IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v100y2023ics0149718923001192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why and how to use the quality of life as an evaluation criterion?

Author

Listed:
  • Potluka, Oto

Abstract

Within the EU policies, quality of life as a criterion has been rarely used in evaluations. The concept of quality of life is vague and multidimensional. The unclear and ambiguity of the definition of what is included in the concept of quality of life makes it challenging to compare different studies with each other. The multidimensionality with pre-defined criteria makes sense when comparing the quality of life internationally or among regions. In case of improvement in quality of life, also criteria of local stakeholders need to be taken into account. Most published papers on quality of life evaluations are from health studies. The reason for such dominance lies in the importance of health conditions for the perception of the quality of life. The concept is, though, exploited in many other disciplines with various meanings. Beyond health conditions, many other factors influence the quality of life, including economic, social, work, or psychological ones. Another challenge concerns measuring the quality of life from objective and subjective perspectives. Objective factors like investment in civil infrastructure could sometimes be perceived differently across the population. Health, psychological, and social circumstances also influence the perception of quality of life. Moreover, the application of the same subjective indicator at different time points provides different information even if the same respondents participate in data collection. We can answer only partially the two questions used in the name of this contribution on why and how to use the quality of life as an evaluation criterion. It is because of the subjectivity of the understanding of the concept and multidimensionality of measuring it according to the needs of a particular evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Potluka, Oto, 2023. "Why and how to use the quality of life as an evaluation criterion?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:100:y:2023:i:c:s0149718923001192
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718923001192
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102342?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles Seaford, 2013. "The Multiple Uses of Subjective Well-Being Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 29-43, October.
    2. Stephen Hicks & Lucy Tinkler & Paul Allin, 2013. "Measuring Subjective Well-Being and its Potential Role in Policy: Perspectives from the UK Office for National Statistics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 73-86, October.
    3. Xue Li & Xiaoqiang Cai & Jian Chen, 2022. "Quality and Private Label Encroachment Strategy," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(1), pages 374-390, January.
    4. Frey, Bruno S., 2017. "Research on Well-Being: Determinants, Effects, and its Relevance for Management," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 71(4), pages 358-367.
    5. Delahais, Thomas & Ottaviani, Fiona & Berthaud, Annabelle & Clot, Hélène, 2023. "Bridging the gap between wellbeing and evaluation: Lessons from IBEST, a French experience," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Linyu Li & Xiaoyu Luo, 2022. "Deep Quality-Constrained Lstm For Textual Data Analysis," FRACTALS (fractals), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 30(10), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Christian Kroll & Jan Delhey, 2013. "A Happy Nation? Opportunities and Challenges of Using Subjective Indicators in Policymaking," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 13-28, October.
    8. Havrda, Marek & Klocek, Adam, 2023. "Well-being impact assessment of artificial intelligence – A search for causality and proposal for an open platform for well-being impact assessment of AI systems," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Xingtang Wang & Leonard F. S. Wang, 2022. "Indirect taxation, quality choice, and social welfare," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 1764-1772, September.
    10. Francová, Olga & Korhonen, Kari & Kovačević, Dušan, 2023. "Quality of life: A way to buttress crisis program evaluations?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Gibogwe, Vincent & Nigo, Ayine R.S. & Kufuor, Karen, 2022. "Institutional Quality and Economic Growth in Tanzania," MPRA Paper 115486, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 28 Nov 2022.
    12. Potluka, Oto & Švecová, Lenka & Kubát, Viktor & Liskova-Nedbalova, Veronika & Nečas, Tomáš & Lhotská, Lenka & Hejdová, Kristýna, 2023. "Evaluation of eHealth assistance in-hospital care for improved quality of life in patients," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Pak, Tae-Young, 2020. "Social protection for happiness? The impact of social pension reform on subjective well-being of the Korean elderly," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 349-366.
    3. Tong, Yang & Xiao, Tiaojun, 2024. "National or third-party manufacturer? Sourcing strategy of a dominant platform: Signaling game's perspective," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    4. O'Donnell, Gus & Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "National well-being policy and a weighted approach to human feelings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 59-70.
    5. Olivier E. Malay, 2021. "How to Articulate Beyond GDP and Businesses’ Social and Environmental Indicators?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 1-25, May.
    6. Mohamed A. Eltarkawe & Shelly L. Miller, 2018. "The Impact of Industrial Odors on the Subjective Well-Being of Communities in Colorado," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-24, May.
    7. Frederich Kirsten & Ilse Botha & Mduduzi Biyase & Marinda Pretorius, 2023. "Determinants of Subjective Social Status in South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 1-24, August.
    8. Mohsen Joshanloo & Dan Weijers, 2019. "A two-dimensional conceptual framework for understanding mental well-being," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Wu, Huamin & Li, Guo & Zheng, Hong & Zhang, Xuefeng, 2022. "Contingent channel strategies for combating brand spillover in a co-opetitive supply chain," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    10. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2019. "Sigma-Mu efficiency analysis: A methodology for evaluating units through composite indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 942-960.
    11. Junyi Chai, 2021. "Measuring happiness under interpersonal comparison: An advanced theoretical framework and implications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-19, December.
    12. Lucy Tinkler, 2015. "The Office For National Statistics Experience Of Collecting And Measuring Subjective Well-Being," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 16(3), pages 373-396, September.
    13. Li, Yongjian & Chu, Mingsen & Bai, Xuanming, 2024. "To fight or not? product introduction and channel selection in the presence of a platform’s private label," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    14. Hui Li & Ting Gong & Hanyu Xiao, 2016. "The Perception of Anti-corruption Efficacy in China: An Empirical Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 885-903, February.
    15. Olivier Malay, 2017. "Beyond GDP indicators: A tension between powerful stakeholders and transformative potential?," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2017018, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    16. Ngamaba, Kayonda Hubert & Armitage, Christopher & Panagioti, Maria & Hodkinson, Alexander, 2020. "How closely related are financial satisfaction and subjective well-being? Systematic review and meta-analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    17. Abigail Self, 2017. "Quality of Life Measurement and Application to Policy: Experiences from the UK Office for National Statistics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 147-160, January.
    18. Olivier E. Malay, 2020. "How to articulate beyond GDP and businesses’ social and environmental indicators?," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2020014, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    19. Andrea Salustri & Federica Viganò, 2017. "A multistakeholder analysis of BES data: a focus on health in South Tyrol," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS39, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    20. Gong, Canran & Ignatius, Joshua & Song, Huaming & Chai, Junwu & Day, Steven James, 2024. "The Impact of Platform’s Information Sharing on Manufacturer Encroachment and Selling Format Decision," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 317(1), pages 141-155.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:100:y:2023:i:c:s0149718923001192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.