How Cities Study Quality of Life and Use This Information: Results of an Empirical Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Materials and Methods
- Literature overview.
- Selection of the cities to be surveyed.
- Development of the research methodology.
- Research on understanding the areas that affect quality of life.
- Surveys of the declared impact of the local government on the quality of life of residents.
- Summary of the research results.
- RQ 1: How do the two groups of cities, those that conduct and do not conduct formalized quality-of-life surveys, view the areas that affect quality of life and their importance?
- RQ 2: How do the two groups of cities, those that conduct and those that do not conduct formalized quality-of-life surveys, determine the impact of the local government on the residents’ quality of life in specific aspects?
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Giffinger, R.; Fertner, C.; Kramar, H.; Kalasek, R.; Pichler-Milanovic, N.; Meijers, E. Smart Cities. Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities, Centre for Regional Science, Vienna University of Technology. 2007. Available online: http://www.smart-cities.eu/download/smart_cities_final_report.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2022).
- Harrison, C.; Eckman, B.; Hamilton, R.; Hartswick, P.; Kalagnanam, J.; Paraszczak, J.; Williams, P. Foundations for smarter cities. IBM J. Res. Dev. 2010, 54, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of Technology, People, and Institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011; pp. 282–291. [Google Scholar]
- Caragliu, A.; Del Bo, C.; Nijkamp, P. Smart Cities in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 2011, 18, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakıcı, T.; Almirall, E.; Wareham, J. A smart city initiative: The case of Barcelona. J. Knowl. Econ. 2013, 4, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albino, V.; Berardi, U.; Dangelico, R.M. Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 2015, 22, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombardi, P.; Giordano, S.; Caragliu, A.; Del Bo, C.; Deakin, M.; Nijkamp, P.; Kourtit, K. An Advanced Triple-Helix Network Model for Smart Cities Performance, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Research Memorandum. 2011. Available online: http://degree.ubvu.vu.nl/repec/vua/wpaper/pdf/20110045.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2022).
- Airaksinen, M.; Seppä, I.P.; Huovila, A.; Neumann, H.M.; Iglar, B.; Bosch, P. Smart City Performance Measurement Framework CITYkeys. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Madeira, Portugal, 27–29 June 2017; pp. 718–723. [Google Scholar]
- Jonek-Kowalska, I.; Kaźmierczak, J.; Kramarz, M.; Hilarowicz, A.; Wolny, M. Introduction to the Research Project “Smart City: A Holistic Approach”. In Proceedings of the 5th SGEM International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Science and Arts SGEM, Albena, Bułgaria, 26 August–1 September 2018; pp. 101–112. [Google Scholar]
- Sharifi, A. A critical review of selected smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1269–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A. A typology of smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 53, 101936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A. A global dataset on tools, frameworks, and indicator sets for smart city assessment. Data Brief 2020, 29, 105364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A.; Allam, Z.; Feizizadeh, B.; Ghamari, H. Three decades of research on smart cities: Mapping knowledge structure and trends. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, A. Smart cities, in essence. Plan. News 2018, 44, 10–11. [Google Scholar]
- Kubina, M.; Sulyova, D.; Vodak, J. Comparison of Smart City Standards, Implementation and Cluster Models of Cities in North America and Europe. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajek, P.; Youssef, A.; Hajkova, V. Recent developments in smart city assessment: A bibliometric and content analysis-based literature review. Cities 2022, 126, 103709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonofski, A.; Asensio, E.S.; Smedt, J.D.; Snoeck, M. Citizen Participation in Smart Cities: Evaluation Framework Proposal. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), Thessaloniki, Greece, 24–27 July 2017; pp. 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Foth, M.; Kamruzzaman, M. Towards postanthropocentric cities: Reconceptualizing smart cities to evade urban ecocide. J. Urban Technol. 2019, 26, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glavič, P.; Lukman, R. Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1875–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lozano, R. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1838–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Espinoza, A.; Porter, T. Sustainability, complexity and learning: Insights from complex systems approaches. Learn. Organ. 2011, 18, 54–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koroneos, C.J.; Rokos, D. Sustainable and integrated development—A critical analysis. Sustainability 2012, 4, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pappas, E. A new systems approach to sustainability: University responsibility for teaching sustainability in contexts. J. Sustain. Educ. 2012, 3, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Zavodna, L.S. Critical questions in sustainability definitions. Int. J. Sustain. Hum. Dev. 2013, 1, 138–145. [Google Scholar]
