest to anybody. Three major philosophical approaches to determining QoL may be identified.
1. To describe characteristics of the good life that is dictated by normative ideals based on religious, philosophical, or other system. In this approach, we might, for instance, believe that the good life must include helping others because this is guided by our religious principles.
2. To defining QoL is based on the satisfaction of preferences. The assumption in this approach is that people will select those things that will most enhance their QoL within the constraints of their resources. This approach to utility or the good life based on people’s choices is very much influenced by economic thinking.
3. To defining QoL is in terms of the experience of individuals. If a person experiences his or her life as good and desirable, it is assumed to be so. In this approach, factors such as feelings of joy, pleasure, life satisfaction, happiness and contentment are important. This approach to defining the QoL is associated mainly with a subjective well-being perspective used in psychological or behavioral sciences.
4
Quality of Life 1.3
Concept of Quality of Life
The concept of QoL entails changes by which an entire society and social system move away from a condition of life widely perceived as unsatisfactory towards a situation of life generally regarded as better. As such, the QoL encompasses not only economic development but also other aspects such as social, psychological, cultural, and political and the environment. (Dr Dasimah Omar)
The Malaysian QoL is defined as encompassing personal advancements, a healthy lifestyle, access and freedom to pursue knowledge, and a standard of living which surpasses the fulfillment of basic needs of individuals and their psychological needs, to achieve a level of social well-being compatible with the nation’s aspirations (EPU, Malaysian QOL 1999).
5
Quality of Life 2.0
Measuring Quality of Life
The use of indicators to guide decision-making can be traced to some 50 years ago. Some of the indicators that have been popularly used include Economic Indicators to track the performance of the economy and Social Indicators to measure a whole host of social conditions and progress. Economic indicators focus on material provision and rely
heavily on the national income accounts. Social indicators have also been developed to measure social conditions. These include both objective and subjective indicators. Objective social indicators look more broadly at the degree of fulfillment of basic needs in a society while subjective social indicators are concerned with how the members of a society perceive their own QoL.
6 1.1
Physical Quality of Life Index
The Physical QoL Index (PQLI) is an attempt to measure the QoL or well being of a country. The value is the average of three statistics which are: •
Basic literacy rate;
•
Infant mortality; and
•
Life expectancy at age one
This statistic values is all equally weighted on a 0 to 100 scale. It was developed for the Overseas Development Council in the mid-1970s by Morris David Morris, as a measures created due to dissatisfactions with the use of GNP as an indicator of development. PQLI might be regarded as an improvement but shares the general
Quality of Life problems of measuring QoL in a quantitative way. It has also been criticized
because there is considerable overlap between infant mortality and life expectancy.
2.1.1
Steps to Calculate Physical Quality of Life 1) Find percentage of the population that is literate (literacy rate).
2) Find the infant mortality rate. (out of 1000 births) INDEXED Infant Mortality Rate = (166 - infant mortality) × 0.625 7
3) Find the Life Expectancy. INDEXED Life Expectancy = (Life expectancy - 42) × 2.7
4) Physical QoL = (Literacy Rate + INDEXED Infant Mortality Rate + INDEXED Life Expectancy) 3
Quality of Life
1.2
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL)
Another method of measuring differences in QoL is as a difference in the "standard of living", according to the technical definition of that term. For example, people in rural areas and small towns are generally reluctant to move to cities, even if it would mean a substantial increase in their standard of living. Thus the QoL of living in a rural area is of enough value to offset a higher standard of living. Similarly, people must be paid more to accept jobs that would lower their QoL. Night jobs or ones with extensive travel all pay more, and the difference in salaries can also give a measure of the value of QoL.
There is a growing field of research concerned with developing, evaluating and applying QoL measures within health related research (e.g. within randomized controlled trials), especially Health Services Research. Many of these focus on the measurement of health related QoL (HRQoL), rather than a more global conceptualization of QoL. They also focus on measuring HRQoL from the perspective of the patient and thus take the form of self completed questionnaires. The International Society for QoL was founded in response to this research and is a useful source of information on this topic.
8
Quality of Life
1.3
Using free and Public Domain Data
Gene Shackman and Ya-Lin Liu are with the Global Social Change Research Project (GSCRP), and Xun Wang is a member of the Faculty in the Sociology Department at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside. Drs Shackman, Liu and Wang have authored numerous reports for the GSCRP describing global social, demographic, political and economic change. Many indicators are used to measure national QoL and human development. These can be divided into single indicators and component sets. Some emphasize 'objective' and some 'subjective' measures. They review these approaches and describe public domain and free data that can be used to measure QoL. 9 A worthy goal of any government is to improve the QoL of its citizens. The government will know whether the QoL has improved or what the QoL is using the one common approach is to use QoL indicators, usually including measures of at least some of these dimensions: economic well being, health, literacy, environmental quality, freedom, social participation and self- perceived well being or satisfaction (André and Bitondo, 2001).
QoL indicators allow governments to evaluate how well they are doing compared with, for example, their development goals or the QoL in other countries. The indicators may also be used by outside observers or researchers to evaluate countries performance. The comparative international approach to measuring QoL
Quality of Life has been reviewed by Drs Shackman, Liu and Wang. Some indicators are 'objective' or countable, such as GDP per capita, infant mortality rate, and literacy rate. Alternative indicators focus more on individual perceptions of well being or satisfaction. Some QoL approaches use mainly objective indicators, while others focus more on the subjective side.
2.1.1 ‘Objectives’ Approaches
According to Sharpe and Smith (2005), the best known composite QoL scale is the United Nations Development Program's Human Development Index, HDI (UNDP, 2004). This index is a single value measuring health and longevity, knowledge (literacy and school enrollment) and standards of living (GDP per capita). Countries are rated on how well they are doing on each component compared to the range of possible values for that component.
The HDI value averages the ratings of the three components. To calculate an individual country's comparative rating, the UNDP sets minimum and maximum values for the components. However, the minima and maxima and the country ratings themselves can vary greatly from year to year, even if conditions do not change much. In addition, the HDI is a comparative rating, so that a country's HDI
10
Quality of Life score depends on the achievements (or failures) of other countries. Thus, the score cannot be used to chart the progress from year to year of any one country, compared only to its own previous achievements.
Other international composite scales are Prescott-Allen's (2001) Index of the Wellbeing of Nations and Estes' (1997) Index of Social Progress. All these scales correlate with each other at a level of 0.89 or above and so seem to be measuring similar qualities (Shackman, Liu and Wang, 2005).
A composite scale is useful as an overall indicator. However, a single composite may sometimes be problematic, as different scales use different indicators or give different weights to indicators, and the construction of the composite scale may not always be clearly explained. Single scales may oversimplify the concept and do not present information about its components (André and Bitando, 2001). Finally, many QoL scales also correlate fairly highly with income per capita and thus may not add much useful information to this simpler economic indicator.
11
Quality of Life Thus, a set of key indicators may also be useful, because they cover a range of topics and avoid the need for combining or weighting individual components. Several of the organizations measuring QoL described above (e.g., Estes, 1997; UNDP, 2004) also use sets of indicators. In fact, this is the primary approach of the UNDP. The sets used by the UNDP and Estes include measures of health, education, economic well being, environment and technology, and tend to focus on 'objective' measures. The indicators are aggregate level measures, using the country as the unit of analysis.
2.1.2 Alternatives Alternatives to these major approaches include attempting to measure the non-economic aspects of the QoL; well being as a hierarchy of needs; and 'Gross National Happiness' (GPI Atlantic, undated). This last approach "links the economy with social and environmental variables to create a more comprehensive and accurate measurement tool" (GPI Atlantic, undated).
Researchers have also tried to measure the more 'subjective' aspects of QoL, developed subjective QoL scales, and studied the relationship between subjective and objective aspects.
