Soc Indic Res (2008) 85:5–21 DOI 10.1007/s11205-007-9129-z
Changes in quality of life perceptions in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: comparing survey results from 2001 and 2004 Allison Williams Æ Peter Kitchen Æ James Randall Æ Nazeem Muhajarine
Received: 10 November 2006 / Accepted: 15 January 2007 / Published online: 15 May 2007 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract There is a growing interest in quality of life (QoL) as an integrated approach to addressing key social, environmental and economic determinants of health. The University of Saskatchewan’s Community-University Institute for Social Research (CUISR) has examined the process and results of a multi-stakeholder approach to the ongoing sustainability of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan as a healthy city with an improving and a more equitably distributed QoL. Using quantitative and qualitative analysis, this research has examined QoL across three locales in Saskatoon—representing Low, Middle and High socio-economic status neighbourhoods. Two large telephone surveys were conducted with residents of the city in 2001 and 2004. This paper presents the major findings from these two surveys according to four overarching research questions posed by the CUISR QoL team. The questions relate to a number of QoL issues including the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, place related measures, aspects influencing excellent or very good QoL in Saskatoon and feelings of a strong sense of place. The paper also assesses the changes in the results of the four questions between 2001 and 2004.
A. Williams (&) P. Kitchen School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 2K1 e-mail:
[email protected] P. Kitchen e-mail:
[email protected] J. Randall College of Arts, Social and Health Sciences, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, Canada V2N 4Z9 e-mail:
[email protected] N. Muhajarine Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5E5 e-mail:
[email protected]
123
6
A. Williams et al.
Keywords Quality of life Place related measures Sense of place Changes in quality of life Quantitative techniques
1 Introduction Based at the University of Saskatchewan, the Community-University Institute for Social Research (CUISR) is engaged in a comprehensive research programme examining changes in the quality of life (QoL) in Saskatoon,1 Saskatchewan. Using both quantitative and qualitative techniques, this on-going research programme is examining the QoL across three locales in the city representing Low, Middle and High socio-economic status neighbourhoods. The participatory action research approach used in this work ensures the value of the outputs to the stakeholders. The impact that this work has had on programming, resource allocation and policy has yet to be determined and is the focus of the CUISR QoL module. Changes in Saskatoon’s QoL will be determined by analysing three iterations of survey data. So far, two telephone surveys with residents have been conducted—the first in 2001 and the second in 2004. For each of the two surveys, a total of *1,000 Saskatoon residents were interviewed in the three neighbourhood clusters. The third and final telephone survey is scheduled for the winter of 2007, eventually permitting a comparative analysis of the data over the 2001–2004–2007 period. In summary, the objective of the CUISR project is to inform QoL policies and programmes at the local level and to assess their impacts on the health status and well being of residents in Saskatoon. Potential action on health determining conditions has already been informed by the results from the first telephone survey in 2001. The Saskatoon Quality of Life Steering Committee (SQoLSC), however, has yet to determine priorities for new actions based on the 2004 results. These actions could include, for example, a 10% reduction in child poverty through the creation of an additional 15% of social housing units or increases in universal services such as day care that could increase parents’ participation in the labour market. The QoL research will specifically examine changes in certain determinants, conditions and outcomes via data analysis over time. In the process, it will contribute to determining the effectiveness of specific policies and programmes aimed at improving QoL. The purpose of this paper is to present the major findings from the 2001 and 2004 telephone surveys according to four overarching research questions posed by the QoL research team. The first question assesses the relative importance of different dimensions of QoL to overall QoL. The second considers the significance of place related measures while the third examines aspects influencing excellent or very good QoL in Saskatoon. Finally, the fourth question assesses characteristics that affect a strong sense of place. The paper also measures the changes in the results of the four questions between 2001 and 2004.
1
Saskatoon is a mid-sized prairie city and the largest in the Province of Saskatchewan with a population of 207,000. A significant factor in Saskatoon’s population growth is the Aboriginal ‘‘baby boom’’. According to a recent study by the Canada West Foundation, over 40% of Saskatoon’s Aboriginal population is under the age of 14—the highest in Western Canada (McNairn 2001). Saskatoon has identified many areas that need improvement such as addressing the growing gap between the rich and poor and more specifically, reducing child poverty, youth dislocation and improving social housing.
