EPA 600/5-73-012b
February 1974
                          Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series
   Studies  in  Environment  -

   Vol. II-  Quality  of  Life
I
55
V
                                          S3SZ
\
 111
 CD
                                    Office of Research and Development

                                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                    Washington, D.C. 20460


-------
                        RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES


Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series.  These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and appli-
cation of environmental technology.  Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum inter-
face in related fields.  The five series are:

    1.  Environmental Health Effects Research
    2.  Environmental Protection Technology
    3.  Ecological Research
    4.  Environmental Monitoring
    5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
series.  This series includes research on environmental management, compre-
hensive planning and forecasting and analysis methodologies.  Included are
tools for determining varying impacts of alternative policies, analyses of
environmental planning techniques at the regional, state and local levels,
and approaches to measuring environmental quality perceptions.  Such topics
as urban form, industrial mix, growth policies, control and organizational
structure are discussed in terms of optimal environmental performance.
These interdisciplinary studies and systems analyses are presented in forms
varying from quantitative relational analyses to management and policy-
oriented reports.
                          EPA REVIEW NOTICE

This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development,
EPA, and approved for publication.  Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                          EPA-600/5-73-012b
                          November 1973
        STUDIES IN ENVIRONMENT

                Volume II

             Quality of Life
                    by

          Kenneth E. Hornback
               Joel Guttman
         Harold L. Himmelstein
              Ann Rappaport
                Roy Reyna
             Grant No. 801473
         Program Element 1HA098

             Project Officers

              Samuel Ratick
                John Gerba
     Environmental Studies Division
 Washington  Environmental Research Center
               Prepared for
  Office of  Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Washington, D.C.  20460
  tot sale by the Superintendent of Document*, U.S. GoTemment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20403

-------
                          ABSTRACT

This report investigates the concept of the Quality of Life
(QOL) and presents a developmental methodology for constructing
a measurement scheme to assess the QOL.  Introductory sections
give a brief synopsis of the research that has been done in
this area to date including various guidelines and rationale
used in attempting to develop a meaningful social indicator
for the QOL, and the current state-of-the-art and the research
concerning attempts to adequately define and assess Quality of
Life.

An operational definition of a QOL index and discussion of
terminology is next presented.  Lastly the introductory
material lists those areas of concern which were not included
as part of the overall strategy in developing and analyzing
the proposed measurement scheme.

Thereafter the report discusses the functional relationship
between objective and subjective conditions used as a theo-
retical framework to measure QOL and develop a Quality of
Life Index.  A rationale for the statistical treatment em-
ployed for the various parameters is set forth stressing the
importance of the relationship between what actually exists
and group perception of it.

QOL factors are presented encompassing Economic, Social,
Political, Health, Physical and Natural Environmental Sectors.
Each of these factor lists is divided into subfactors and
encompasses such things as income distribution, family,
electoral participation, nutrition, housing, and air.  Ob-
jective measures, where they exist, are given for each sub-
factor, although they are merely examples and by no means
an exhaustive listing.

The report closes with a discussion of analytical dimensions
of a Quality of Life Index  (QOLI) and the potential uses and
misuses of such an Index.
                               ii

-------
                      CONTENTS
                                                     Page
Abstract                                               ii
Contents                                               iii
Figures                                                irv
Acknowledgments                                        v
Sections
I      Introduction                                    1
II     Social Indicators and the QOL: State-of-the-Art 7
III    Research on the QOL                             12
IV     QOL: An Operational Definition                  15
V      The Functional Relationship                     21
VI     Quality of Life Factors                         29
VII    Analytical Dimensions                           67
VIII   Policy Implications                             81
IX     Appendices                                      92
                         111

-------
                       FIGURES
No.                                                 Page
 1   Comparison of QOL Factor List                   32
 2   Quality of Life Factors                         34
                            iv

-------
                    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

      for Environmental Protection Agency:
           Samuel Ratick, Physical Scientist,  ESD,  Fellows Counselor
           John Gerba, Chief, Special Projects,  ESD,  Report Production
      for Homer Hoyt Institute:
           Maury Seldin, President
      for National Bureau of Standards:
           Lynn G. Llewellyn, Research Psychologist,  TAD
 HOMER HOOT INSTITUTE

      John Kbkus, Jr., Deputy Director

      John Hammaker, Research Director

      Ira Bechoefer, Sr. Research & Administrative Assistant



NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

      Marilyn Westfall, Operations Research Analyst,  TAD

      Gail Hare, Research Psychologist, TAD

      Donald Gorrigan, Legislative Research Analyst,  TAD



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

      Stanley M. Greenfield, Assistant Administrator for Research and
         Development
      Leland Attaway, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research
      Peter House, Director, Environmental Studies Division
      Robert Livingston, Research Analyst, ESD
      Alan Neuschatz, Chief, Environmental Management Research Branch,
         ESD
      Philip D. Patterson, Assistant to the Director, ESD
      Albert Pines, Operations Research Analyst, ESD
      Martin Redding, Chief, Comprehensive Environmental Planning Branch,