12
Quality of Life Subjective QoL has been variously defined, for example: •
This dimension covers perceptions, evaluations and appreciation of life and living conditions by the individual citizens. Examples are measures of satisfaction or happiness. (Noll, 2005)
•
The outcome of the gap between people's goals and perceived resources, in the context of their environment, culture, values, and experiences. (Camfield, 2005)
Although the subjective well being does not correlate well with 'objective' measures, a recently developed scale of life satisfaction, the QoL scale (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005) correlates highly (.77 and above) with the 'objective' measures of GDP per capita, infant mortality rate and literacy. On the other hand, another satisfaction with life scale correlates 0.4 to 0.5 with the major scales, but 0.74 with the Economist Intelligence Unit's (2005) scale. Thus, as Veenhoven (2004) indicates, it may be that 'subjective well being' is not a unitary concept, but rather requires different indicators for different aspects.
Subjective QoL scales are also constructed somewhat differently than are the 'objective' scales. These scales are, as the label suggests, from the individual's own point of view.
13
Quality of Life 3.0
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality of Life Index
The Economist Intelligence Unit has developed a new QoL index based on a unique methodology that links the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys to the objective determinants of quality of life across countries. The index has been calculated for 111 countries for 2005. This note explains the methodology and gives the complete country ranking.
3.1
Quality of Life Indices
It has long been accepted that material wellbeing, as measured by GDP per person, cannot alone explain the broader QoL in a country. One strand of the literature has tried to adjust GDP by quantifying facets that are omitted by the GDP measure but the approach has faced insurmountable difficulties in assigning monetary values to the various factors and intangibles that comprise a wider measure of socioeconomic wellbeing.
There have been numerous attempts to construct alternative, non-monetary indices of social and economic wellbeing by combining in a single statistic a variety of different factors that are thought to influence QoL. The main problem in all these measures is selection bias and arbitrariness in the factors that are chosen to assess quality of life and, even more seriously, in assigning weights to different indicators (measured on a comparable and meaningful scale) to come up with a single synthetic measure. Some researchers have invoked the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights to identify the factors that need to be included in a QoL measure.
14
Quality of Life But, even if accepted as a starting point, that still does not point to precise indicators or how they are to be weighted. A technocratic and unsatisfying device that is sometimes used is to resort to “expert opinion”.
3.2
Life Satisfaction Surveys
The starting point for a methodologically improved and more comprehensive measure of QoL is subjective life-satisfaction surveys (surveys of life satisfaction, as opposed to surveys of the related concept of happiness, are preferred for a number of reasons). These surveys ask people the simple question of how satisfied they are with their lives in general. A typical question on the four-point scale used in the Eurobarometer studies is, “On the whole are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied with the life you lead?”
The results of the surveys have been attracting growing interest in recent years. Despite a range of early criticisms (cultural non-comparability and the effect of language differences across countries; psychological factors distorting responses), tests have disproved or mitigated most concerns. One objection is that responses to surveys do not adequately reflect how people really feel about their life; they allegedly report how satisfied they are expected to be. But people know very well how satisfied they are. Responses to questions about life satisfaction tend to be prompt; non-response rates are very low.
15
Quality of Life This simple measure of life satisfaction has been found to correlate highly with more sophisticated tests, ratings by others who know the individual and behavioral measures. The survey results have on the whole proved far more reliable and informative than might be expected. Another criticism is that life-satisfaction responses reflect the dominant view on life, rather than actual QoL in a country.
Life satisfaction is seen as a judgment that depends on social and culturally specific frames of reference. But this relativism is disproved by the fact that people in different countries report similar criteria as being important for life satisfaction, and by the fact that most differences in life satisfaction across countries can be explained by differences in objective circumstances. In addition, it has been found that the responses of immigrants in a country are much closer to the level of the local population than to responses in their motherland. Answers to questions on satisfaction in bilingual countries do not reveal any linguistic bias arising from possibly differing meanings and connotations of the words “happiness” and “satisfaction”. Self reports of overall life satisfaction can be meaningfully compared across nations.
16
Quality of Life 3.3
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index
The survey results cannot be completely taken at face value and use the average score on life satisfaction as the indicator of quality of life for a country because of several reasons. First, comparable results for a sufficient number of countries tend to be out-of-date and many nations are not covered at all. Second, the impact of measurement errors on assessing the relationship between life-satisfaction perceptions and objective indicators tends to cancel out across a large number of countries. But there might still be significant errors for any given country. So there is a bigger chance of error in assessing QoL between countries if a single average life-satisfaction score as opposed to a multi-component index be taken. Finally, and most important, although most of the inter-country variation in the life-satisfaction surveys can be explained by objective factors, there is still a significant unexplained component which, in addition to measurement error, might be related to specific factors that we would want to net out from an objective QoL index.
Instead we use the survey results as a starting point, and a means for deriving weights for the various determinants of QoL across countries, in order to calculate an objective index. The average scores from comparable life-satisfaction surveys (on a scale of one to ten) can be assembled for 1999 or 2000 for 74 countries. These scores are then related in a multivariate regression to various factors that have been shown to be associated with life satisfaction in many studies. As many as nine factors survive in the final estimated equation (all except one are statistically significant; the weakest, gender equality, falls just below). Together these variables
17
Quality of Life explain more than 80% of the inter-country variation in life-satisfaction scores. Using so-called Beta coefficients from the regression to derive the weights of the various factors, the most important were health, material wellbeing, and political stability and security. These were followed by family relations and community life. Next in order of importance were climate, job security, political freedom and finally gender equality.
The values of the life-satisfaction scores that are predicted by our nine indicators represent a country’s QoL index, or the “corrected” life-satisfaction scores, based on objective cross-country determinants. The coefficients in the estimated equation weight automatically the importance of the various factors; the method also means that the original units or measurement of the various indicators can be used. They do not, unlike for other indices, have to rely on the potentially distortive effect of having to transform all indicators to a common measurement scale. We can also use the estimated equation based on 1999/2000 data to calculate index values for other years or even to forecast an index, thus making it up-to-date and facilitating comparison over time.
18
Quality of Life 4.0
The Malaysia Quality of Life
The Malaysia QoL is defined as encompassing personal advancements, a healthy lifestyle, access and freedom to pursue knowledge and a standard of living which surpasses the fulfilment of basic needs of individuals and their psychological needs, to achieve a level of social well-being compatible with the nation’s aspirations.
1.4
The Malaysia Quality of Life Index (MQLI)
To measure the changes in the QoL, the Malaysian QoL Index (MQLI) was devised. The MQLI is a composite measurement based on ten selected areas, namely income and distribution, working life, transport and communications, health, education, housing, environment, family life, social participation and public safety. These areas are assumed to be of equal importance for the well-being and the QoL of the population and as such, were assigned equal weightage. A total of 38 indicators were used in the computation of the Index (Refer Table 1). The indicators were selected on the basis of their importance, how best they reflect that particular area and the availability of data on a time series basis (Refer Table 2). The indicators are aimed at providing an aggregate measure of the QoL in order to assess the impact of economic development on the population. In formulating the MQLI, the data used were for the period 1980-1998, with the exception of data on environment, which were available only from 1985. The year 1990 was chosen as the base year as it was a relatively normal year, besides being sufficiently recent.