123
Quality of life perceptions in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
7
2 Literature review In the 1970s, researchers realized that QoL was more than a city’s financial situation or a country’s GDP (Miringoff 1996). Factors such as housing tenure, access to basic services, parks and green space as well as people’s perceptions were also seen to affect QoL. It was also recognized that QoL could vary among cities, regions and countries. Since the 1970s, various levels of government in North America and Europe have been conducting research to inform their policies and have been seeking strategies to confidently measure the determinants of QoL (GPI Atlantic 2001; Grayson 1998; Peat Marwick 1988). In Canada at the national level, the Canadian Policy Research Network’s (CPRN) Quality of Life Indicators has tracked Canada’s progress in QoL while the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Quality of Life Project collects city-level indicator data on a number of issues including health, housing, environment, community infrastructure and income. This work is being conducted to enable a more ‘‘balanced discussion on public priorities across social, economic and environmental dimensions of quality of life’’ (CPRN 2001 p. iv). Related to the measurement of QoL, two major concerns have arisen: what should be measured and how best to measure it? In the mid to late 1970s, criticisms of the use of objective indicators grew and subjective measures (such as satisfaction and perception) were developed to mediate the potential weaknesses associated with using strictly objective indicators of QoL (Abrahms 1977). Between the late 1970s and early 1990s, research incorporated new perspectives and attracted ‘‘new players to the table’’ including business, government leaders, and community organizations. Increasingly, studies of QoL began to focus on cities (as opposed to larger regions) and new data sources were employed, including information derived from city administrative and health departments. It was soon apparent that the QoL of the ‘‘subareas’’ of a city, such as neighbourhoods, should also be studied alongside the city as a whole (Sawicki and Flynn 1996). Even though QoL research has recently gained popularity,2 ‘‘the notorious ambiguity of the concept, its blatant political use and the technical complexity of scientific research on the topic, all may have dissuaded professional planners from addressing it’’ (Peat Marwick 1988, p. 347). Doubts have also been raised about the appropriateness of using social indicators to set goals, to evaluate programmes and to assess social progress (McIntosh et al. 1977). However, researchers have recently emphasized that QoL indicators should not be a substitute for action nor should they be expected to ‘‘single-handedly’’ bring about change. Indicators can be used to reflect trends in a community over time, act as an information base for larger policies (Besleme and Mullin 1997), enrich the goal-setting process (Myers 1988), and help in examining the relationship between social and environmental indicators (Hayes and Glouberman 1999; Maclaren 1995, adapted from Bates et al. 1996). With many different stakeholders at the table, the question became: what is the ultimate goal of a QoL model for ‘‘our’’ city? Is it to guide policy and monitor trends or simply to have a QoL ‘‘snap shot’’ of one moment in time? (Andrews 2001). 2
Despite the problems mentioned above, Canadian cities are becoming increasingly interested in measuring QoL for a variety of reasons. Active studies have been or continue to be undertaken in Victoria, Hamilton, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Saskatoon (Torjman et al. 2002; QoL Challenge 2002; Sustainable Calgary 2001; Raphael et al. 1999). For example, the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth commissioned a community economic development report based on the assumption that QoL is an important factor in residential location decisions (Peat Marwick Consulting Group 1988). The study aimed to determine possible changes to capital investment programmes, municipal services and planning practices that would improve QoL.
123
8
A. Williams et al.
Furthermore, the impact of research on subsequent policy decisions is unclear. There has been only limited evaluation of the outcomes of various initiatives. Legowski (2000) found that the extent to which projects are located within decision-making institutions influence their impact. He also suggests that successfully measuring and improving QoL requires balancing the various demands and needs among funding agencies, stakeholders and citizens, as well as balancing multiple goals for ensuring accurate monitoring and measurement, stimulating action in the short-term and setting the institutional basis for sustainability in the longer-term. As in much of the contemporary research, the issue of linkage and exchange between researchers and decision-makers is highly problematic (CHSRF 1999; Pelz 1978; Lavis et al. 2002, 2003). Some of the main problems have been identified as unrealistic goals on the part of both researchers and policymakers, competing influences on the policymaking process and the lack of clarity of research. The CUISR QoL project has examined the impact of its research on policy via the functional role of an action researcher. By playing a bridging role, the project brings together a number of actors in Saskatoon, including: Community Based Organizations (CBOs), the City Planning Department and community leaders to evaluate the impact of the research on subsequent policy decisions. As stated above, the third iteration of survey data collected in 2007 will allow comparative analysis to determine local changes in QoL in Saskatoon over time. Using this data, the research can gauge, for example, if QoL in Saskatoon stayed the same, improved or became worse between 2001 and 2007.
3 Previous and ongoing research The results gleaned thus far from the data collected in 2001 and 2004 illustrate several important issues that need to be addressed in Saskatoon. Three main themes have been identified: (1) The Growing Gap Between Rich and Poor: this is reflected in the increasing dissatisfaction that poor residents of Saskatoon have in their personal life satisfaction over time and is confirmed in comparative perceptions of overall QoL and happiness. (2) Social Inclusion: the more friendly the neighbourhood and the greater the feelings of safety and security, the better the ratings of overall QoL. Residents of poorer neighbourhoods are much more likely to rate neighbourhood services (e.g. neighbourhood organizations and social programmes), neighbourhood conditions (e.g. friendliness, safety from violent and property crime and neighbourhood neatness) and satisfaction with their neighbourhoods as poor. In addition, those with low-incomes report having a poor QoL. Residents with high and medium incomes report poorer QoL if they feel their family’s financial situation compares poorly to others in Saskatoon. (3) Responsibility for Change: with respect to the funding of social programmes, the surveys found that wealthier people prefer to have user fees implemented whereas poorer residents prefer increases in personal taxes. A participatory action approach is employed in this project. Four community forums have been held in Saskatoon, serving as vehicles for the knowledge-transfer process between the University of Saskatchewan and the community. The dissemination of the research has been facilitated in a number of ways including a special section of the Saskatoon Star Phoenix newspaper in 2001 (Saturday, January 20), several peer-reviewed publications, two QoL Research Summaries (Williams et al. 2001a; Williams et al. 2006) and two Briefing Papers (Williams et al. 2001b, 2006). In addition, the CUISR website provides a medium for dissemination and knowledge transfer (www.usask.ca/cuisr).
