IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v118y2014i1p87-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Satisfied Residents in Different Types of Local Areas: Measuring What’s Most Important

Author

Listed:
  • Rod McCrea
  • Tung-Kai Shyy
  • Robert Stimson

Abstract

In efforts to enhance subjective urban quality of life (QOL), most empirical research focuses on measuring satisfaction. However, other research suggests most residents are satisfied with where they live because they choose local areas which satisfy them on attributes important to them, within the constraints they face. Thus residents choosing very different local areas tend to have similar satisfaction levels. Rather than focusing on residential satisfaction in local areas, it may be useful to focus on residential preferences to both characterize and improve subjective urban QOL in local areas. This study compares satisfaction and preference measures in four broad types of urban environment in South East Queensland, Australia. As expected, the results showed similar levels of satisfaction across these urban environments (spanning inner city, suburban, outer suburban, and coastal areas) with regard to three broad attributes (access to services and facilities, the natural environment, and the social environment). In contrast, the importance of these attributes for residents varied between these urban environments. Thus residential preferences may characterize subjective urban QOL in different urban environments better than residential satisfaction. Moreover, residential preferences provide additional guidance for maintaining and enhancing subjective urban quality of life in local areas. This paper argues for a renewed focus on importance measures in addition to the existing focus on satisfaction measures in subjective urban QOL research. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Rod McCrea & Tung-Kai Shyy & Robert Stimson, 2014. "Satisfied Residents in Different Types of Local Areas: Measuring What’s Most Important," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 87-101, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:118:y:2014:i:1:p:87-101
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-013-0406-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11205-013-0406-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11205-013-0406-8?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. M. Sirgy & Terri Cornwell, 2001. "Further Validation of the Sirgy et al.'s Measure of Community Quality of Life," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 125-143, November.
    2. M. Sirgy & Terri Cornwell, 2002. "How Neighborhood Features Affect Quality of Life," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 79-114, July.
    3. Lara Russell & Anita Hubley & Anita Palepu & Bruno Zumbo, 2006. "Does Weighting Capture What’s Important? Revisiting Subjective Importance Weighting with a Quality of Life Measure," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 141-167, January.
    4. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2004. "To Weight or not to Weight: The Role of Domain Importance in Quality of Life Measurement," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 163-174, September.
    5. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2003. "Counting Importance: The Case of Life Satisfaction and Relative Domain Importance," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 227-240, February.
    6. Arne Mastekaasa, 1984. "Multiplicative and additive models of job and life satisfaction," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 141-163, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mouratidis, Kostas & Yiannakou, Athena, 2022. "What makes cities livable? Determinants of neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood happiness in different contexts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    2. Ning (Chris) Chen & C. Michael Hall & Kangkang Yu & Cheng Qian, 2019. "Environmental Satisfaction, Residential Satisfaction, and Place Attachment: The Cases of Long-Term Residents in Rural and Urban Areas in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Fenglong Wang & Donggen Wang, 2020. "Changes in residential satisfaction after home relocation: A longitudinal study in Beijing, China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(3), pages 583-601, February.
    4. Mitra Ghafourian & Elham Hesari, 2018. "Evaluating the Model of Causal Relations Between Sense of Place and Residential Satisfaction in Iranian Public Housing (The Case of Mehr Housing in Pardis, Tehran)," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 695-721, September.
    5. Limei Liu & Zhe Liu & Yi Yang & Biao Shi & Xingbao Liu, 2023. "Evolutionary Game Analysis of Abandoned-Bike-Sharing Recycling: Impact of Recycling Subsidy Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-27, May.

    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. Chang-ming Hsieh & Qiguang Li, 2022. "Importance Weighting in the Domain-of-Life Approach to Subjective Well-Being: the Consideration of Age," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(2), pages 525-540, April.
    2. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2016. "Domain Importance in Subjective Well-Being Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 777-792, June.
    3. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2013. "Issues in Evaluating Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 681-693, January.
    4. Chang-ming Hsieh & Qiguang Li & Houchao Lyu, 2020. "A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 637-651, November.
    5. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2014. "Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater: Evaluation of Domain Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurements," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(1), pages 483-493, October.
    6. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2012. "Should We Give Up Domain Importance Weighting in QoL Measures?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 99-109, August.
    7. Chang-Ming Hsieh, 2012. "Importance is Not Unimportant: The Role of Importance Weighting in QOL Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 109(2), pages 267-278, November.
    8. Akinori Kitsuki & Shunsuke Managi, 2023. "Importance Weighting in Subjective Well-Being Measures: Using Marginal Utilities as Weights for Domain Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1101-1120, March.
    9. Chia-Huei Wu & Lung Chen & Ying-Mei Tsai, 2009. "Investigating Importance Weighting of Satisfaction Scores from a Formative Model with Partial Least Squares Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 351-363, February.
    10. Tsung-Chi Cheng & Chao-Yin Lin & Shu-Chen Wang, 2023. "Exploring factors related to agreement between importance and satisfaction of subjective well-being indicators: evidence from Taiwan," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2811-2839, June.
    11. Alison Woodcock & Laura Camfield & J. McGregor & Faith Martin, 2009. "Validation of the WeDQoL-Goals-Thailand Measure: Culture-Specific Individualised Quality of Life," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 135-171, October.
    12. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2019. "Importance of Health and Relative Importance of Satisfaction with One’s Own Health: A Case of Frail Immigrant Older Adults," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 81-93, May.
    13. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2018. "Importance Weighting in Client Satisfaction Measures: Lessons from the Life Satisfaction Literature," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 45-60, July.
    14. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2017. "Health, Quality of Homecare Services and Quality of Life: A Case of Frail Older Immigrant Adults," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 134(2), pages 711-723, November.
    15. Chia-Huei Wu, 2008. "Can We Weight Satisfaction Score with Importance Ranks Across Life Domains?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 469-480, May.
    16. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2022. "Are all Life Domains Created Equal? Domain Importance Weighting in Subjective Well-Being Research," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(3), pages 1909-1925, June.
    17. Chang-Ming Hsieh, 2008. "The Relative Importance of Health," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 127-137, May.
    18. Chia-Huei Wu & Grace Yao, 2007. "Examining the relationship between global and domain measures of quality of life by three factor structure models," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 189-202, November.
    19. M. Joseph Sirgy & Min Young Kim & Mohsen Joshanloo & Dong-Jin Lee & Michael Bosnjak, 2020. "The Relationship Between Domain Satisfaction and Domain Importance: The Moderating Role of Depression," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 2007-2030, August.
    20. Chia-Huei Wu & Cheng-Ta Yang & Li-Na Huang, 2014. "On the Predictive Effect of Multidimensional Importance-Weighted Quality of Life Scores on Overall Subjective Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 933-943, February.

    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:spr:soinre:v:118:y:2014:i:1:p:87-101. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.