-------
                           SECTION I
                          INTRODUCTION
  I.A The Problem
     At no other time in American history has the average
person had the advantage of such a vast range of alternative
activities both in work and play.  Moreover, there is ample
free time and wealth to allow the majority of people the
opportunity to realize their individual goals.  However,
segments of the American populace expresses general restless-
ness and discontentment.  The problem is explicitly stated
by Campbell and Converse:  "Discontentment with objective
conditions has appeared to be increasing over exactly the
same period that those conditions have at most points and by
almost all criteria been improving, a discrepancy with
portentous social and political implications."1  Writers of
the popular press diagnose various aspects of the problem as
"future shock"2 or retarded "consciousness levels."3
     Daniel Bell has offered an explanation for dissatisfac-
tion with improved objective conditions.

    "It is this aspect of social change which gives rise
    to a rather curious discrepancy of social perception.
    The national output will double, or individuals will
    find that their own incomes have doubled over a
    period of time, yet there will be complaints that
    people are not living twice as well as before.  The
    entry of more and more disadvantaged persons into
    the society as claimants for goods and privileges,
    clearly changes the nature of privileges and
    services themselves."4

The dissatisfaction stems from different reactions to condi-
tions and the multiplicity of objective and subjective
methods by which pepple evaluate their conditions.  Ambiguity
over standards and conditions is a concomitant to quickly
achieving a high energy, complex, and competitive technologi-
cal society.  After years of vying for achievements, the
American public has begun to question the relative value of
what they have achieved.
     The paradox is that the growth in the material wealth
traditionally associated with a high Quality of Life  (QOL)
may5 not have brought an improvement in a QOL which considers
other factors also. Even this subset of QOL which is
materially oriented may not reflect an increase because
levels of expectations have risen faster than material
improvements.  Traditional public management strategies of
dealing with the logistical problems of material welfare are
fading as the general level of living improves and physical
needs evolve into more complex preferences, expectations,
and aesthetic as well as social values.  Old notions of
material standards for physical needs are being replaced by
new material and non-material standards for sociological

-------
needs such as:   (1) material goods which are safe, durable,
and easy to maintain;  (2)  safe, public association with
other human beings;  (3) accessible open spaces for play or
contemplation;  (4) trustworthy information media;  (5) time
to be sick, idle, or creative.
     Growing recognition of this national condition is
prompting wider  interest among government officials to
learn how to improve the assessment of public preferences
in order to elevate the quality of public administration,
decision making, and,  as a result, the quality of life.6
To date, there has been no sufficient definition of the QOL
or specifications of the conditions associated with it.  In
addition, there  are no standards for what the QOL should be,
and if there were, there would be no way to know if they
were adequate standards for all Americans.
     The omnibus task  of defining and measuring the Quality
of Life is an attempt  to formulate a comprehensive method-
ology to validly assess these types of questions and
problems.

I.B  The Objectives


     As an initial step in resolving the above problems, the
Environmental Protection Agency Summer Fellows Program
charged a Quality of Life  team with the task of determining
a measurement scheme to assess the QOL.  First, a few
necessary, preliminary mandates which could act as guide-
lines for determining  the  QOL definition and measurement
scheme were established.   It was determined that any factors
associated with  the QOL concept must meet the following
requirements:

     1.  Apply to all  Americans.

     2.  Specify points about which there is general con-
sensus among the population  (factors must have face validity) .

     3.  Focus on areas in which individuals have an active
personal interest.   (This  stipulation was intended to exclude
the difficulties which might be associated with identifying
a national priority with an individual priority.)

     4.  Focus on areas in which there are known or conceiv-
able strategies  of social  organization (societal management)
which can influence the factor.  (This stipulation was
intended to exclude the problem of identifying personal
priorities of individuals  and reidentifying them as matters
related to the QOL for all persons.)

     5.  Focus on areas for which there are measureable
objective and subjective features.

     6.  Reflect differences among people under widely
ranging conditions.

-------
     7.  Be sensitive to changing social and physical
conditions.

     8.  Be open to criticism  (must not totally be defini-
tional) and proof or disproof according to recognized
performance criteria.