123
Quality of life perceptions in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
9
With the guidance of the SQoLSC, the project has built strong linkages with CBOs and the local government, via the City Planning Department. Several Community Forums have been held in Saskatoon between 2001 and 2005, with a wide range of sectors being represented (i.e. municipal councillors, City employees, CBOs and provincial officials); these forums have produced more than 100 action strategies based on the results of the research.
4 Methodology Identical statistical analysis was performed on the data from the 2001 and 2004 telephone surveys to allow for a direct comparison between the 2 years. First, each survey was analysed separately. Depending on the question being analysed, several statistical techniques have been employed, including: analysis of variance (ANOVA), cross-tabulations and regression analysis. Further, to identify whether there was a significant difference between the 2001 and 2004 survey data, a cumulative probit model was applied, testing year of study as a variable in interaction terms.
5 Results The QoL research team posed six questions that guided the statistical analysis of the survey data (please refer to the Research Summary for discussion of all six questions—Williams et al. 2006). This paper will examine four of these questions and will gauge how the findings from these questions changed between 2001 and 2004. The first question examines the relationship between particular aspects of QoL and socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents such as age, sex, income, education and neighbourhood type. The second question considers the link between measures of place (such as feelings of safety and security) and overall QoL. The third question considers the characteristics that distinguish people who evaluate their current QoL as ‘‘excellent/very good’’ compared to those who evaluate it as ‘‘good/fair/poor’’. The fourth question considers the relationship between ‘‘sense of place’’ and socio-demographic characteristics as related to QoL. These four research questions, considered sequentially, are presented for both the 2001 and 2004 surveys, together with the statistically significant findings. The results of the four questions are then analysed to determine if there are any significant differences in each between 2001 and 2004. Question 1: What is the relative importance of different dimensions of quality of life to overall quality of life? How does this differ by age group, sex, income level, educational level and neighbourhood type?
5.1 2001 First, in order to assess the relative importance of different dimensions of QoL, summary categories were created for the ‘‘satisfaction’’, ‘‘importance of personal quality of life’’ and ‘‘community quality of life’’ questions using a statistical data reduction technique called principal components analysis (PCA). The PCA produced three summary categories for the satisfaction items: ‘‘satisfaction with external structures’’ (e.g. how satisfied are
123
10
A. Williams et al. 2001 Survey
Coefficient (overall QoL)
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 Age group
Income level
Satisfaction with external structures
Fig. 1 (2001 survey) Relative importance of quality of life dimensions and socio-demographic characteristics to overall quality of life (the graph indicates the coefficient of each indicator and the 95% upper and lower confidence limits associated with the coefficient3
you with your neighbourhood?), ‘‘satisfaction with public relationships’’ (e.g. how satisfied are you with your treatment by store owners?) and ‘‘satisfaction with personal relationships’’ (e.g. how satisfied are you with your relationship with your spouse?). Second, the importance of personal QoL questions was summarized into two categories: ‘‘personal quality of life’’ and ‘‘personal relationships’’. Third, the community QoL items comprised four categories: ‘‘neighbourhood—perceptual’’ (e.g. the degree of neighbourhood neatness), ‘‘neighbourhood—programmes and services’’ (e.g. social programmes), ‘‘neighbourhood—amenities’’ (e.g. shops and services in neighbourhood) and ‘‘neighbourhood— physical’’ (e.g. condition of roads in the neighbourhood) (Fig. 1). Next, an ANOVA was conducted on the summary categories and the overall QoL question to determine which categories were significantly related to QoL. All the summary categories were found to be significant, except ‘‘personal quality of life’’, which was excluded from further analysis. In order to assess the relative importance of the summary categories and socio-demographic characteristics to overall QoL, hierarchical regression analysis was used. This analysis provides an estimate of the degree and the direction of the association between an outcome (e.g. overall QoL) and predictors (e.g. summary categories and age group). In summary, according to these analyses, age group, income level and satisfaction with external structures provide the best associations with overall QoL. Age group is negatively related—that is, older age groups tend to evaluate their QoL as poorer than younger age groups—while income is positively related. Not surprisingly, respondents with higher incomes rate their QoL as more favourable than people with lower income. Satisfaction with external structures such as neighbourhood and housing is also positively related. The 3
Figure 1 presents a summary of the analysis of the relative importance of QoL dimensions and sociodemographic characteristics to overall QoL. On the horizontal axis of the graph are the dimensions that were included in the final model that showed a relationship with overall QoL. The vertical axis presents information on the degree to which a particular variable is associated with the outcome and whether or not the association is in a positive direction (example: when variable X increases variable Y also increases) or negative direction (example: when variable X increases variable Y decreases). This information is given by the coefficient of a variable and the sign (+ or ) that indicates the direction of the association. For example, for age, the graph shows that with increasing age, the QoL reported decreases. But, the coefficients expressed in the graph are an estimate and, therefore, each coefficient is accompanied by a measure of how certain one can be of this estimate, which is indicated by the 95% confidence limits. For example, the estimate of the association between age and QoL, which is 0.14, can in fact range between 0.05 and 0.26, 19 of 20 times.