- Amini, M.; Bienstock, C.C. Corporate sustainability: An integrative definition and framework to evaluate corporate practice and guide academic research. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 76, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huovila, A.; Penttinen, T.; Airaksinen, M.; Pinto-Seppä, I.; Piira, K. Smart City Performance Measurement System. In Proceedings of the 41th IAHS World Congress Sustainability Innovation for the Future, Algarve, Portugal, 13–16 September 2016; pp. 13–16. [Google Scholar]
- Bosch, P.; Jongeneel, S.; Neumann, H.-M.; Branislav, I.; Huovila, A.; Airaksinen, M.; Pinto-Seppä, I. Recommendations for a Smart City Index, CITY Keys—Smart City Performance Measurement Framework. 2017. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326783291_Recommendations_for_a_smart_city_index?channel=doi&linkId=5b632dcc0f7e9b00b2a234ee&showFulltext=true (accessed on 4 October 2022).
- Allam, Z.; Newman, P. Redefining the Smart City: Culture, Metabolism and Governance. Smart Cities 2018, 1, 4–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desdemoustier, J.; Crutzen, N.; Giffinger, R. Municipalities’ understanding of the smart city concept: An exploratory analysis in Belgium. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 142, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camboim, G.F.; Zawislak, P.A.; Pufal, N.A. Driving elements to make cities smarter: Evidences from European projects. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 142, 154–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ge, J.; Hokao, K. Research on residential lifestyles in Japanese cities from the viewpoints of residential preference, residential choice and residential satisfaction. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Insch, A. Managing residents’ satisfaction with city life: Application of importance-satisfaction analysis. J. Town City Manag. 2010, 1, 164–174. [Google Scholar]
- Macke, J.; Casagrande, R.M.; Sarate, J.A.R.; Silva, K.A. Smart city and quality of life: Citizen perception in a Brazilian case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 717–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P. Analyzing the Influence of the Smart Dimensions on the Citizens’ Quality of Life in the European Smart Cities’ Context, Public Administration and Information Technology. In Smart Cities and Smart Governance; Estevez, E., Pardo, T.A., Scholl, H.J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 239–256. [Google Scholar]
- Węziak-Białowolska, D. Quality of life in cities—Empirical evidence in comparative European perspective. Cities 2016, 58, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Radzeviciene, A.; Ubarte, I.; Podviezko, A.; Podvezko, V.; Kuzminske, A.; Banaitis, A.; Binkyte, A.; Bucinskas, V. Quality of city life multiple criteria analysis. Cities 2018, 72, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papachristou, I.A.; Rosas-Casals, M. Cities and quality of life. Quantitative modeling of the emergence of the happiness field in urban studies. Cities 2019, 88, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moeinaddini, M.; Asadi-Sheraki, Z.; Aghaabbasi, M.; Saadi, I.; Zaly Shah, M.; Cools, M. Applying non-parametric models to explore urban life satisfaction in European cities. Cities 2020, 105, 102851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goerlich, F.J.; Reig, E. Quality of life ranking of Spanish cities: A non-compensatory approach. Cities 2021, 109, 102979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Przybyłowski, P.; Przybyłowski, A.; Kałaska, A. Utility Method as an Instrument of the Quality of Life Assessment Using the Examples of Selected European Cities. Energies 2021, 14, 2770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mouratidis, K. Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities 2021, 115, 103229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ligarski, M.J.; Wolny, M. How Cities Aspiring to Implement the Smart City Concept Conduct Research on the Quality of Life—Development of the Research Concept and the First Summary of Results. In Proceedings of the 37th IBIMA Conference, Cordoba, Spain, 30–31 May 2021; pp. 2780–2787. [Google Scholar]
- Ligarski, M.J.; Wolny, M. Quality of life surveys as a method of obtaining data for sustainable city development—Results of empirical research. Energies 2021, 14, 7592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ligarski, M.J. Using Information from Quality-of-Life Surveys for Sustainable Urban Development—Results of Empirical Studies, Innovation Management and Information Technology Impact on Global Economy in the Era of Pandemic. In Proceedings of the 37th International Business Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA), Cordoba, Spain, 30–31 May 2021; pp. 7775–7783. [Google Scholar]
- Nussbaum, M.; Sen, A. The Quality of Live; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1993; Available online: http://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198287976.001.0001/acprof-9780198287971 (accessed on 4 October 2022).