19
Quality of Life Table 1 : Components of Malaysian Quality of Life Index Area Income and Distribution
Working Life
Transport and Communications
Health
Education
Housing
Environment
Family Life Social Participation Public Safety
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Indicator Real per Capita GNP Gini Coefficient Incidence of Poverty Unemployment Rate Trade Disputes Man-Days Lost Due to Industrial Actions Industrial Accident Rate Private Motorcars and Motorcycles Commercial Vehicles Road Development Telephones Average Daily Newspaper Circulation Life Expectancy at Birth (Male) Life Expectancy at Birth (Female) Infant Mortality Rate Doctor-Population Ratio Hospital Bed-Population Ratio Pre-School Participation Rate Secondary School Participation Rate University Participation Rate Literacy Rate Primary School Teacher-Student Ratio Secondary School Teacher-Student Ratio Average Housing Price Low-Cost Housing Unit Housing Units with Piped Water Housing Units with Electricity Air Quality Clean Rivers Forested Land Divorces Crude Birth Rate Household Size Juvenile Crimes Registered Voters Membership in Selected Voluntary Organizations Crimes Road Accidents
20
Quality of Life Table 2 : The Rationale for the Selection of Areas Area Income and Distribution
Rationale Gross income or per capita income reflects welfare or standard of living. Incomes provide the condition that allows individuals to sustain themselves and their families, while the distribution of income reflects equity and distribution of economic resources. Working life is important because being employed provides
Working Life
a source of income that contributes to the standard of living and QoL Transport and communications are vital factors for progress
Transport and Communications
an development since they relate to the mobility of and accessibility to resources as well as opportunity for employment, education and movement of goods and services. Health, which includes physical and mental well being,
Health
enables people to work productively and participate actively in the social and economic life of the community. The education systems are the principal instruments for transmitting knowledge and culture from one generation to
Education
the next. It provides the foundation from which the technology to sustain and improve the QoL is developed
Housing Environment
and enhanced. Housing is a basic social need that is necessary for decent living, security and shelter for the family. Environment has a direct effect on the well-being of the population. Air and water pollution and forested land are some indicator of the quality of environment. The family unit represents the core institutions within the
Family Life Social Participation Public Safety
societal structure and its functioning fulfills the social economic and psychological needs of individuals. Social participations is the reflection of the people’s commitment and willingness to be involved in social, political, religious and community activities. Public safety is essential as it ensures social peace and stability
21
Quality of Life Table 3: The Index for the 10 Areas of MQLI 1980-1998 Area Income and Distribution Working Life Transport and Communications Health Education Housing Environment Family Life Social Participation Public Safety Composites Index Change for Base Year (1990)
1.5
YEAR/INDEX 1990 = 100 1980 = 77.39 1998 = 105.82 1980 = 106.13 1998 = 118.94 1980 = 87.36 1998 = 112.78 1980 = 83.24 1998 = 109.58 1980 = 85.97 1998 = 117.31 1980 = 90.52 1998 = 107.72 1980 = n.a 1998 = 100.94 1980 = 85.46 1998 = 113.86 1980 = 81.55 1998 = 97.98 1980 = 78.40 1998 = 72.11 1980 = 86.22 1998 = 105.71 1980 = (-) 13.78 1998 = (+) 5.71
Malaysia Urban Quality of Life
Malaysia witnessed a fast pace of urbanization in 1990 to 2000, largely contributed by rapid economic growth and transformation. The population in urban areas
22
Quality of Life increased at an average rate of 4.6% per annum, about twice the national population growth rate of 2.2%. As a result, the share in the urban population increased from 51.1% to 61.8% during the period. The expansion of urban centres as well as the establishment of new townships and satellite industrial towns also contributed to this increase. Urbanization generated new economic activities and created more employment opportunities as well as provided greater access to modern social amenities.
4.1.1 Concept The Malaysian Urban Quality of Life Index (MUQLI) was constructed to measure the changes in the QoL in the urban areas. MUQLI is a composite measure comprising 12 areas and 29 indicators for the period 1990 to 2000 (Table 4). The indicators were selected on the basis of their importance and the availability of data on a timeseries basis, and were assigned equal weightage.
Table 4: Components of Malaysian Quality of Life Index Area Income and Distribution
•
Indicator Real per Capita GNP
•
Gini Coefficient
•
Incidence of Poverty
23
Quality of Life
Working Life Transport and Communications Health
Education
Housing Environment Family Life Public Safety Community Participation Culture and Leisure Urban Services
•
Trade Disputes
• •
Industrial Accidents Private Motorcars and Motorcycles
•
Public Transports
• •
Telephones Infant Mortality Rate
• •
Doctor-Population Ratio Primary School Teacher-Student Ratio
•
Secondary School Teacher-Student Ratio
•
Primary School Average Class Size
• •
Secondary School Average Class Size Average Rental to Household Income Ratio
• •
Average Prices of Houses to Household Income Ratio River Quality Index
• •
Solid Waste per Kapita Divorces
• •
Household Size Crimes
• •
Road Accidents Registered Voluntary Organizations
•
Rukun Tetangga Members
• •
Registered Voters Library Membership
• •
Sports and Recreation Club Expenditure on Social Services
•
Expenditure on Landscaping
4.1.2 Overview MUQLI is calculated on the basis of the urban QoL indices of four selected cities, namely, Ipoh, Johor Bahru, Kuala Lumpur and Kuching. The four cities accounted for about 30%of the total urban population of Malaysia in
24
Quality of Life 2000 (Refer Table 5). The MUQLI increased by 5.8 points to 105.8 points in 2000, indicating an improvement in the QoL in urban areas (Table 6).
Table 5: Profile of Selected Urban Areas State Ipoh
Status Capital of Perak
Population (2000 census) 451,558 peoples
Land Area 136.9 sq.km
Main Economic Activities Trade, Commercial and Industrial
Kuantan
Capital of
344,706 peoples
324 sq.km
Pahang
activities Trade and commercial activities and port
Kota
Capital of Sabah
305,382 people
344 sq.km
Kinabalu
services Trade and Commercial activities and
Kuala
Capital of
Lumpur
Malaysia
1,297,526
243 sq.km
tourism Trade and Commercial activities, business services, tourism
Johor Bharu
Capital of Johor
385,213
185 sq.km
and education Trade, Commercial and Industrial activities and
Kuching
Capital of
163,846
369 sq. km
Sarawak
tourism Trade, Commercial activities and tourism
Table 6 : MUQLI: Composite Index and Indices by Area, 1990-2000
25
Quality of Life
The QoL in urban areas during the period 1990 to 2000 witnessed an improvement as reflected by the upward trend of the MUQLI. This was mainly due to the significant improvements in family life, income and distribution, culture and leisure as well as education. Other areas of QoL that witnessed improvements were transport and communications health, working life, housing, urban services and community participation, while the quality of environment and the state of public safety declined. The environment index deteriorated as a result of the decline in the river quality index and the increase in per capita solid waste collection. The decline in the state of public safety was due to the rise in crime rates and the number of road accidents. However, all the four cities recorded an overall improvement in the QoL.
26
Quality of Life
1.6
Malaysia Quality of Life in Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010
The Malaysian QoL, as measured by the MQLI, improved during the 1994-2004 period, increasingly by 10.9 points except for public safety and the environment, all components of the MQLI made good progress. The improvement in QoL is also reflected in the achievement of all the Millennium Development Goals ahead of the target of 2015, expect for HIV/AIDS.
The Millennium Development Goals, as agreed at the United Nations General Assembly are to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender quality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other disease; ensure environmental sustainability and develop a global partnership by 2015.
Infant and child mortality rates showed a significant decline due to improvements in the national healthcare system, better education and greater reproductive health services. Life expectancy increased for both male and female.
Access to adequate, affordable and quality housing improved, as indicated by the increase in the household to house ratio from 1:1.14 in 1991 to 1:1.18 in 2005. The number of houses rose from 4.1 million in 1991 to 6.4 million in 2005. National water supply coverage increased from 80% of the total population in 1990 to 95% in 2005. Urban coverage remained high while rural coverage rose
27
Quality of Life significantly from 67% in 1990 to 92% in 2005. Measures were undertaken to reduce the proportion on non-revenue water from 43% in 1990to 38% in 20%. However, there is room to improve water delivery efficiency further.
National electricity coverage expanded from 80% in 1990 to 93% in 2005. Rural electricity coverage rose significantly from 67% in 1990 to 92% in 2005. Although the situation has improved greatly especially for Sabah and Sarawak, coverage in these states needs to be improving further. As for telecommunications, market liberalisation of the industry since the 1990s has led to more competitive pricing and consumer choice, which in turn increased the cellular phone penetration significantly from 0.7% per 100 populations in 1990 to 74.1 in 2005. 28 To ease traffic congestion, a multi-modal public transport systems was implemented in the Klang Valley, which included the construction of the light rail transit (LRT) system, rail commuter service, monorail and feeder bus system. The highway and road network also grew from 53,985 kilometres in 1990 to 77,673 kilometres in 2005, which facilitated the establishment of new growth areas as well as reduced travel time and cost. To handle the increase in air passenger traffic, upgrading of airport was undertaken and new airports were built, the largest being the KL International Airport (KLIA) as the main gateway to the country. In addition, access by air to remote areas was improved. The National Environment Policy provided as impetus to efforts to address environmental issue in an integrated manner. Among others, these efforts resulted
Quality of Life in air quality remaining at good to moderate levels in most part of the country; Malaysia continues to take measures to protect its rich natural heritage. Over half of the country’s land area remains forested and there is a comprehensive network of national and Marine Park, wildlife reserves and sanctuaries as well as permanent forest reserves in place.