123
Quality of life perceptions in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
11
Table 1 Significant characteristics of the 2001 survey by overall QoL Characteristic
% Overall QoL Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
18–24
10.9
17.7
12.9
14.3
0.0
25–44
48.3
39.9
41.4
41.3
23.1
45–64
34.3
31.8
33.1
36.5
46.2
6.5
10.6
12.5
7.9
30.8 92.3
Age
65 and up
Gross household income (per year) <$40,000
46.8
37.3
48.7
78.3
$40,000–59,999
18.2
18.1
19.8
15.2
0.0
>$60,000
35.1
44.6
31.5
6.5
7.7
Income compared to others Wealthy/well-off
36.9
16.9
6.8
4.9
0.0
Comfortable/adequate
56.1
75.7
74.9
49.2
23.1
7.1
7.4
18.3
45.9
76.9
Excellent
11.2
13.0
8.3
3.0
0.0
Very good
34.1
31.6
26.3
19.7
14.3
Good
14.3
Difficult/poor Friendliness of neighbourhood
47.3
37.7
47.8
43.9
Fair
6.8
16.2
12.9
19.7
35.7
Poor
0.5
1.6
4.7
13.6
35.7
Comfort in calling neighbours in a crisis Yes
85.1
86.2
78.1
60.7
50.0
No
14.9
13.8
21.9
39.3
50.0 0.0
Feelings of safety and security Excellent
29.8
18.6
14.3
12.7
Very good
35.6
39.9
33.1
28.6
7.1
Good
25.9
29.7
32.0
23.8
21.4
Fair
6.8
8.7
14.7
20.6
21.4
Poor
2.0
3.1
5.9
14.3
50.0
Continuous variables calculated as summary characteristics, such as satisfaction, are not included in this table
more satisfied respondents are with their neighbourhood, housing, finances, health and leisure activities, the more favourably they rate their overall QoL. The significant characteristics that are categorical in nature are shown in Table 1.
5.2 2004 The same summary categories developed for the 2001 survey were tested for 2004 satisfaction measures, namely ‘‘satisfaction with external structures’’, ‘‘satisfaction with public relationships’’ and ‘‘satisfaction with private relationships’’. Questions testing the importance of personal QoL were categorized into personal QoL and personal
123
Fig. 2 (2004 survey) Relative importance of quality of life dimensions and sociodemographic characteristics to overall quality of life (the graph indicates the coefficient of each indicator and the 95% upper and lower confidence limits associated with the coefficient)
A. Williams et al.
Coefficient (overall QoL)
12 2004 Survey
2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Employment
Income
Satisfaction with private relation ships
Satisfaction with external structures
relationships. Community QoL items were divided into four categories, namely ‘‘neighbourhood–perceptual’’, ‘‘neighbourhood–programmes and services’’, ‘‘neighbourhood– amenities’’ and ‘‘neighbourhood–physical’’. Age group and sex were not significantly associated with overall QoL. As Fig. 2 shows, income level and employment were significantly related as were satisfaction with private relationships and satisfaction with external structures. In addition, the importance of personal relationships and perception of neighbourhood QoL were significantly related to overall QoL. In summary, individuals who are employed and have higher incomes tend to rank their overall QoL higher than those who are unemployed and have lower incomes. Individuals who are satisfied with both private relationships and external structures also rate their overall QoL higher than those who are not satisfied with these aspects. Finally, overall QoL was also higher among respondents who placed importance in personal relationships and in neighbourhood perceptions. The significant characteristics that are categorical in nature are shown in Table 2.
5.3 Significance of survey year A cumulative probit model4 was applied with overall QoL as the dependent variable and the analysis found that year was not significant, meaning there was no difference between the survey years 2001 and 2004. However, there were significant differences between the 2 years in the patterns of satisfaction with public relationships, importance of personal QoL and community QoL–physical. Among respondents who indicated greater satisfaction with public relationships, 25% reported excellent health in 2001 compared to 22% in 2004. Among respondents indicating greater personal QoL, 25% reported excellent overall QoL in 2001 compared to 14% in 2004. Of respondents ranking community QoL of physical conditions highly, 28% reported excellent health in 2001 while 31% reported excellent health in 2004. Question 2: What is the net importance of place-related measures to overall quality of life? What characteristics of place are most important to quality of life evaluation?
4
Probit analysis is used to estimate the effects of one or more independent variables on a dichotomous dependent variable.