- Cella, D.F. Quality of life: Concept and definition. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 1994, 9, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felce, D.; Perry, J. Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Res. Dev. Disabil. 1995, 16, 51–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Insch, A.; Florek, M. A great place to live, work and play: Conceptualising place satisfaction in the case of a city’s residents. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2008, 1, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theofilou, P. Quality of Life: Definition and Measurement. Eur. J. Psychol. 2013, 9, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uysal, M.; Sirgy, M.J.; Woo, E.; Kim, H.L. Quality of life and well-being research in tourism. Tour. Manag. 2016, 53, 244–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WHOQOL; The World Health Organisation. Measuring Quality of Life. 2020. Available online: http://www.who.int/toolkits/whoqol (accessed on 4 October 2022).
- Cai, T.; Verze, P.; Bjerklund Johansen, T.E. The Quality of Life Definition: Where Are We Going? Uro 2021, 1, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allardt, E. Having, Loving, Being: An Alternative to the Swedish Model of Welfare Research. In The Quality of Life; Nussbaum, M., Sen, A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1993; Available online: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198287976.001.0001/acprof-9780198287971-chapter-8 (accessed on 4 October 2022).
- van Kamp, I.; Leidelmeijer, K.; Marsman, G.; de Hollander, A. Urban environmental quality and human well-being. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 65, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bérenger, V.; Verdier-Chouchane, A. Multidimensional measures of well-being: Standard of living and quality of life across countries. World Dev. 2007, 35, 1259–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; Fisher, B.; Ali, S.; Beer, C.; Bond, L.; Boumans, R.; Snapp, R. Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 61, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballas, D.; Tranmer, M. Happy people or happy places? A multilevel modelling approach to the analysis of happiness and well-being. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2012, 35, 70–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinto, S.; Fumincelli, L.; Mazzo, A.; Caldeira, S.; Martins, J.C. Comfort, well-being and quality of life: Discussion of the differences and similarities among the concepts. Porto Biomed. J. 2017, 2, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrison, P.S. Subjective wellbeing and the city. Soc. Policy J. N. Z. 2007, 31, 74–103. [Google Scholar]
- Borys, T. Typologia jakości życia i pomiar statystyczny (Quality of life typology and statistical measurement). Wiadomości Stat. 2015, 7, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Feldmann, B. The Urban Audit—Measuring the Quality of Life in European Cities, Eurostat, Statistic in Focus, 82/2008. Available online: https://edz.bib.uni-mannheim.de/www-edz/pdf/statinf/08/KS-SF-08-082-EN.PDF (accessed on 4 October 2022).
- Database—Cities (Urban Audit)—Eurostat (europa.eu). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/cities/data/database (accessed on 4 October 2022).
- Eurostat. Quality of Life (QoL). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/gdp-and-beyond/qualityof-life/data (accessed on 4 October 2022).
- Rosińka-Bukowska, M.; Klima, E. Audyt miejski—Znaczenie dla rozwoju miast w Unii Europejskiej (Urban audit—Relevance to urban development in the European Union). Res. Pap. Wrocław Univ. Econ. 2015, 407, 120–131. [Google Scholar]
- GUS Główny Urząd Statystyczny/Statystyka Regionalna/Badania Regionalne/Podstawowe Statystyki dla Miast wg Klasyfikacji Degurba (Urban Audit). Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/statystyka-regionalna/badania-regionalne/urban-audit-250/ (accessed on 4 October 2022).