     As will be shown in Section -Ji,  the QOL measurement
problem is one which uniquely addresses itself to both
objective and subjective sources of data7 in contrast to
economic or demographic indicators which are more limited
in scope.8  Not only are we concerned with assessing a
condition, but also with collecting a full range of indi-
vidual evaluations of the various states of that condition
by all persons subject to the condition.  Because of this
stipulation, point 5 was incorporated into the guidelines.
     When the concept of QOL is combined with the notion of
quantification or measurement, a source of vast criticism
and nearly total skepticism is introduced.  Bertram M. Gross
captures the disbelief associated with measuring a vague and
ill-defined phenomenon:

    The difficulty here, whether we have reference to a
    community, a nation, or the world itself, is not the
    absence of any common interests.  It is rather the
    profusion of common interests, a profusion so rich
    that it can never be expressed without serious
    distortion, in a single formula.9

This report is an attempt to penetrate this apparent barrier.
In consideration of the limitations suggested by Gross,
points 6, 7, and 8 were included in the list.

 I.£ The Methodology

     In working toward a solution for the problem of devel-
oping a measurement of the QOL the following points were
examined in detail:

     1.  Review of the literature which specializes in social
indicators and research focusing more specifically on the
concept of QOL itself (Sections n and III) .

     2.  Definition of the QOL in relation to point one (1)
above (Section IV).

     3.  Identification of an indexing tool or formula for
measuring the QOL (Section V) .

     4.  Identification and discussion of the factors
involved in the QOL, their objective and subjective measure-
ment (Section VI).

-------
     5.  Discussion of the analysis of QOL data which would
be generated by the use of the measurement device defined in
point three (3) above  (Section VII) .

     6.  Suggestions of policy implications and the utility
of information generated  (Section VTII).

Each one of these points  is presented as a subsequent chapter
of this report.

-------
                  FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES
1.  Angus Campbell and Philip E. Converse, The Human Meaning
of Social Change  (New York:  Russell Sage Foundation, 1972),
p. 9.

2.  Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (New York:  Bantam Books,
1971).

3.  Charles Reich, The Greening of America (New York:  Bantam
Books, 1971).

4.  Daniel Bell, "The Adequacy of Our Concepts," in A Great
Society, ed. by Bertram M. Gross (New York:  Basic Books,
1966), p. 144.

5.  Unfortunately we have no comparative data to judge this.

6.  Daniel Bell, "The Idea of a Social Report," The- Public
Interest, #15 (Spring, 1969), pp.  72-84.  Bell identifies an
unresolved problem which may be associated with this new
sensitivity.  He depicts government in the role of an umpire
who mediates between the interests of its most verbal citi-
zens.  It is not totally a one-way process, however, because
of the possibility that government can exercise discretion
in determining "which interests to allow to become inputs,"
and even to seek those interests out.  These problems are
covered in Peter J. Heuroit, "Political Questions About
Social Indicators," The Western Political Quarterly, Vol.
XXII, No. 2, June, 1970, pp. 235-255.

7.  The idea of incorporating the subjective or normative
element is not original, though comparatively new.

       Ross Stanger, "Perceptions, Aspirations, Frus-
    trations, and Satisfactions:  An Approach to Urban
    Indicators," Annals of the American Association of
    Political and~Social Science,  vol. 388 (March,
    1970) pp. 59-68.

       U.S. Department of Health,  Education, and
    Welfare, Toward A Social Report, Washington, D.C.:
    Government Printing Office, 1969.

       Daniel Bell, "The Idea of a Social Report," The
    Public Interest, #15  (Spring,  1969), pp. 72-84.

       Also Chapter one in Campbell and Converse, The
    Human Meaning of Social Change.

-------
8.  See Bertram M. Gross, The State of the Nation;  Social
Systems Accounting  (London!Tavistok, 1966).Gross dis-
cusses the problems of the "... new Philistinism—an
approach to life based on the principle of -using monetary
units as the common denominator of all that is important
in human life."  p. 19.

9.  Bertram M. Gross, The Managing of Organizations  (New
York:  The Free Press, 1964), p. 525.
                         6

-------
                      SECTION II
        SOCIAL INDICATORS AND THE QOL:  STATE-OF-THE-ART
     Until the mid-1950's, the major sources of "hard" data
to guide decision makers were economic indicators such as
the Consumer Price Index and the Gross National Product, and
Census data comprising of standard demographic information
about the characteristics and distribution of the American
people.  Anticipation of the need for a new kind of infor-
mation can probably be traced to the impact of Sputnik—the
first orbiting space satellite launched by the U.S.S.R. in
1958.  Although the most visible reaction was the scramble
to surpass the Soviets in missile technology, a secondary
effect occurred.  Margaret Mead, commissioned to determine
the reaction of the American people to the launching, set
about determining "social indicators," a task which has
progressed slowly in comparison with the dramatic advances
in science and technology.1
     By 1966, some formal statements about the need for
social indicators became available.  Daniel Bell acted as
spokesman for the "new" kind of information:

    What we need, in effect, is a system of Social
    Accounts which would broaden our concept of costs
    and benefits, and put economic accounting into a
    broader framework (to) move toward measurement of
    the utilization of human resources in our social
    information areas:  (1) the measurement of social
    costs and net returns of innovations; (2) the
    measurement of social ills . . .; (3) the creation
    of 'performance budgets' in areas of defined social
    needs . . .; and (4)  indicators of economic oppor-
    tunity and social mobility.2

     In the same year Bertram Gross published a discussion
on social "systems accounting"3 with aid from the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.  NASA also sponsored
the work of Raymond Bauer,* which attempts to judge the
impact of the space program on the American society.
     In 1968 Sheldon and Moore edited Indicators of Social
Change;  Concepts and Measurements.5  As a textbook on the
status of economic and sociological research it furnished
decision makers with a series of scholarly analytical and
theoretical discussions on the demographic, structural,
distributive, and aggregative features of American society.
The violence of the 1960's argued strongly against an
accounting system patterned after the economic and demo-
graphic models alone.  Opposition soon began to be voiced,
most visibly in the widely circulated Health, Education, and
Welfare document, Toward a Social Report;

    If the Nation is to be able to do better social
    reporting in the future it will need a wide variety

-------
    of information that is not available now.  It will
    need not only statistics on different groups of
    Americans.  It will need more data on the aged, on
    youth, and on women, as well as on ethnic minori-
    ties.  It will need information not only on objec-
    tive conditions, but also on how different groups
    of Americans perceive the conditions in which they
    find themselves.6

     Later in 1969, Otis Dudley Duncan published "Toward
Social Reporting:  Next Steps,"7 which clarified for the
social science professional community the problem which was
suggested by the HEW document.  Duncan carefully cited the
research objectives which are required if decision makers
are to be provided with accurate and reliable information
about the state of the social system.  In his argument for
higher quality replicative studies, Duncan proposed more
rigorous procedural steps, greater data exchange among
researchers, more attention to calibration, and cohort
analysis as key areas of needed improvement.  Duncan sug-
gests fourteen areas of immediate interest including studies
of occupational change, environmental pollution, victimiza-
tion by criminal acts, educational opportunities, mental
health, and value changes.
     The Human Meaning of Social Change,8 by Campbell and
Converse, updates Sheldon and Moore and articulates an area
which seemed to have been left out earlier—the social
psychology of the nation:

    "Whereas the parent volume  (Sheldon and Moore) was
    concerned with various kinds of hard data, typically
    sociostructural, this book is devoted chiefly to so
    called softer data of a more social-psychological
    sort:  the attitudes, expectations, aspirations, and
    values of the American population.n9

Campbell and Converse treat many important areas not earlier
discussed under the topic, of social indicators:  time use,
measures of "community,11 the meaning of work, alienation,
satisfaction, etc.
     This recent history of the growing interest in social
indicators suggests several trends:  (1) there is a growing
interest in methodological rigor and a desire to compare and
validate various research strategies; (2) there is increasing
emphasis on the development of standardized time series data
and the expansion of Federal statistical activities; (3)
there is growing emphasis on the collection and analysis of
subjective data and the expansion of traditional areas of
data collection; and (4) the emergence of a clearer picture
of what subjective data will be important, i.e., information
on occupational status, time budgets, mental health, politi-
cal participation, etc.10  As yet, however, there has been
no merger of these developments into one theoretical or


                        8

-------
methodological strategy.  The objective of developing a QOL
definition and measurement strategy would logically be this
kind of task and would draw upon the developments mentioned
above.  The following chapter will review the QOL research
which has been done and examine the extent to which it has
developed theoretical perspectives or methodologies which
synthesize these developments.

-------
                  FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES


1.  Margaret Mead, et al., "Man in Space:  A Tool and Pro-
gram for the Study o? Social Change," Annals of the New York
Academy of Science, vol.  72, no. 4  (April 10, 1958), pp.
165-214.

2.  Daniel Bell, "The Adequacy of Our Concepts," in A Great
Society?, ed. by Bertram  M. Gross  (New York:  Basic Books,
1966), p. 152.

3.  Bertram M. Gross, The State of the Nation;  Social
Systems Accounting  (London:Tavistok, 1966).

4.  Raymond A. Bauer, Social Indicators  (Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 1966).

5.  Eleanor B. Sheldon and Wibert E. Moore, Indicators of
Social Change;  Concepts  and Measurements  (New York:
Russell Sage Foundation,  1968).

6.  U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Toward a Social Report, Washington, D.C.:  Government
Printing Office, 1969, p. xiv.