5.0
Case Study: The Planning of Putrajaya; Creating the Essence City
The creation of a new Federal Government Administrative Centre at Putrajaya marks a new chapter in the development history of modern Malaysia. The development of this new administrative centre was prompted by the need to balance and disperse development to areas outside of Klang Valley. It is a decision motivated by the government’s desire to improve the urban environment and quality of life, and to ease the pressure on the infrastructure in Kuala Lumpur and the Klang Valley in general.
In city planning terms, it provides a golden opportunity and a challenge to embark on something new and innovative representing Malaysian values and culture. Putrajaya the new Federal Government Administrative Centre, is to be equipped with the latest facilities and technologies for improved effectiveness and productivity, as well as, amenities that shall contribute to quality living and working environment. But the challenge also lies in fostering the spirit, sense of purpose and identity for the new city.
2.0
Planning Background
29
Quality of Life On 2nd June 1993 the Federal Government decided on an area in Perang Besar, Sepang, Selangor Darul Ehsan to be the site for the new Federal Government Administrative Centre. Thereafter, the planning process for Putrajaya went into full swing with the setting up of Putrajaya Development Committee and the Putrajaya Development Unit within the Prime Minister’s Department.
In 1994, five alternative concept schemes by local consultants and a group of government agencies led by the Federal Department of Town and Country Planning and the Public Works Department were presented to the Cabinet. Of the five schemes, the Government selected the “Garden City” concept as the guiding theme for the new city. A master plan was subsequently developed based on this theme. The Putrajaya Master Plan was given Government approval in February 1995. It later underwent a review upon which a final approval was obtained in April 1997. To implement the plan, Perbadanan Putrajaya was established 1996 with the main role of developing, managing and administration of the city area. Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd, a government-owned company, was also formed to act as the master developer responsible for construction of government offices, commercial areas, residential premises and the main infrastructure.
3.0
Putrajaya Master Plan
30
Quality of Life The Putrajaya Master Plan covers an area of approximately 4,600 hectares. The Garden City concept is clearly evident in the amount of land area dedicated to open space within the city, which is 1,721 hectares (37.6 %). In brief, the major features of the Master Plan are as follows:
•
A large proportion of the city area is designated as green open space;
•
A large water body (man-made lake) and wetlands was formed by utilizing the small rivers which run through the area;
•
The lake created a 38 kilometers long waterfront area;
•
The city is divided into 20 precincts with the ‘core employment and commercial precincts’ (Core Area) located on an island within the manmade lake;
•
‘Peripheral’ (residential) precincts planned based on the neighbourhood planning concept to accommodate a mix of residential, local level commercial, and public amenities areas;
•
A 4.2 km long boulevard forms the central spine of the city;
•
Projected residential population of 330,000; with 67,000 housing units;
•
The Master Plan is supplemented with urban design guidelines, policy documents, and
•
4.0
Local plans prepared to meet statutory requirements.
Creating the Essence of the City
31
Quality of Life The main function of town planning as argued by Foley is to provide a good physical environment, essential for the promotion of a healthy and civilized life. Given that improvement in quality of life is the Government’s underlying aim for developing Putrajaya, the city planners have been quick to take the cue by making “quality urban living” as the basic objective for planning Putrajaya. This explains the adoption of the Garden City concept for guiding its physical development. The intention is not only to create a city where social activities take place within an ideal landscape where nature permeates into all aspects of life, but also one which would display a combination of the following features:
•
Accessibility to facilities, services and place of work
•
Neighbourliness and community atmosphere
•
Close to nature
•
Amenities for recreation
•
Dynamic and lively
•
A city with identity and character
Through careful planning – supported by good urban management and governance – these concepts are translated physically, and in the process create the essence of the city that is Putrajaya.
5.1.1 Quality Urban Living Through Neighbourhood Living
32
Quality of Life Quality urban living involves more than just providing places of work and residence. If we cast our views on other cities with reputation for high urban quality of life, essential ingredients would include facilities and amenities for individual fulfilment and community life, i.e. for cultural, recreation, social interaction and other activities. In Putrajaya, the planners have been ever mindful of the fact that we are not just building an administrative centre. But rather, we are also trying to build a new community. Meeting the various socio-cultural needs of the inhabitants is therefore a top priority. Foremost in priority is of course adequate and suitable housing. A broad mix of residential development type is planned for the city including luxury bungalows, semi-D and terrace-type housing, apartments and affordable housing for the lower income group.
This is supported by a variety of urban amenities such as health, libraries, sports and recreational. Within residential neighbourhoods, community facilities such as schools, convenience shops, multi-purpose halls, surau and local parks are provided. In line with the Garden City theme, a large proportion of the city area is designated as parks and open space ranging from metropolitan parks to local neighbourhood playgrounds. Reinforcing these facilities are urban features such as landmarks, squares, plazas and bridges that form part of the cityscape, providing a wide range of spatial experiences that further enhance the spatial quality of the city.
33
Quality of Life What is significant in Putrajaya is that all these amenities and facilities are found in close proximity to the residents which is achieved through the adoption of the neighbourhood concept in the planning of its residential precincts. The size of the neighbourhood is such that a majority of the population is within a five-minute walking distance of its centre (1/4 mile) and where the needs of daily life are mostly available within this area.
6.0
Sources and References
Chris Lucas 2002, Quality of Life
Malaysia Urban Quality of Life
Dato’ Jebasingam Issace John, The Planning of
New Straits Times, Four Cities Record Better
Putrajaya: Creating the Essence of City
Quality of Life, April 2002
Dr Dasimah Omar, Quality of Life, Lecture’s Notes of TR513, University Technology MARA
Quest for a Better Quality of Life,
34 Malaysia
Quality of Life 1999
Dr Dasimah Omar, Town and Country Planning and Quality of Life in Malaysia, Lecture’s
Wikepedia free Encylopedia , Quality of Life Index, retrieved on October 14, 2008
Notes of TRP513, University Technology MARA
Wikepedia free Encylopedia , Quality of Life,
Gene Shackman, Ya-Lin Liu and Xun Wang,
retrieved on November 2, 2008
Measuring quality of life using free and public
domain
November 2, 2008
data,
retrieved
on
Wikepedia free Encylopedia, Physical Quality of Life Index, retrieved on November 2, 2008
Contents 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................2 2.0 Measuring Quality of Life..............................................................................6 2.1.1 ‘Objectives’ Approaches......................................................10 2.1.2 Alternatives.........................................................................12 3.0 The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality of Life Index..............................14 4.0 The Malaysia Quality of Life........................................................................19 4.1.1 Concept...............................................................................23 4.1.2 Overview.............................................................................24 5.0 Case Study: The Planning of Putrajaya; Creating the Essence City.............29 5.1.1 Quality Urban Living Through Neighbourhood Living..........32 6.0 Sources and References..............................................................................34
2007275618
Quality of Life
1.0
Introduction
Since the 1970s, there have been many attempts to measure how environment and growth affect the health and well being of people or what is generally referred to as QoL (QoL). QoL is a multifaceted concept that embraces not only the material aspects of life such as level of living, availability of physical and social infrastructural facilities but also the less tangible aspects of life such as good health and opportunities for recreation and play. Unlike standard of living, QoL is not a tangible thing, and cannot be measured directly.
1.1
Definition of Quality of Life
According to Dr Dasimah Omar, more than 100 definitions of QoL have been noted in the different disciplines. Some use QoL interchangeably with other concepts such as subjective well-being, happiness, life satisfaction and the good life. Although diverse strands of research have been investigated individually, they have not been successful in providing us with a holistic understanding of QoL and how to improve it.
In international comparisons, a major challenge is to cope with the diversity of societies arising from different economic development and the nature of the societies. For instance, the comparison of large populous societies, dominated by agriculture and rural population with those of small but highly urbanized societies would need to be considered carefully.