- Lodato, T.; French, E.; Clark, J. Open government data in the smart city: Interoperability, urban knowledge, and linking legacy systems. J. Urban Aff. 2021, 43, 586–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarney, P. The evolution of global city indicators and ISO 37120: The first International standard on city indicators. Stat. J. IAOS 2015, 31, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehner, A.; Erlacher, C.; Schlögl, M.; Wegerer, J.; Blaschke, T.; Steinnocher, K. Can ISO-defined urban sustainability indicators be derived from remote sensing: An expert weighting approach. Sustainability 2008, 10, 1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lennova, T.; Golovcova, I.; Mamedov, E.; Varfolomeeva, M. The Integrated Indicator of Sustainable Urban Development Based on Standardization. In Proceedings of the International Science Conference on Business Technologies for Sustainable Urban, St. Petersburg, Russia, 10–12 December 2018; p. 01039. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 37120:2018; Sustainable Development of Communities—Indicators for City Services and Quality of Life. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
- Hajduk, S. The smartness profile of selected European cities in urban management—A comparison analysis. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2018, 19, 797–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Fox, M.S. Consistency Analysis of City Indicator Data. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management, Adelaide, Australia, 11–14 July 2017; pp. 355–369. [Google Scholar]
- Dunning, H.; Williams, A.; Abonyi, S.; Crooks, V. A Mixed Method Approach to Quality of Life Research: A Case Study Approach. Soc. Indic. Res. 2008, 85, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klassen, A.C.; Creswell, J.; Plano Clark, V.L.; Smith, K.C.; Meissner, H.I. Best practices in mixed methods for quality of life research. Qual. Life Res. 2012, 21, 377–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Wickham, H.; Averick, M.; Bryan, J.; Chang, W.; McGowan, L.D.; François, R.; Grolemund, G.; Hayes, A.; Henry, L.; Hester, J.; et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 2019, 4, 1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cities That Conduct Formalized Quality-of-Life Surveys (N = 29) | Cities That Do Not Conduct Formalized Quality-of-Life Surveys (N = 51) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Do the Given Areas, in Your Opinion, Affect the Quality of Life in the City? | Mean | Standard Deviation | No. | Do the Given Areas, in Your Opinion, Affect the Quality of Life in the City? | Mean | Standard Deviation |
1 | public safety | 4.69 | 0.471 | 1 | public safety | 4.86 | 0.348 |
2 | education | 4.62 | 0.494 | 2 | education | 4.80 | 0.401 |
3 | future perspectives | 4.62 | 0.561 | 3 | transport and communication | 4.63 | 0.564 |
4 | health | 4.59 | 0.628 | 4 | health | 4.63 | 0.564 |
5 | transport and communication | 4.55 | 0.506 | 5 | housing | 4.55 | 0.702 |
6 | housing | 4.45 | 0.736 | 6 | leisure opportunities | 4.55 | 0.642 |
7 | leisure opportunities | 4.41 | 0.682 | 7 | future perspectives | 4.53 | 0.731 |
8 | living conditions in the city | 4.41 | 0.946 | 8 | living conditions in the city | 4.51 | 0.731 |
9 | working conditions in the city | 4.38 | 0.728 | 9 | working conditions in the city | 4.47 | 0.731 |
10 | spatial planning and architecture | 4.24 | 0.636 | 10 | service and commercial infrastructure | 4.37 | 0.692 |
11 | public administration | 4.21 | 0.726 | 11 | entrepreneurship | 4.37 | 0.631 |
12 | service and commercial infrastructure | 4.17 | 0.759 | 12 | spatial planning and architecture | 4.29 | 0.642 |
13 | entrepreneurship | 4.10 | 0.772 | 13 | environmental protection | 4.27 | 0.850 |