7.  Otis Dudley Ducan, "Toward Social Reporting:  Next
Steps," Social Science Frontiers  (New York:  Russell Sage
Foundation, 1969).

8.  Angus Campbell and Philip E. Converse, The Human Meaning
of Social Change  (New York:  Russell Sage Foundation, 1972).

9.  Campbell and Converse, The Human Meaning of Social
Change, p. 5.

10.  For reviews of this  history see:

       John Lear, "Where  Is Society Going?  The Search
    for Landmarks," Saturday Review, April 15, 1972,
    pp. 34-39.

       Bertram M. Gross and Michael Springer, "A New
    Orientation in American Government," Annals of the
    American Association  of Political and Social
    Science, vol. 371  (May, 1967.), pp. 1-19.

       Daniel Bell, "The  Idea of a Social Report," The
    Public Interest, #15  (Spring, 1969), pp. 72-84.

       A. D. Duncan, "Discrimination Against Negroes,"
    Annals of the American Association of Political and
    Social Science, vol.  371  (May, 1967), pp. 96 ff.
                         10

-------
   H. J. Dyos, "Some Historical Reflections on the
Quality of Urban Life," in The Quality of Urban
Life, ed. by Henry J. Schmandt and Warner Bloomberg,
Jr.  (Beverly Hills, California:  Sage Publications,
1969).
                     11

-------
                           SECTION III
                       RESEARCH  ON THE QOL


     Research which  focuses  specifically on  the QOL may be
dichotomized into  the  categories  of basic and applied
research.  Basic research generally includes the work of
university related researchers, some non-profit research
institutions, and  a  few commercial organizations.  Applied
efforts are those  which for  the most part have been per-
formed by commercial research organizations  or agencies of
government whose primary interest is other than basic
research.  This report reviews  eleven pieces of QOL research,
four of which fall under the "basic research" category and
seven which fall under the "applied research" category.  The
work being referenced  is abstracted in Appendix A and will
only be discussed  generally  in  the body of this chapter.
     The most conspicuous shortcoming of QOL research in
general is its failure to develop a clear definition for the
QOL concept.  The  most systematic attention  given to the
definitional problem is provided  by Triplettl in a discussion
of hedonic quality as  it relates  to price indices.  He
suggests that the  concept of quality may mean the attributes
of a thing, the essence of a thing, or the ranking of things.
Adapting this summary  of definitions, the QOL may be defined
variously as:  the attributes of  life or the composition of
things or events characteristic of a group;  the essence of
life styles, the basic nature,  or spiritual  nature of a life
style which makes  it distinguishable from another life style;
or the ranking of  life styles according to a further defined
standard.  None of these definitions has been used consis-
tently by QOL research.
     Authors' discussions of the  QOL more frequently ignore
the definitional problem altogether by simply listing the
things they mean to  include  in  the concept.  Few have paid
attention, unfortunately,  to the  lists other scholars have
developed for there  is limited  consensus as  to content and
little cross-referencing.  (Comparisons of these lists may
be made by turning to  Table  6.1,  Section 6.0.)
     Where specific  QOL definitions have been generated they
often suffer from  other logical problems.  Dalkey and Rourke2
suggest that the QOL is "a persons sense of  well being, his
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with life, or his happiness
or unhappiness."3  Such a definition may serve other purposes
but as a definition  of the QOL  it poses an unresolvable
problem:  the projection of  individual psychological welfare
as the model for the collectivity.  Elsewhere Dalkey makes a
distinction between  "armchair11  analysis and  public surveys.4
The major example  offered for "armchair" approaches is the
Report of the President's Commission on National Goals and
Values (I960)-5  The goals and  values identified by this
report include individual status,  racial equality, state and
local government,  education,  economic growth and quality,
technological change,  agriculture, living conditions, and