123
Quality of life perceptions in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
13
Table 2 Significant characteristics of the 2004 survey by overall QoL Characteristic
% Overall QoL Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Employed
55.6
63.2
62.4
71.3
54.5
Unemployed
33.1
26.7
21.9
16.3
31.8
Employment status
Gross household income (per year) <$40,000
51.9
46.3
54.3
57.5
45.5
$40,000–59,999
19.0
18.2
33.7
11.3
50.0
>$60,000
29.1
35.5
12.0
31.3
4.5
Home owner
72.8
68.1
67.2
45.0
50.0
Renter
27.2
31.9
32.8
55.0
50.0
Home ownership
Length of residence in neighbourhood 2 years or less
29.6
30.3
43.2
33.8
13.6
3–9 years
36.1
36.0
28.0
48.8
81.8
10 years or more
34.3
33.7
28.8
17.5
4.5
Continuous variables calculated as summary characteristics, such as satisfaction, are not included in this table
5.4 2001 The Saskatoon QoL telephone survey included several questions asking residents about their views of the concept of ‘‘place’’. For example, respondents were asked about the friendliness of their neighbourhood, their comfort in participating in neighbourhood projects, calling on neighbours in a crisis and their sense of safety and security. The research team wanted to determine how important these place-related measures and socio-demographic characteristics were to respondents’ overall QoL. As in the first question, regression analysis was used to analyse the variables related to this question. Figure 3 illustrates the statistically significant results of the regression analysis. Two socio-demographic characteristics were significantly related to overall QoL—’’age group’’ and ‘‘perception of income compared to others’’. The relationship between age group and QoL is negative meaning that people in older age groups tend to evaluate their QoL as poorer than those in younger age groups. Respondents who said their income was poor compared to others also tended to describe their overall QoL as poor. Three of the place-related measures were inversely related to a good overall quality of life, meaning that people who find their neighbourhood less friendly, have lower feelings of safety and security, and are less comfortable in calling neighbours in a crisis are more likely to describe their overall quality of life as poor. As in the first question, the significant characteristics that are categorical in nature are shown in Table 1.
5.5 2004 Figure 4 shows that in 2004, two socio-demographic measures were significantly related to overall QoL—length of residency and living in an owner-occupied home. Unlike 2001,
123
14
A. Williams et al. 2001 Survey Coefficient (overall QoL)
0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 Age group
Income compared to others
Comfort calling neighbours
Friendliness
Safety & security
Fig. 3 (2001 survey) Importance of place-related measures and socio-demographic characteristics to overall quality of life (the graph indicates the coefficient of each indicator and the 95% upper and lower confidence limits associated with the coefficient) 2004 Survey Coefficient (overall QoL)
1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Rent/own house
Length of residency in Saskatoon
Fig. 4 (2004 survey) Importance of place-related measures and socio-demographic characteristics to overall quality of life (the graph indicates the coefficient of each indicator and the 95% upper and lower confidence limits associated with the coefficient)
place-related indicators such as neighbourhood friendliness or feelings of safety and security were not related to overall QoL in 2004. Respondents who had lived in Saskatoon longer and who owned their home ranked their overall QoL higher than respondents who had lived in the city for a shorter period of time and who lived in rental properties. As in the first question, the significant characteristics that are categorical in nature are shown in Table 2.
5.6 Significance of survey year For this question, findings were significantly different by survey year. Overall QoL was generally rated lower in 2004 than in 2001. The variables that affected overall QoL differently in the two surveys were ‘‘age’’, ‘‘comfort in participating in neighbourhood projects’’, ‘‘comfort in calling a neighbour in a time of crisis’’, ‘‘length of time lived in the neighbourhood’’ and ‘‘length of time lived in the city’’. Respondents in the age group 25– 44 revealed the most significant differences in overall QoL between 2001 and 2004. In 2001, 25% of these respondents reported excellent overall QoL compared to 18% in 2004. A further 29% reported good overall QoL in 2001 compared to 41% in 2004. Of all respondents who said they were comfortable in participating in neighbourhood projects,
123
Odds ratio for excellent/very good QoL
Quality of life perceptions in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
15
2001 Survey 25 20 15 10 5 0
Fig. 5 (2001 survey) Characteristics of respondents who evaluate overall quality of life as excellent/very good (the graph indicates the Odds Ratios and the 95% upper and lower confidence limits associated with each Odds Ratio)
26% reported excellent overall QoL in 2001 compared to 19% in 2004. Among respondents who were comfortable calling a neighbour in a time of crisis, 23% reported excellent overall QoL in 2001 compared to 17% in 2004. Similarly, among respondents who were not comfortable calling neighbours, 18% reported fair/poor overall QoL in 2001 compared to 12% in 2004. Of those stating that they had lived in the neighbourhood for less than a year, 61% reported excellent/very good QoL in 2001 compared to just 37% in 2004. For those living in the neighbourhood for 10 years or more, 67% reported excellent/very good QoL in 2001 compared to 59% in 2004, implying that longer lengths of time spent in the neighbourhood had a greater affect in 2004 than it did in 2001. The pattern was similar for respondents living in the city for <1 year, with 70% reporting excellent or very good overall QoL in 2001 compared to 35% in 2004. However, for those living in the city for more than 10 years there was little difference between the two surveys—63% in 2001 and 60% in 2004. Question 3. What characteristics distinguish people who evaluate their current quality of life as excellent/very good versus good/fair/poor?