2
Quality of Life Cultural and religious factors can influence the measure of QoL which is affected by different characteristics of the respondents giving their assessment – their education, sex, age, life stage, social status and experiences. People defining QoL would vary accordingly to where they live and work. The diversity of these factors points to a multi-dimensional approach to understanding the concept of QoL. However, within a context, that is, a given time, place and society, some agreements can usually be reached on what would constitute QoL. In other words, people’s needs and the fulfillment of their aspirations and needs can be defined in a relatively precise manner within a specific cultural context. There are sufficient elements of QoL held in common by members of a society for the concept of QoL to be meaningful. 3 While there is no certainty as to what QoL means, QoL had been define as the degree of well-being, satisfaction and standard of living. It is also believed that the quality of a person’s life is directly related to the person’s capability. A capability is defined as the ability or potential to do or be something or more technically to achieve a certain level of functioning such as health and education.
Quality of Life 1.2
Approaches to Determining Quality of Life
The notion of measuring QoL could include the measurement of practically anything of interest to anybody. Three major philosophical approaches to determining QoL may be identified.
1. To describe characteristics of the good life that is dictated by normative ideals based on religious, philosophical, or other system. In this approach, we might, for instance, believe that the good life must include helping others because this is guided by our religious principles.
2. To defining QoL is based on the satisfaction of preferences. The assumption in this approach is that people will select those things that will most enhance their QoL within the constraints of their resources. This approach to utility or the good life based on people’s choices is very much influenced by economic thinking.
3. To defining QoL is in terms of the experience of individuals. If a person experiences his or her life as good and desirable, it is assumed to be so. In this approach, factors such as feelings of joy, pleasure, life satisfaction, happiness and contentment are important. This approach to defining the QoL is associated mainly with a subjective well-being perspective used in psychological or behavioral sciences.
4
Quality of Life 1.3
Concept of Quality of Life
The concept of QoL entails changes by which an entire society and social system move away from a condition of life widely perceived as unsatisfactory towards a situation of life generally regarded as better. As such, the QoL encompasses not only economic development but also other aspects such as social, psychological, cultural, and political and the environment. (Dr Dasimah Omar)
The Malaysian QoL is defined as encompassing personal advancements, a healthy lifestyle, access and freedom to pursue knowledge, and a standard of living which surpasses the fulfillment of basic needs of individuals and their psychological needs, to achieve a level of social well-being compatible with the nation’s aspirations (EPU, Malaysian QOL 1999).
5
Quality of Life 2.0
Measuring Quality of Life
The use of indicators to guide decision-making can be traced to some 50 years ago. Some of the indicators that have been popularly used include Economic Indicators to track the performance of the economy and Social Indicators to measure a whole host of social conditions and progress. Economic indicators focus on material provision and rely
heavily on the national income accounts. Social indicators have also been developed to measure social conditions. These include both objective and subjective indicators. Objective social indicators look more broadly at the degree of fulfillment of basic needs in a society while subjective social indicators are concerned with how the members of a society perceive their own QoL.
6 1.1
Physical Quality of Life Index
The Physical QoL Index (PQLI) is an attempt to measure the QoL or well being of a country. The value is the average of three statistics which are: •
Basic literacy rate;
•
Infant mortality; and
•
Life expectancy at age one
This statistic values is all equally weighted on a 0 to 100 scale. It was developed for the Overseas Development Council in the mid-1970s by Morris David Morris, as a measures created due to dissatisfactions with the use of GNP as an indicator of development. PQLI might be regarded as an improvement but shares the general
Quality of Life problems of measuring QoL in a quantitative way. It has also been criticized
because there is considerable overlap between infant mortality and life expectancy.
2.1.1
Steps to Calculate Physical Quality of Life 1) Find percentage of the population that is literate (literacy rate).
2) Find the infant mortality rate. (out of 1000 births) INDEXED Infant Mortality Rate = (166 - infant mortality) × 0.625 7
3) Find the Life Expectancy. INDEXED Life Expectancy = (Life expectancy - 42) × 2.7
4) Physical QoL = (Literacy Rate + INDEXED Infant Mortality Rate + INDEXED Life Expectancy) 3
Quality of Life
1.2
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL)
Another method of measuring differences in QoL is as a difference in the "standard of living", according to the technical definition of that term. For example, people in rural areas and small towns are generally reluctant to move to cities, even if it would mean a substantial increase in their standard of living. Thus the QoL of living in a rural area is of enough value to offset a higher standard of living. Similarly, people must be paid more to accept jobs that would lower their QoL. Night jobs or ones with extensive travel all pay more, and the difference in salaries can also give a measure of the value of QoL.
There is a growing field of research concerned with developing, evaluating and applying QoL measures within health related research (e.g. within randomized controlled trials), especially Health Services Research. Many of these focus on the measurement of health related QoL (HRQoL), rather than a more global conceptualization of QoL. They also focus on measuring HRQoL from the perspective of the patient and thus take the form of self completed questionnaires. The International Society for QoL was founded in response to this research and is a useful source of information on this topic.
8
Quality of Life
1.3
Using free and Public Domain Data
Gene Shackman and Ya-Lin Liu are with the Global Social Change Research Project (GSCRP), and Xun Wang is a member of the Faculty in the Sociology Department at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside. Drs Shackman, Liu and Wang have authored numerous reports for the GSCRP describing global social, demographic, political and economic change. Many indicators are used to measure national QoL and human development. These can be divided into single indicators and component sets. Some emphasize 'objective' and some 'subjective' measures. They review these approaches and describe public domain and free data that can be used to measure QoL. 9 A worthy goal of any government is to improve the QoL of its citizens. The government will know whether the QoL has improved or what the QoL is using the one common approach is to use QoL indicators, usually including measures of at least some of these dimensions: economic well being, health, literacy, environmental quality, freedom, social participation and self- perceived well being or satisfaction (André and Bitondo, 2001).
QoL indicators allow governments to evaluate how well they are doing compared with, for example, their development goals or the QoL in other countries. The indicators may also be used by outside observers or researchers to evaluate countries performance. The comparative international approach to measuring QoL
Quality of Life has been reviewed by Drs Shackman, Liu and Wang. Some indicators are 'objective' or countable, such as GDP per capita, infant mortality rate, and literacy rate. Alternative indicators focus more on individual perceptions of well being or satisfaction. Some QoL approaches use mainly objective indicators, while others focus more on the subjective side.
2.1.1 ‘Objectives’ Approaches
According to Sharpe and Smith (2005), the best known composite QoL scale is the United Nations Development Program's Human Development Index, HDI (UNDP, 2004). This index is a single value measuring health and longevity, knowledge (literacy and school enrollment) and standards of living (GDP per capita). Countries are rated on how well they are doing on each component compared to the range of possible values for that component.
The HDI value averages the ratings of the three components. To calculate an individual country's comparative rating, the UNDP sets minimum and maximum values for the components. However, the minima and maxima and the country ratings themselves can vary greatly from year to year, even if conditions do not change much. In addition, the HDI is a comparative rating, so that a country's HDI
10
Quality of Life score depends on the achievements (or failures) of other countries. Thus, the score cannot be used to chart the progress from year to year of any one country, compared only to its own previous achievements.
Other international composite scales are Prescott-Allen's (2001) Index of the Wellbeing of Nations and Estes' (1997) Index of Social Progress. All these scales correlate with each other at a level of 0.89 or above and so seem to be measuring similar qualities (Shackman, Liu and Wang, 2005).
A composite scale is useful as an overall indicator. However, a single composite may sometimes be problematic, as different scales use different indicators or give different weights to indicators, and the construction of the composite scale may not always be clearly explained. Single scales may oversimplify the concept and do not present information about its components (André and Bitando, 2001). Finally, many QoL scales also correlate fairly highly with income per capita and thus may not add much useful information to this simpler economic indicator.
11
Quality of Life Thus, a set of key indicators may also be useful, because they cover a range of topics and avoid the need for combining or weighting individual components. Several of the organizations measuring QoL described above (e.g., Estes, 1997; UNDP, 2004) also use sets of indicators. In fact, this is the primary approach of the UNDP. The sets used by the UNDP and Estes include measures of health, education, economic well being, environment and technology, and tend to focus on 'objective' measures. The indicators are aggregate level measures, using the country as the unit of analysis.