                         12

-------
health and welfare.  Although these areas are of uncontested
importance, they hardly represent uni-dimensional factors
which can be accepted as relevant to the QOL without further
explanation.  The use of desirable political objectives as a
QOL definition is erroneous in the opposite sense of Dalkey's
psychological reductionism—it suggests that what is good for
the country is good for the individual.
     The difficulty associated with the dependence on politi-
cally oriented goals suggests a series of general criticisms
which were found to be characteristic of applied QOL
research:  (1) lack of a precise goal or conceptual domain
inherited from the contracting agency and, subsequently,
little initiative to work out problems not explicit in the
contractual relationship; (2)  the development of measurement
devices which are definitionally infallible; (3) the presen-
tation of data which is simplistic but not descriptive; (4)
the failure to establish evaluation criteria, interpretive
rationales, or specify confidence limitations.   Where great
promise is associated with a project, such as HEW's Neighbor-
hood Environmental Evaluation and Decision System (NEEDS)
Program (see Appendix A), there does not seem to be a well
funded agency interest in data analysis and validity assess-
ment—"results" are forwarded in more or less "raw" form.
     The alternative of turning to "basic research" sources
has not been exploited.  Consequently, basic research
endeavors are not numerous enough to justify general comment.
Such activities exist in pockets of academic interest which
will likely become more active in time.  Advanced research
on QOL is being carried out at the present time by the Ann
Arbor Institute for Survey Research work on "Monitoring the
Quality of American Life."  This program of research builds
upon earlier work of Perloff at UCLA and Dalkey at RAND.  A
portion of the Ann Arbor work is directed primarily toward
the development of valid measures and analytical strategies.
Exploratory survey research is also being carried out to
determine what elements are involved in the concept of QOL
as it is understood by the public.
     In terms of the trends characterizing social indicator
research, the Institute for Survey Research is developing
basic knowledge necessary to meet each of the emerging areas
of interest.  None of the research focusing on the QOL has
addressed itself systematically to the theoretical problem
of synthesizing a definition of the QOL or its components
from other available related work.  Moreover, few of these
endeavors have focused on both objective and subjective data
(excepting NEEDS) and, there are no schemes available which
show how this might be done.  The following two sections
represent an attempt to come to grips with the definitional
problem of the QOL and specify its scope limitations.
                        13

-------
                  FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES
1.  Jack E. Triplett, The Theory of Hedonic Quality Measure-
ment and Its Use in Price Indexes  (Washington, D.C.;U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1971).

2;  Norman C. Dalkey and Daniel L. Rourke, Experimental
Assessment of Delphi Procedures with Group Value Judgements,
Report 612-ARPA  (Santa Monica, California:RAND, 1971).

3.  Dalkey and Rourke, Assessment of Delphi Procedures, p. 8.

4.  N. C. Dalkey,  "Quality of Life," in The Quality of Life
Concept;  A Potential Tool for Decisionmakers, an anthology
of selected readings for the symposium sponsored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Studies Division, at Airlie House,
Warrenton, Va.,  on August 29, 30f and 31, 1972.

5.  John Oliver  Wilson, "Quality of Life in the United
States—An Excursion into the New Frontier of Socio-Economic
Indicators" MRI  Preprint  (Kansas City:  Midwest Research
Institute, 1969).
                         14

-------
                           SECTION  IV
                 QOL:   AN OPERATIONAL  DEFINITION

IV. A  Definitions

      The definition of the QOL should focus  on the  relation
 between the conditions of life and how those conditions  are
 experienced.

     "The QOL must be  in the eye of the beholder and it
     is only through an examination of the  experience of
     life as our  people perceive it that we will under-
     stand the human meaning of the great social and
     institutional changes which characterize our time."l

      The QOL is  defined as a function of the objective con-
 ditions and subjective attitudes involving a defined area
 of concern.  The key  terms underlined above  are defined  as
 follows:

 IV.A.I Defined Area


      Implicit in any  discussion of the  QOL is  the notion of
 some  area  to  which that QOL refers.   Specification  of that
 area  is  generally a political  or bureaucratic  decision.
 Representing  an  area  statistically by sampling techniques is
 a  scientific  problem  which will be of concern  to us in
 Chapter  VI  when  analytical problems and generalizations  from
 QOL data are  discussed.

 IV.A.2 Objective Conditions

      Objective conditions  are  defined as numerically measur-
 able  artifacts of a physical event (e.g. air pollution in
 parts per million of  sulfer dioxide),  sociological  event
 (divorce rates,  crime rates, number of  ethnic  minority
 persons, etc.),  or economic event  (local consumer price
 index, municipal budget, costs of  highway construction,
 etc.).   It  is defined by any number which  stands for a given
 quantity of a variable of  interest so long as  it is inde-
 pendent  of  subjective opinion  and  reliable (substantially
 the same number  results every  time the  event is measured).

 IV.A. 3 Subjective Attitudes

      Understanding the specific meaning of subjective atti-
 tude  requires a  more  complex and lengthy discussion to avoid
 the confusion which often  accompanies a concept used in  many
 diverse  contexts.   Subjective  attitude  may be  handled by
 eliminating several possible definitions which would, for
 reasons  which shall be discussed,  be  inappropriate  or
 unworkable  in combination  with the concept of  QOL.