5.7 2001 The characteristics of respondents who reported excellent/very good QoL versus good/fair/ poor in the 2004 survey are shown in Fig. 5.5 Age group and one’s perception of income adequacy relative to others were significant characteristics associated with positive QoL. As seen in the chart, in comparison to the oldest age group (age 65 and older), the youngest group (age 18–24) was over six times more likely to say it experiences excellent/very good 5
The Odds Ratio (OR) reveals the degree to which one variable is associated with another variable that takes on only two values (e.g. yes or no). In other words, the OR demonstrates how likely is a certain outcome to occur (e.g. that QoL is excellent or very good) given a particular category of another variable (e.g. younger age). For example, as Fig. 5 shows the association between the particular age group of 65 years and older and group aged 18–24 years and QoL, the OR is 6.1. This indicates that the youngest respondents are just over six times more likely to report that their QoL is either excellent or very good compared to the oldest respondents. The OR is accompanied by a measure that indicates how certain one could be of this estimate. So, for the association between youngest respondents and excellent or very good QoL, the estimate, in fact, could range from 1.66 to 22.5, 19 times of 20.
123
A. Williams et al. Odds ratio for excellent/very good QoL
16 2004 Survey 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Age 25-44 (referent)
Age 45-64
Age 65 +
High SES NGHDs
Middle SES NGHDs
Income adequacy
Not working
Length of residential time in Saskatoon
Fig. 6 (2004 survey) Characteristics of respondents who evaluate overall quality of life as excellent/very good (the graph indicates the Odds Ratios and the 95% upper and lower confidence limits associated with each Odds Ratio)
QoL. The 25–44-year-old age group was almost three times as likely to indicate that it has excellent/very good QoL as the oldest age group. People who indicated that they were ‘‘wealthy/well-off’’ compared to others were six times as likely to report excellent/very good QoL as the reference group (difficult/poor income compared to others). People who had a comfortable/adequate income compared to others were 2.5 times as likely to report excellent/very good QoL. It appears that one’s age and perception of income compared to others distinguish those who evaluate their overall QoL as excellent/very good from those who report good/fair/ poor QoL. Measures of place do not appear to distinguish this particular outcome.
5.8 2004 As shown in Fig. 6, in 2004, older respondents were just as likely as younger respondents to evaluate their current QoL as excellent/very good versus good/fair/poor. Interestingly, non-working respondents rated their overall QoL higher than those who were working. Those who felt their income was greater than others (income adequacy) were more likely to rate their current QoL higher. Higher overall QoL was also associated with respondents having lived longer in the city as well as those living in High and Middle SES neighbourhoods. In 2001, only two socio-demographic characteristics distinguished between respondents’ evaluation of QoL, namely age and perceived income. Age, however, had a different association then it did in 2001, such that increased age resulted in a greater likelihood of reporting a better QoL. None of the place-related variables were significant.
5.9 Significance of survey year The findings related to correlates of positive QoL versus negative QoL were significantly different between the survey years, 2001 and 2004. Two-way interaction tests revealed that indicators relating to age, calling neighbours in a time of crisis, length of time lived in the neighbourhood and the city were different between the two survey years. Respondents over 65 years of age were more likely to rate their overall QoL as excellent/very good in 2001 than in 2004 (55% compared to 46%). Similar trends were
123
Quality of life perceptions in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
17
observed for the 25–44 and 45–64-year age groups. Within the18–24-year age group, response rates were similar. Among respondents who indicated that they were not comfortable in calling a neighbour in a time of crisis, 52% reported poor/fair/good QoL in 2001 compared to 65% in 2004. For those living in the neighbourhood <1 year, 61% reported excellent/very good overall QoL in 2001 compared to only 37% in 2004. Among respondents living in the neighbourhood for 10 years or longer, 68% reported excellent/ very good QoL in 2001 compared to 59% in 2004. Similarly, for those living in the city <1 year, a greater proportion were likely to report excellent/very good overall QoL in 2001 than in 2004 (70% compared to 35%). Among those living in the city for 10 years or longer, 63% reported excellent/very good QoL in 2001 compared to 61% in 2004. Question 4: What characteristics of people and place distinguish those who report a strong sense of place from those who do not?
5.10 2001 An overall indicator of ‘‘sense of place’’ was derived using principal component analysis of several place-related variables from the 2001 survey. The variables comprising this measure included ‘‘feeling part of the neighbourhood’’, ‘‘comfort in participating in neighbourhood projects’’, ‘‘calling on neighbours in a crisis’’ and ‘‘volunteering for organizations’’. The research team was interested in identifying the characteristics of people and place that are related to high scores on this measure. Regression analysis was again employed to determine that sex (female), age group (35–54), owning a home, friendliness, change in neighbourhood QoL and satisfaction with external structures were all positively related to a ‘‘sense of place’’ among respondents. The relationship between ‘‘sense of place’’ and these characteristics is shown in Fig. 7.