2.1.2 Alternatives Alternatives to these major approaches include attempting to measure the non-economic aspects of the QoL; well being as a hierarchy of needs; and 'Gross National Happiness' (GPI Atlantic, undated). This last approach "links the economy with social and environmental variables to create a more comprehensive and accurate measurement tool" (GPI Atlantic, undated).
Researchers have also tried to measure the more 'subjective' aspects of QoL, developed subjective QoL scales, and studied the relationship between subjective and objective aspects.
12
Quality of Life Subjective QoL has been variously defined, for example: •
This dimension covers perceptions, evaluations and appreciation of life and living conditions by the individual citizens. Examples are measures of satisfaction or happiness. (Noll, 2005)
•
The outcome of the gap between people's goals and perceived resources, in the context of their environment, culture, values, and experiences. (Camfield, 2005)
Although the subjective well being does not correlate well with 'objective' measures, a recently developed scale of life satisfaction, the QoL scale (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005) correlates highly (.77 and above) with the 'objective' measures of GDP per capita, infant mortality rate and literacy. On the other hand, another satisfaction with life scale correlates 0.4 to 0.5 with the major scales, but 0.74 with the Economist Intelligence Unit's (2005) scale. Thus, as Veenhoven (2004) indicates, it may be that 'subjective well being' is not a unitary concept, but rather requires different indicators for different aspects.
Subjective QoL scales are also constructed somewhat differently than are the 'objective' scales. These scales are, as the label suggests, from the individual's own point of view.
13
Quality of Life 3.0
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality of Life Index
The Economist Intelligence Unit has developed a new QoL index based on a unique methodology that links the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys to the objective determinants of quality of life across countries. The index has been calculated for 111 countries for 2005. This note explains the methodology and gives the complete country ranking.
3.1
Quality of Life Indices
It has long been accepted that material wellbeing, as measured by GDP per person, cannot alone explain the broader QoL in a country. One strand of the literature has tried to adjust GDP by quantifying facets that are omitted by the GDP measure but the approach has faced insurmountable difficulties in assigning monetary values to the various factors and intangibles that comprise a wider measure of socioeconomic wellbeing.
There have been numerous attempts to construct alternative, non-monetary indices of social and economic wellbeing by combining in a single statistic a variety of different factors that are thought to influence QoL. The main problem in all these measures is selection bias and arbitrariness in the factors that are chosen to assess quality of life and, even more seriously, in assigning weights to different indicators (measured on a comparable and meaningful scale) to come up with a single synthetic measure. Some researchers have invoked the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights to identify the factors that need to be included in a QoL measure.
14
Quality of Life But, even if accepted as a starting point, that still does not point to precise indicators or how they are to be weighted. A technocratic and unsatisfying device that is sometimes used is to resort to “expert opinion”.
3.2
Life Satisfaction Surveys
The starting point for a methodologically improved and more comprehensive measure of QoL is subjective life-satisfaction surveys (surveys of life satisfaction, as opposed to surveys of the related concept of happiness, are preferred for a number of reasons). These surveys ask people the simple question of how satisfied they are with their lives in general. A typical question on the four-point scale used in the Eurobarometer studies is, “On the whole are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied with the life you lead?”
The results of the surveys have been attracting growing interest in recent years. Despite a range of early criticisms (cultural non-comparability and the effect of language differences across countries; psychological factors distorting responses), tests have disproved or mitigated most concerns. One objection is that responses to surveys do not adequately reflect how people really feel about their life; they allegedly report how satisfied they are expected to be. But people know very well how satisfied they are. Responses to questions about life satisfaction tend to be prompt; non-response rates are very low.
15
Quality of Life This simple measure of life satisfaction has been found to correlate highly with more sophisticated tests, ratings by others who know the individual and behavioral measures. The survey results have on the whole proved far more reliable and informative than might be expected. Another criticism is that life-satisfaction responses reflect the dominant view on life, rather than actual QoL in a country.
Life satisfaction is seen as a judgment that depends on social and culturally specific frames of reference. But this relativism is disproved by the fact that people in different countries report similar criteria as being important for life satisfaction, and by the fact that most differences in life satisfaction across countries can be explained by differences in objective circumstances. In addition, it has been found that the responses of immigrants in a country are much closer to the level of the local population than to responses in their motherland. Answers to questions on satisfaction in bilingual countries do not reveal any linguistic bias arising from possibly differing meanings and connotations of the words “happiness” and “satisfaction”. Self reports of overall life satisfaction can be meaningfully compared across nations.
16
Quality of Life 3.3
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index
The survey results cannot be completely taken at face value and use the average score on life satisfaction as the indicator of quality of life for a country because of several reasons. First, comparable results for a sufficient number of countries tend to be out-of-date and many nations are not covered at all. Second, the impact of measurement errors on assessing the relationship between life-satisfaction perceptions and objective indicators tends to cancel out across a large number of countries. But there might still be significant errors for any given country. So there is a bigger chance of error in assessing QoL between countries if a single average life-satisfaction score as opposed to a multi-component index be taken. Finally, and most important, although most of the inter-country variation in the life-satisfaction surveys can be explained by objective factors, there is still a significant unexplained component which, in addition to measurement error, might be related to specific factors that we would want to net out from an objective QoL index.
Instead we use the survey results as a starting point, and a means for deriving weights for the various determinants of QoL across countries, in order to calculate an objective index. The average scores from comparable life-satisfaction surveys (on a scale of one to ten) can be assembled for 1999 or 2000 for 74 countries. These scores are then related in a multivariate regression to various factors that have been shown to be associated with life satisfaction in many studies. As many as nine factors survive in the final estimated equation (all except one are statistically significant; the weakest, gender equality, falls just below). Together these variables
17
Quality of Life explain more than 80% of the inter-country variation in life-satisfaction scores. Using so-called Beta coefficients from the regression to derive the weights of the various factors, the most important were health, material wellbeing, and political stability and security. These were followed by family relations and community life. Next in order of importance were climate, job security, political freedom and finally gender equality.
The values of the life-satisfaction scores that are predicted by our nine indicators represent a country’s QoL index, or the “corrected” life-satisfaction scores, based on objective cross-country determinants. The coefficients in the estimated equation weight automatically the importance of the various factors; the method also means that the original units or measurement of the various indicators can be used. They do not, unlike for other indices, have to rely on the potentially distortive effect of having to transform all indicators to a common measurement scale. We can also use the estimated equation based on 1999/2000 data to calculate index values for other years or even to forecast an index, thus making it up-to-date and facilitating comparison over time.
18
Quality of Life 4.0
The Malaysia Quality of Life
The Malaysia QoL is defined as encompassing personal advancements, a healthy lifestyle, access and freedom to pursue knowledge and a standard of living which surpasses the fulfilment of basic needs of individuals and their psychological needs, to achieve a level of social well-being compatible with the nation’s aspirations.
1.4
The Malaysia Quality of Life Index (MQLI)
To measure the changes in the QoL, the Malaysian QoL Index (MQLI) was devised. The MQLI is a composite measurement based on ten selected areas, namely income and distribution, working life, transport and communications, health, education, housing, environment, family life, social participation and public safety. These areas are assumed to be of equal importance for the well-being and the QoL of the population and as such, were assigned equal weightage. A total of 38 indicators were used in the computation of the Index (Refer Table 1). The indicators were selected on the basis of their importance, how best they reflect that particular area and the availability of data on a time series basis (Refer Table 2). The indicators are aimed at providing an aggregate measure of the QoL in order to assess the impact of economic development on the population. In formulating the MQLI, the data used were for the period 1980-1998, with the exception of data on environment, which were available only from 1985. The year 1990 was chosen as the base year as it was a relatively normal year, besides being sufficiently recent.