                         15

-------
     Values/Goals/Desires Dimension.  Subjective attitude
may be defined as dealing with valued states, goals, or
desires.  The idea of valued states, goals, and desires, is
the focus of most popular conceptions of the QOL—high QOL
might be a pristine wilderness, a Buick, being rich, a
snowmobile in every garage, etc.  Not only is the list
lengthy and variable from person to person, it is fleeting.
The new Buick owner soon "needs" a Cadillac and becomes
"dissatisfied" with his Buick.  Each new threshhold achieved
is a basis for setting up new standards for needs and satis-
factions.  Values and goals are prone to paradoxes without
appearing inconsistent in the mind of the perceiver—people
want wilderness and isolation but also a store down the
block to buy soda and bandaids.  It is questionable if a
study of values, goals, or desires can ever indicate a state
of satisfaction or fail to produce results which simply
augment present trends and tastes.  These conceptual problems
alone are sufficient warning that the values/goals/desires
dimension is a difficult facet of subjective attitudes.
     Social Perceptions.  Subjective attitude should not be
confused with social perceptions.  Social perceptions may be
defined as the impression one has of an event of physical
condition in a context of meaning unique to the individual.

    Since an individual's perception is a function of
    his past history and his state at the moment he is
    viewing the stimulus, two individuals with different
    past experiences may look at the same  .  .  . stimulus,
     .  .  . receive the same image, have the same image
    transmitted to the brain and yet perceive that image
    differently-2

Experimental inquiry into  the nature of perception indicates
the considerable importance of  general past history on  the
percept, such that straightforward reports of perceptions
are not as informative of  extant conditions as might be
assumed.3  According to Schiff,  "It is erroneous to refer  to
a  series of beliefs about  environmental events not at the
moment present, and not personally experienced by the
respondent  ... as perception."4            t
     Attitudes.  An attitude may be distinguished from  per-
ception in that it is the  interpreted understanding of  the
stimulus itself.  It is not causally associated with a
specific object or the processes of perception at any single
moment but is an ongoing mental activity.  Thing* ^7?,r^
effects if people believe  them -to be  real  and  these beliefs
may  be products of many  internal and  external  influences.
Attitudes are products of  life long  experience with diverse
psychological and  sociological events.  Although events or
objects do not directly  cause certain  attitudes, repeated
experiences or events known  to an  individual result «
mental images and  systematic  beliefs  over  time.  An attitude
5 said Sgbe present when there is  a  Disposition  to  act in
a  certain way relative  to  the object of the  attitude.
                         16

-------
     Social psychologists define attitude as being composed
of the following dimensions:  (a) the affective dimension
which includes feelings of life or dislike, satisfaction,
indifference, or dissatisfaction; (b) the cognitive dimension
which includes judgments, beliefs and evaluations;  (c) the
behavioral dimension which is a complex function of the
affective and cognitive dimensions.  As these two conditions
are combined in a certain manner and achieve certain
salience threshholds, behavior becomes more consistent and
less random or arbitrary.  Very strong attitudes are associ-
ated more definitively with specific kinds of behavior.
There is a tendency to maintain a balance of affective and
cognitive dimensions such that they are congruent and
support each other  (this is closely related to the theory
of cognitive dissonance, an area of extensive social science
research).
     Attitudes may be inferred either from observed behaviors
(the more reliable basis for inference about our attitude) or
verbal disclosures over cognitive and affective components
(the more practicable basis for inference about an attitude).
Attitudes can be assessed from verbal disclosures in regard
to both direction (polarity or affect) and magnitude
(strength, degree or favorability of disclosure).  The
measurement of magnitude is believed to correspond increas-
ingly to specific behaviors, i.e., a low magnitude of atti-
tude (affect) would be only randomly associated with behavior
     Subjective attitude, as defined here, is primarily con-
cerned with the affective and cognitive dimensions.  It is
specifically concerned with how these aspects of cognition
vary as the objective conditions vary.  The terms utilized
in this discussion and the focus of much recent research can
be characterized as follows:

 OBJECTIVE  ^	 . 	v SUBJECTIVE ^	 „ 	v BEHAVIOR
 CONDITIONS ^     "   '  ATTITUDE  ^            '
                             •!
                     TYPE OF POPULATION
                    (AGE GROUPS, ETHNIC AND
                       CLASS GROUPS)

The QOL definition developed in this report depends on an
elaboration of the "A" relationship.5  The "A" relationship
corresponds to the key term "function" in the QOL definition
and will be the focus of Section V.  Later in Section   v*
which discusses analytical dimensions of the QOL, attention
will be given to the "B" relationship and how "A" and "B"
are meaningfully interrelated.  Since little work has been
done as yet with the relationship indicated by "C", it will
not be discussed in this report.
                       17