5.11 2004 In the 2004 survey, respondents reporting a strong ‘‘sense of place’’ were more likely to be married, employed and volunteer in the community and be satisfied with external structures. In addition, as indicated in Fig. 8, they reported greater satisfaction with public relationships and rated their personal QoL as high.
2001 Survey 0.8 C o e f f i c i e n t ( s tr o n g s e n se o f p l a c e )
Fig. 7 (2001 survey) Characteristics that distinguish a strong sense of place (the graph indicates the coefficient of each indicator and the 95% upper and lower confidence limits associated with the coefficient)
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 Sex
Age group
Home ownership
Friendliness
Change in SatisfactionNGHD QOL external structures
123
18
A. Williams et al.
C o e f f i ci e n t ( s tr on g s e n se of p l a c e )
2004 Survey 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 Not working
Satisfaction with public relationships
Importance of personal QOL
Fig. 8 (2004 survey) Characteristics that distinguish a strong sense of place (the graph indicates the coefficient of each indicator and the 95% upper and lower confidence limits associated with the coefficient)
5.12 Significance of survey year The year in which the survey was conducted was not significantly associated with reporting a strong sense of place. However, two-way interactions identified several factors that affected sense of place differently between the two survey years including age, friendliness of neighbourhood, volunteering and length of time lived in the neighbourhood and in the city. In general, 2001 respondents reported better sense of place than those in 2004. In 2004, respondents aged 65 years and older were more likely to report a lower sense of place than those aged 45–64, a trend not seen in the 2001 analysis. Not surprisingly, in both years, a respondents’ sense of place was lower if they rated neighbourhood friendliness as poorer. Those who volunteered in the community had a greater sense of place in both years. In 2001 and 2004, a greater sense of place was associated with respondents who had lived in the neighbourhood for ten or more years. However, interestingly, in 2004 respondents who had lived in the neighbourhood for only 1–2 years had a greater sense of place than those who had lived in the neighbourhood for 3–5 years. Similarly, in 2004, respondents living in the city <1 year had a higher sense of place than those living in the city for 1–2 years.
5.13 Summary of principal findings Eight principal findings have been selected as summative results. First, in both 2001 and 2004, household income level, perceived income adequacy and satisfaction with external structures (such as neighbourhood housing, parks and other physical amenities) were among the best indicators of overall QoL in Saskatoon. Second, between 2001 and 2004, there was a drop in the proportion of respondents reporting excellent QoL. Third, overall QoL was generally rated lower in 2004 than it was in 2001, particularly among respondents in the 25–44-year age group. Fourth, this decline in the assessment of overall QoL was also evident among respondents who said they were comfortable participating in neighbourhood projects and those who said they were comfortable calling a neighbour in a time of crisis. Fifth, between 2001 and 2004, there was a decline in the reporting of excellent/very good QoL among short-term residents (<1 year) of both the neighbourhood and the city.
123
Quality of life perceptions in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
19
Six, there was a similar decline in the reporting of excellent/very good QoL among longer-term residents (10 years or more) of the neighbourhood and the city. Seven, overall, respondents reported a lower ‘‘sense of place’’ in 2004 than they did in 2001. Finally, in both years, however, volunteering enhanced the ‘‘sense of place’’.
6 Discussion and policy relevance This paper has provided an overview and comparison of the findings of the 2001 and 2004 QoL telephone surveys in Saskatoon according to four overarching research questions. It is evident that in this relatively short period of time, Saskatoon residents felt that their overall QoL and sense of place (connectedness to the neighbourhood) had diminished. At first glance, these findings may appear to be somewhat surprising given the city’s generally strong economy and high standard of living. It is apparent, however, that this prosperity is not shared equally in Saskatoon and that there are social and economic problems that persist in the city, particularly in several of the core, low SES neighbourhoods. In these areas, unemployment, poverty, poor housing and crime are pronounced and continue to have a harmful impact on Saskatoon’s Aboriginal population. The persistent and visible socio-economic divide in the city likely has a negative affect on the views and perceptions of residents of these communities and of Saskatoon as a whole. In other respects, the less enthusiastic view of QoL and sense of place among respondents in 2004 may be attributable, in part, to wider social and political issues, including the funding and delivery of local services and programmes, provincial and national government policies and economic trends. For instance, the province of Saskatchewan with a relatively small population of just under one million has struggled in recent years to compete economically with other provinces, most notably Alberta and British Columbia, in attracting and retaining business and residents. In summary, changes in perceptions of QoL among the residents of Saskatoon may be attributable to a number of factors at different scales. These can vary from personal relationships (e.g. with family, friends and neighbours) to community conditions (e.g. housing and crime) to municipal policies (e.g. levels of service and taxation) and to provincial and national issues (e.g. government policies and inter-provincial migration). The short 3-year period between the first two telephone surveys may pose a limitation in the interpretation of the findings. As stated, however, the third and final telephone survey will be conducted in the winter of 2007, resulting in a comparison of trends over a longer 6-year period and permitting the issues relating to QoL in Saskatoon to be examined more fully, including the four questions posed in this paper. The research has policy implications not only at the local level but also at the regional and provincial level as well. The communication of the results of this research will contribute to its policy relevance; all project reports will be posted on the CUISR web site (www.usask.ca/cuisr) and will be shared with the network of QoL researchers active in Canada and other countries. Ongoing communication with similar and related initiatives will permit wider policy relevance. Furthermore, the CUISR QoL research process has the potential to contribute to the continued development and refinement of culturally and socially appropriate community-based initiatives in Saskatoon. One example of this is the action researcher, who continues to operate somewhat like a facilitator in a knowledgebroker position between researchers and decision-makers.