19
Quality of Life Table 1 : Components of Malaysian Quality of Life Index Area Income and Distribution
Working Life
Transport and Communications
Health
Education
Housing
Environment
Family Life Social Participation Public Safety
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Indicator Real per Capita GNP Gini Coefficient Incidence of Poverty Unemployment Rate Trade Disputes Man-Days Lost Due to Industrial Actions Industrial Accident Rate Private Motorcars and Motorcycles Commercial Vehicles Road Development Telephones Average Daily Newspaper Circulation Life Expectancy at Birth (Male) Life Expectancy at Birth (Female) Infant Mortality Rate Doctor-Population Ratio Hospital Bed-Population Ratio Pre-School Participation Rate Secondary School Participation Rate University Participation Rate Literacy Rate Primary School Teacher-Student Ratio Secondary School Teacher-Student Ratio Average Housing Price Low-Cost Housing Unit Housing Units with Piped Water Housing Units with Electricity Air Quality Clean Rivers Forested Land Divorces Crude Birth Rate Household Size Juvenile Crimes Registered Voters Membership in Selected Voluntary Organizations Crimes Road Accidents
20
Quality of Life Table 2 : The Rationale for the Selection of Areas Area Income and Distribution
Rationale Gross income or per capita income reflects welfare or standard of living. Incomes provide the condition that allows individuals to sustain themselves and their families, while the distribution of income reflects equity and distribution of economic resources. Working life is important because being employed provides
Working Life
a source of income that contributes to the standard of living and QoL Transport and communications are vital factors for progress
Transport and Communications
an development since they relate to the mobility of and accessibility to resources as well as opportunity for employment, education and movement of goods and services. Health, which includes physical and mental well being,
Health
enables people to work productively and participate actively in the social and economic life of the community. The education systems are the principal instruments for transmitting knowledge and culture from one generation to
Education
the next. It provides the foundation from which the technology to sustain and improve the QoL is developed
Housing Environment
and enhanced. Housing is a basic social need that is necessary for decent living, security and shelter for the family. Environment has a direct effect on the well-being of the population. Air and water pollution and forested land are some indicator of the quality of environment. The family unit represents the core institutions within the
Family Life Social Participation Public Safety
societal structure and its functioning fulfills the social economic and psychological needs of individuals. Social participations is the reflection of the people’s commitment and willingness to be involved in social, political, religious and community activities. Public safety is essential as it ensures social peace and stability
21
Quality of Life Table 3: The Index for the 10 Areas of MQLI 1980-1998 Area Income and Distribution Working Life Transport and Communications Health Education Housing Environment Family Life Social Participation Public Safety Composites Index Change for Base Year (1990)
1.5
YEAR/INDEX 1990 = 100 1980 = 77.39 1998 = 105.82 1980 = 106.13 1998 = 118.94 1980 = 87.36 1998 = 112.78 1980 = 83.24 1998 = 109.58 1980 = 85.97 1998 = 117.31 1980 = 90.52 1998 = 107.72 1980 = n.a 1998 = 100.94 1980 = 85.46 1998 = 113.86 1980 = 81.55 1998 = 97.98 1980 = 78.40 1998 = 72.11 1980 = 86.22 1998 = 105.71 1980 = (-) 13.78 1998 = (+) 5.71
Malaysia Urban Quality of Life
Malaysia witnessed a fast pace of urbanization in 1990 to 2000, largely contributed by rapid economic growth and transformation. The population in urban areas
22
Quality of Life increased at an average rate of 4.6% per annum, about twice the national population growth rate of 2.2%. As a result, the share in the urban population increased from 51.1% to 61.8% during the period. The expansion of urban centres as well as the establishment of new townships and satellite industrial towns also contributed to this increase. Urbanization generated new economic activities and created more employment opportunities as well as provided greater access to modern social amenities.
4.1.1 Concept The Malaysian Urban Quality of Life Index (MUQLI) was constructed to measure the changes in the QoL in the urban areas. MUQLI is a composite measure comprising 12 areas and 29 indicators for the period 1990 to 2000 (Table 4). The indicators were selected on the basis of their importance and the availability of data on a timeseries basis, and were assigned equal weightage.
Table 4: Components of Malaysian Quality of Life Index Area Income and Distribution
•
Indicator Real per Capita GNP
•
Gini Coefficient
•
Incidence of Poverty
23
Quality of Life
Working Life Transport and Communications Health
Education
Housing Environment Family Life Public Safety Community Participation Culture and Leisure Urban Services
•
Trade Disputes
• •
Industrial Accidents Private Motorcars and Motorcycles
•
Public Transports
• •
Telephones Infant Mortality Rate
• •
Doctor-Population Ratio Primary School Teacher-Student Ratio
•
Secondary School Teacher-Student Ratio
•
Primary School Average Class Size
• •
Secondary School Average Class Size Average Rental to Household Income Ratio
• •
Average Prices of Houses to Household Income Ratio River Quality Index
• •
Solid Waste per Kapita Divorces
• •
Household Size Crimes
• •
Road Accidents Registered Voluntary Organizations
•
Rukun Tetangga Members
• •
Registered Voters Library Membership
• •
Sports and Recreation Club Expenditure on Social Services
•
Expenditure on Landscaping
4.1.2 Overview MUQLI is calculated on the basis of the urban QoL indices of four selected cities, namely, Ipoh, Johor Bahru, Kuala Lumpur and Kuching. The four cities accounted for about 30%of the total urban population of Malaysia in
24
Quality of Life 2000 (Refer Table 5). The MUQLI increased by 5.8 points to 105.8 points in 2000, indicating an improvement in the QoL in urban areas (Table 6).
Table 5: Profile of Selected Urban Areas State Ipoh
Status Capital of Perak
Population (2000 census) 451,558 peoples
Land Area 136.9 sq.km
Main Economic Activities Trade, Commercial and Industrial
Kuantan
Capital of
344,706 peoples
324 sq.km
Pahang
activities Trade and commercial activities and port
Kota
Capital of Sabah
305,382 people
344 sq.km
Kinabalu
services Trade and Commercial activities and
Kuala
Capital of
Lumpur
Malaysia
1,297,526
243 sq.km
tourism Trade and Commercial activities, business services, tourism
Johor Bharu
Capital of Johor
385,213
185 sq.km
and education Trade, Commercial and Industrial activities and
Kuching
Capital of
163,846
369 sq. km
Sarawak
tourism Trade, Commercial activities and tourism
Table 6 : MUQLI: Composite Index and Indices by Area, 1990-2000
25
Quality of Life
The QoL in urban areas during the period 1990 to 2000 witnessed an improvement as reflected by the upward trend of the MUQLI. This was mainly due to the significant improvements in family life, income and distribution, culture and leisure as well as education. Other areas of QoL that witnessed improvements were transport and communications health, working life, housing, urban services and community participation, while the quality of environment and the state of public safety declined. The environment index deteriorated as a result of the decline in the river quality index and the increase in per capita solid waste collection. The decline in the state of public safety was due to the rise in crime rates and the number of road accidents. However, all the four cities recorded an overall improvement in the QoL.
26
Quality of Life
1.6
Malaysia Quality of Life in Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010
The Malaysian QoL, as measured by the MQLI, improved during the 1994-2004 period, increasingly by 10.9 points except for public safety and the environment, all components of the MQLI made good progress. The improvement in QoL is also reflected in the achievement of all the Millennium Development Goals ahead of the target of 2015, expect for HIV/AIDS.
The Millennium Development Goals, as agreed at the United Nations General Assembly are to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender quality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other disease; ensure environmental sustainability and develop a global partnership by 2015.
Infant and child mortality rates showed a significant decline due to improvements in the national healthcare system, better education and greater reproductive health services. Life expectancy increased for both male and female.
Access to adequate, affordable and quality housing improved, as indicated by the increase in the household to house ratio from 1:1.14 in 1991 to 1:1.18 in 2005. The number of houses rose from 4.1 million in 1991 to 6.4 million in 2005. National water supply coverage increased from 80% of the total population in 1990 to 95% in 2005. Urban coverage remained high while rural coverage rose
27
Quality of Life significantly from 67% in 1990 to 92% in 2005. Measures were undertaken to reduce the proportion on non-revenue water from 43% in 1990to 38% in 20%. However, there is room to improve water delivery efficiency further.