14 | waste management | 4.03 | 1.052 | 14 | waste management | 4.24 | 0.737 |
15 | science | 3.97 | 0.731 | 15 | public administration | 4.22 | 0.702 |
16 | environmental protection | 3.97 | 1.017 | 16 | water management | 4.18 | 0.865 |
17 | sport and recreation | 3.97 | 0.823 | 17 | science | 4.18 | 0.740 |
18 | culture and protection of national heritage | 3.86 | 0.833 | 18 | sport and recreation | 4.18 | 0.793 |
19 | civil society | 3.86 | 0.915 | 19 | information technologies | 3.90 | 0.944 |
20 | water management | 3.83 | 1.037 | 20 | climate and geographic location | 3.82 | 0.974 |
21 | social assistance | 3.79 | 0.940 | 21 | culture and protection of national heritage | 3.82 | 0.817 |
22 | technical services | 3.79 | 0.675 | 22 | civil society | 3.78 | 1.119 |
23 | information technologies | 3.62 | 0.979 | 23 | technical services | 3.73 | 0.750 |
24 | climate and geographic location | 3.48 | 1.022 | 24 | social assistance | 3.69 | 0.990 |
25 | tourism and promotion | 3.38 | 0.862 | 25 | tourism and promotion | 3.51 | 1.027 |
Cities That Conduct Formalized Quality-of-Life Surveys (N = 29) | Cities That Do Not Conduct Formalized Quality-of-Life Surveys (N = 51) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | What Is, in Your Opinion, the Importance (Significance) of These Areas in Assessing the Quality of Life in the City? | Mean | Standard Deviation | No. | What Is, in Your Opinion, the Importance (Significance) of These Areas in Assessing the Quality of Life in the City? | Mean | Standard Deviation |
1 | living conditions in the city | 4.72 | 0.591 | 1 | public safety | 4.73 | 0.451 |
2 | health | 4.72 | 0.528 | 2 | health | 4.73 | 0.451 |
3 | public safety | 4.66 | 0.484 | 3 | leisure opportunities | 4.67 | 0.476 |
4 | future perspectives | 4.59 | 0.568 | 4 | education | 4.65 | 0.483 |
5 | education | 4.55 | 0.506 | 5 | future perspectives | 4.63 | 0.564 |
6 | housing | 4.52 | 0.634 | 6 | transport and communication | 4.57 | 0.608 |
7 | leisure opportunities | 4.52 | 0.509 | 7 | living conditions in the city | 4.55 | 0.673 |
8 | transport and communication | 4.41 | 0.780 | 8 | housing | 4.47 | 0.731 |
9 | working conditions in the city | 4.38 | 0.775 | 9 | working conditions in the city | 4.45 | 0.730 |
10 | environmental protection | 4.21 | 0.774 | 10 | entrepreneurship | 4.31 | 0.707 |
11 | entrepreneurship | 4.17 | 0.759 | 11 | service and commercial infrastructure | 4.27 | 0.723 |
12 | spatial planning and architecture | 4.14 | 0.639 | 12 | environmental protection | 4.25 | 0.845 |
13 | service and commercial infrastructure | 4.07 | 0.753 | 13 | spatial planning and architecture | 4.22 | 0.702 |
14 | waste management | 3.93 | 1.033 | 14 | sport and recreation | 4.14 | 0.872 |
15 | science | 3.86 | 0.693 | 15 | public administration | 4.10 | 0.700 |
16 | social assistance | 3.83 | 0.848 | 16 | water management | 4.04 | 0.916 |
17 | civil society | 3.83 | 0.805 | 17 | science | 4.04 | 0.848 |
18 | technical services | 3.83 | 0.602 | 18 | waste management | 4.00 | 0.872 |
19 | public administration | 3.79 | 0.774 | 19 | information technologies | 3.88 | 0.840 |
20 | sport and recreation | 3.76 | 0.951 | 20 | culture and protection of national heritage | 3.82 | 0.713 |
21 | water management | 3.72 | 1.032 | 21 | civil society | 3.82 | 1.090 |
22 | culture and protection of national heritage | 3.62 | 0.862 | 22 | social assistance | 3.71 | 0.944 |
23 | tourism and promotion | 3.55 | 0.736 | 23 | technical services | 3.69 | 0.787 |
24 | information technologies | 3.45 | 1.055 | 24 | climate and geographic location | 3.59 | 1.134 |
25 | climate and geographic location | 3.07 | 1.280 | 25 | tourism and promotion | 3.55 | 0.945 |