123
20
A. Williams et al.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Talar Sahsuvaroglu at McMaster University and William Zhang at the University of Northern British Columbia for their assistance with the statistical analysis in this paper.
References Abrahms, M. (1977). Social indicators and social equity. New Society, 22, 454–455. Andrews, C. (2001). Analyzing quality-of-place. Environment and Planning B, 28, 201–217. Bates, J., Murdie, R., & Rhyne, D. (1996). Monitoring quality of life in Canadian communities: An annotated bibliography. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Besleme, K., & Mullin, M. (1997). Community indicators and healthy communities. National Civic Review, 86, 43–52. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. (1999). Issues in linkage and exchange between researchers and decision-makers. Ottawa, Canada: CHSRF Document Series. Canadian Policy Research Network. (2001). Asking citizens what matters for quality of life in Canada. Ottawa, ON: CPRN Quality of Life Indicators Project. Grayson, J. P. (1998). Quality of life in Canadian cities: Toronto, 1998. Toronto, ON: Institute for Social Research, York University. GPI Atlantic. (2001). Counting what matters to Canadians. Reality Check, 1(1), 3. Hayes, M., & Glouberman, S. (1999). Population health, sustainable development and policy future. Canadian Policy Research Networks Discussion Paper No. H 01, Ottawa, ON. Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B., Abelson, J., & The Knowledge Transfer Study Group. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? The Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221–248. Lavis, J. N, Ross, S. E., & Hurley, J. E. (2002). Examining the role of health services research in public policymaking. The Milbank Quarterly, 80(1), 125–154. Legowski, B. (2000). A sampling of community-and citizen-driven quality of life/social indicator projects: Background paper prepared for Canadian Policy Research Networks. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks. Maclaren, V. W. (1995). Developing indicators of urban sustainability: The Canadian expereince. Prepared for the State of the Environment Directorate, Environment Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research. McIntosh, A., Klonglan, G. E., & Wilcox, L. D. (1977). Theoretical issues and social indicators: A societal process approach. Policy Sciences, 8, 245–267. McNairn, K. (2001). City leads native baby boom. The Saskatoon StarPhoenix. July 28, pp. A1, A8. Miringoff, M. -L. (1996). The growing gap between standard economic indicators and the Nation’s social health. Challenge, 39, 17–22. Myers, D. (1988). Building knowledge about quality of life for urban planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 54, 347–359. Peat Marwick Consulting Group. (1988). Regional municipality of hamilton-wentworth quality of life study. Ontario: Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. Pelz, D. C. (1978). Some expanded perspectives on use of social science in public policy. In J. M. Yinger, & S. J. Cutler (Eds.), Major social issues. A multidisciplinary view (pp. 346–357). New York: The Free Press. Quality of Life Challenge. (2002). A bold new way for the people of B.C.’s Capital Region. Victoria: Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria. Raphael, D., & Steinmetz, B., et al. (1999). The community quality of life project: A health promotion approach to understanding communities. Health Promotion International, 14(3), 197–209. Sawicki, D. S., & Flynn, P. (1996). Neighbourhood indicators: A review of the literature and an assessment of conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 165– 183. Sustainable Calgary. (2001). State of our city report. Calgary: Sustainable Calgary. Torjman, S., Levitan-Reid, E., et al. (2002). A social vision for the new city of Hamilton. Ottawa: Caledon Institute for Social Policy. Williams, A. M., Kitchen, P., Holden, B., Muhajarine, N., & Vu, L. (2006). Quality of life module: Quality of life in Saskatoon, SK: Achieving a healthy, sustainable community summary of research 2004 iteration. Community-University Institute for Social Research. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: University of Saskatchewan.
123
Quality of life perceptions in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
21
Williams, A. M., Abonyi, S., Dunning, H., Carr, T., Holden, B., Labonte, R., Muhajarine, N., Randall, J. (2001a). Quality of life in Saskatoon, SK: Achieving a health, sustainable community: Research summary. Community University Institute for Social Research (CUISR). Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: University of Saskatchewan. Williams, A. M., Topolinski, K., Cram, K., MacDermott, W., Abonyi, S., Dunning, H., Carr, T., Holden, B., Labonte, R., Muhajarine, N., Randall, J. (2001b). Building a caring community: Quality of life in Saskatoon, SK: CUISR briefing paper. Community University Institute for Social Research (CUISR). Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: University of Saskatchewan.
123