National electricity coverage expanded from 80% in 1990 to 93% in 2005. Rural electricity coverage rose significantly from 67% in 1990 to 92% in 2005. Although the situation has improved greatly especially for Sabah and Sarawak, coverage in these states needs to be improving further. As for telecommunications, market liberalisation of the industry since the 1990s has led to more competitive pricing and consumer choice, which in turn increased the cellular phone penetration significantly from 0.7% per 100 populations in 1990 to 74.1 in 2005. 28 To ease traffic congestion, a multi-modal public transport systems was implemented in the Klang Valley, which included the construction of the light rail transit (LRT) system, rail commuter service, monorail and feeder bus system. The highway and road network also grew from 53,985 kilometres in 1990 to 77,673 kilometres in 2005, which facilitated the establishment of new growth areas as well as reduced travel time and cost. To handle the increase in air passenger traffic, upgrading of airport was undertaken and new airports were built, the largest being the KL International Airport (KLIA) as the main gateway to the country. In addition, access by air to remote areas was improved. The National Environment Policy provided as impetus to efforts to address environmental issue in an integrated manner. Among others, these efforts resulted
Quality of Life in air quality remaining at good to moderate levels in most part of the country; Malaysia continues to take measures to protect its rich natural heritage. Over half of the country’s land area remains forested and there is a comprehensive network of national and Marine Park, wildlife reserves and sanctuaries as well as permanent forest reserves in place.
5.0
Case Study: The Planning of Putrajaya; Creating the Essence City
The creation of a new Federal Government Administrative Centre at Putrajaya marks a new chapter in the development history of modern Malaysia. The development of this new administrative centre was prompted by the need to balance and disperse development to areas outside of Klang Valley. It is a decision motivated by the government’s desire to improve the urban environment and quality of life, and to ease the pressure on the infrastructure in Kuala Lumpur and the Klang Valley in general.
In city planning terms, it provides a golden opportunity and a challenge to embark on something new and innovative representing Malaysian values and culture. Putrajaya the new Federal Government Administrative Centre, is to be equipped with the latest facilities and technologies for improved effectiveness and productivity, as well as, amenities that shall contribute to quality living and working environment. But the challenge also lies in fostering the spirit, sense of purpose and identity for the new city.
2.0
Planning Background
29
Quality of Life On 2nd June 1993 the Federal Government decided on an area in Perang Besar, Sepang, Selangor Darul Ehsan to be the site for the new Federal Government Administrative Centre. Thereafter, the planning process for Putrajaya went into full swing with the setting up of Putrajaya Development Committee and the Putrajaya Development Unit within the Prime Minister’s Department.
In 1994, five alternative concept schemes by local consultants and a group of government agencies led by the Federal Department of Town and Country Planning and the Public Works Department were presented to the Cabinet. Of the five schemes, the Government selected the “Garden City” concept as the guiding theme for the new city. A master plan was subsequently developed based on this theme. The Putrajaya Master Plan was given Government approval in February 1995. It later underwent a review upon which a final approval was obtained in April 1997. To implement the plan, Perbadanan Putrajaya was established 1996 with the main role of developing, managing and administration of the city area. Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd, a government-owned company, was also formed to act as the master developer responsible for construction of government offices, commercial areas, residential premises and the main infrastructure.
3.0
Putrajaya Master Plan
30
Quality of Life The Putrajaya Master Plan covers an area of approximately 4,600 hectares. The Garden City concept is clearly evident in the amount of land area dedicated to open space within the city, which is 1,721 hectares (37.6 %). In brief, the major features of the Master Plan are as follows:
•
A large proportion of the city area is designated as green open space;
•
A large water body (man-made lake) and wetlands was formed by utilizing the small rivers which run through the area;
•
The lake created a 38 kilometers long waterfront area;
•
The city is divided into 20 precincts with the ‘core employment and commercial precincts’ (Core Area) located on an island within the manmade lake;
•
‘Peripheral’ (residential) precincts planned based on the neighbourhood planning concept to accommodate a mix of residential, local level commercial, and public amenities areas;
•
A 4.2 km long boulevard forms the central spine of the city;
•
Projected residential population of 330,000; with 67,000 housing units;
•
The Master Plan is supplemented with urban design guidelines, policy documents, and
•
4.0
Local plans prepared to meet statutory requirements.
Creating the Essence of the City
31
Quality of Life The main function of town planning as argued by Foley is to provide a good physical environment, essential for the promotion of a healthy and civilized life. Given that improvement in quality of life is the Government’s underlying aim for developing Putrajaya, the city planners have been quick to take the cue by making “quality urban living” as the basic objective for planning Putrajaya. This explains the adoption of the Garden City concept for guiding its physical development. The intention is not only to create a city where social activities take place within an ideal landscape where nature permeates into all aspects of life, but also one which would display a combination of the following features:
•
Accessibility to facilities, services and place of work
•
Neighbourliness and community atmosphere
•
Close to nature
•
Amenities for recreation
•
Dynamic and lively
•
A city with identity and character
Through careful planning – supported by good urban management and governance – these concepts are translated physically, and in the process create the essence of the city that is Putrajaya.
5.1.1 Quality Urban Living Through Neighbourhood Living
32
Quality of Life Quality urban living involves more than just providing places of work and residence. If we cast our views on other cities with reputation for high urban quality of life, essential ingredients would include facilities and amenities for individual fulfilment and community life, i.e. for cultural, recreation, social interaction and other activities. In Putrajaya, the planners have been ever mindful of the fact that we are not just building an administrative centre. But rather, we are also trying to build a new community. Meeting the various socio-cultural needs of the inhabitants is therefore a top priority. Foremost in priority is of course adequate and suitable housing. A broad mix of residential development type is planned for the city including luxury bungalows, semi-D and terrace-type housing, apartments and affordable housing for the lower income group.
This is supported by a variety of urban amenities such as health, libraries, sports and recreational. Within residential neighbourhoods, community facilities such as schools, convenience shops, multi-purpose halls, surau and local parks are provided. In line with the Garden City theme, a large proportion of the city area is designated as parks and open space ranging from metropolitan parks to local neighbourhood playgrounds. Reinforcing these facilities are urban features such as landmarks, squares, plazas and bridges that form part of the cityscape, providing a wide range of spatial experiences that further enhance the spatial quality of the city.
33
Quality of Life What is significant in Putrajaya is that all these amenities and facilities are found in close proximity to the residents which is achieved through the adoption of the neighbourhood concept in the planning of its residential precincts. The size of the neighbourhood is such that a majority of the population is within a five-minute walking distance of its centre (1/4 mile) and where the needs of daily life are mostly available within this area.
6.0
Sources and References
Chris Lucas 2002, Quality of Life
Malaysia Urban Quality of Life
Dato’ Jebasingam Issace John, The Planning of
New Straits Times, Four Cities Record Better
Putrajaya: Creating the Essence of City
Quality of Life, April 2002
Dr Dasimah Omar, Quality of Life, Lecture’s Notes of TR513, University Technology MARA
Quest for a Better Quality of Life,
34 Malaysia
Quality of Life 1999
Dr Dasimah Omar, Town and Country Planning and Quality of Life in Malaysia, Lecture’s
Wikepedia free Encylopedia , Quality of Life Index, retrieved on October 14, 2008
Notes of TRP513, University Technology MARA
Wikepedia free Encylopedia , Quality of Life,
Gene Shackman, Ya-Lin Liu and Xun Wang,
retrieved on November 2, 2008
Measuring quality of life using free and public
domain
November 2, 2008
data,
retrieved
on
Wikepedia free Encylopedia, Physical Quality of Life Index, retrieved on November 2, 2008
Contents 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................2 2.0 Measuring Quality of Life..............................................................................6 2.1.1 ‘Objectives’ Approaches......................................................10 2.1.2 Alternatives.........................................................................12 3.0 The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality of Life Index..............................14 4.0 The Malaysia Quality of Life........................................................................19 4.1.1 Concept...............................................................................23 4.1.2 Overview.............................................................................24 5.0 Case Study: The Planning of Putrajaya; Creating the Essence City.............29 5.1.1 Quality Urban Living Through Neighbourhood Living..........32 6.0 Sources and References..............................................................................34
Related Documents
Malaysia Quality Of Life
April 2020 13
Quality Of Life Framework
November 2019 19
Quality Of Life
May 2020 10
Quality Of Work Life
May 2020 20
Quality Of Work Life
May 2020 14
Quality Of Work Life
June 2020 10More Documents from ""
Land Acquisition
April 2020 15
Malaysia Quality Of Life
April 2020 13