Cities That Conduct Formalized Quality-of-Life Surveys (N = 29) | Cities That Do Not Conduct Formalized Quality-of-Life Surveys (N = 51) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | In Your Opinion, in the City, Does the Local Government Have an Impact on the Quality of Life in the Following Aspects: | Mean | Standard Deviation | No. | In Your Opinion, in the City, Does the Local Government Have an Impact on the Quality of Life in the Following Aspects: | Mean | Standard Deviation |
1 | transport and public transportation | 4.86 | 0.351 | 1 | quality of administrative services | 4.27 | 1.002 |
2 | quality of infrastructure | 4.79 | 0.412 | 2 | quality of recreational offering | 4.25 | 0.688 |
3 | quality of administrative services | 4.76 | 0.511 | 3 | public safety and order | 4.24 | 0.764 |
4 | public safety and order | 4.69 | 0.471 | 4 | quality of infrastructure | 4.22 | 0.901 |
5 | quality of recreational offering | 4.62 | 0.561 | 5 | quality of cultural offering | 4.22 | 0.757 |
6 | housing management | 4.55 | 0.736 | 6 | quality of sports offering | 4.18 | 0.713 |
7 | spatial management | 4.52 | 0.688 | 7 | transport and public transportation | 4.18 | 0.994 |
8 | quality of sports offering | 4.48 | 0.574 | 8 | spatial management | 4.14 | 0.917 |
9 | quality of cultural offering | 4.41 | 0.568 | 9 | quality of education offering | 4.04 | 0.871 |
10 | settlement attractiveness | 4.38 | 0.677 | 10 | housing management | 4.00 | 1.000 |
11 | quality of education offering | 4.38 | 0.561 | 11 | settlement attractiveness | 3.88 | 0.864 |
12 | conditions for participation in public life and civic initiatives | 4.18 | 0.612 | 12 | environmental quality | 3.65 | 0.868 |
13 | combating exclusions and marginalization of social groups | 3.97 | 0.731 | 13 | conditions for participation in public life and civic initiatives | 3.65 | 1.036 |
14 | environmental quality | 3.90 | 0.772 | 14 | combating exclusions and marginalization of social groups | 3.47 | 1.084 |
15 | conditions for improving the financial situation of residents | 3.86 | 0.789 | 15 | quality of healthcare | 3.27 | 0.940 |
16 | quality of healthcare | 3.38 | 0.903 | 16 | conditions for improving the financial situation of residents | 3.24 | 0.992 |
No. | Aspect That Affects Quality of Life | p-Value |
---|---|---|
1 | transport and public transportation | 0.0004 |
2 | conditions for improving the financial situation of residents | 0.0010 |
3 | quality of infrastructure | 0.0012 |
4 | public safety and order | 0.0058 |
5 | housing management | 0.0063 |
6 | settlement attractiveness | 0.0094 |
7 | quality of recreational offering | 0.0148 |
8 | quality of administrative services | 0.0162 |
9 | conditions for participation in public life and civic initiatives | 0.0253 |
10 | combating exclusions and marginalization of social groups | 0.0440 |
11 | spatial management | 0.0617 |
12 | quality of sports offering | 0.0618 |
13 | quality of education offering | 0.1144 |
14 | environmental quality | 0.2677 |
15 | quality of cultural offering | 0.3224 |
16 | quality of healthcare | 0.8897 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ligarski, M.J.; Owczarek, T. How Cities Study Quality of Life and Use This Information: Results of an Empirical Study. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108221
Ligarski MJ, Owczarek T. How Cities Study Quality of Life and Use This Information: Results of an Empirical Study. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):8221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108221
Chicago/Turabian StyleLigarski, Mariusz J., and Tomasz Owczarek. 2023. "How Cities Study Quality of Life and Use This Information: Results of an Empirical Study" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 8221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108221