-------
IV.B Rules of Scope


     The previous discussion defines QOL in detail so as to
leave as little ambiguity as possible.  Before an attempt is
made to describe how the QOL is numerically determined, it
is necessary to briefly treat objectives which remain despite
the care exercised in generating the definition.  Many argu-
ments may be martialled to claim that the present definition
is narrow or invalid.  The rules of scope were established
at the beginning of the QOL Team's activity which acted as
constraints  (as well as funnels) channeling the research in
certain directions.  The present definitions and following
chapters should be evaluated within the boundaries of what
has been attempted and what has been avoided.  The following
points set forth the guidelines used by the researchers in
this report:

     1.  The problem was not approached from the perspective
that a more equitable distribution of income necessarily
leads to a higher QOL.  Rather the team was concerned with
those differences in quality of life which are found to be
associated with income differentials and the facet of
welfare orientations which concern itself with equality of
opportunity structure insofar as such inequalities act to
depress the possible QOL for some Americans.

     2.  The subjective intra-psychological elements of the
QOL (e.g., fear, aggression, ambition, competition, love,
etc.) , were not included in the definition.  Although these
categories are interesting and undoubtedly relevant, it
cannot be anticipated that meaningful empirical referents
for these phenomena will be developed in a manner relevant
to the public policy needs for which this work is intended
to be utilized.

     3.  Political or bureaucratic problems associated with
the idea of social accounting or government intrusion into
the private sector will not be discussed.6

     4.  Although the pace of contemporary social change is
so great that the argument may be made that it is impossible
to define the QOL in a meaningful way, the validity of this
argument cannot be determined.

     5.  Research in the area of "human development and
character formation" indicates'that a very large element of
the QOL can be developed through improved environmental
characteristics and childhood rearing practices.  Certain
expectation patterns and values passed on in childhood may
facilitate or thwart the ease and degree of contentment with
which individuals pass through life.  However, this area is
beyond the immediate interest of this report.
                        18

-------
     6.  Armchair conceptualizations will not be considered
systematically.  Such an endeavor would require a massive
inventory and critique of Utopian literature from Plato to
Buckminster Fuller.  At the same time aesthetic preferences
and the area of philosophical issues inherent in this con-
cept of QOL were avoided.  There is a rather large body of
literature on social values, their meaning and assessment,
which is recognized as being of intrinsic interest but
immeasurable in any determined way for the purposes of this
study.

     7.  Areas which fall outside of the operational defini-
tion for the QOL will not be considered/ such as:

       a.  Aspects involved in subjective attitude dis-
    closure but which are not readily apparent from
    survey data; for example, background experience and
    differential perception.

       b.  Factors which cannot be operationalized in
    the form of a subjective questionnaire format and
    an objective statistic of sufficiently rigorous and
    dependable a form as to be reliable and valid.
                           19

-------
                  FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES


1.  Angus Campbell and Philip E. Converse, The Human Meaning
of Social Change  (New York:  Russell Sage Foundation, 1972),
p. 2.

2.  Myra Schiff,  "The Definition of Perceptions and Atti-
tudes," in Perceptions and Attitudes in Resources Management,
ed. by W. R. Derrick Sewell and Ian Burton, Research Paper
No. 2,  (Ottawa, Canada:  Policy Research and Coordination
Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1971),
p. 7.

3.  Marshall H. Segall, Donald T. Campbell and Melville J.
Herskovitz, The Infuence of Culture on Visual Perception
(IndianapolisiBobbs-Merrill, 1966).

4.  Schiff, Perceptions and Attitudes, p. 8.

5.  A helpful guide has been Maurice D. Van Arsdol and
Edward P. Radford, "Methods of Studying Social and Economic
Effects of Environmental Agents on Groups," Department of
Sociology and Anthropology, University of Southern Cali-
fornia, mimeograph provided by Beth Olsen, EPA Fellow.

6.  See the following for a discussion of these problems:

       O. D. Duncan, "Discrimination Against Negroes,"
    Annal of the  American Association of Political and
    Social Sciences, vol. 371  (May, 1967), pp. 96-97.

       Bertram M. Gross and Michael Springer, "A New
    Orientation in American Government," Annals of the
    American Association of Political and Social
    Sciences, vol. 371  (May, 1967), pp. 15-16.

       Bertram M. Gross, The State of the Nation;
    Social Systems Accounting  (London:Tavistok, 1966),
    pp. 138-141,  104.

       Peter J. Henriot, "Political Questions About
    Social Indicators," The Western Political Quarterly,
    vol. xxii, no. 2  (June, 1970), pp. 235-55.
                          20

-------
                             SECTION V
                   THE FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP1


     In keeping with the definition of life quality as a
composite of objective conditions in a selected area and
of the subjective attitude toward these conditions voiced
by individuals residing in that area, a formula for the
functional relationship between them is proposed which
combines quantitative measures of objective and subjective
variables in a potentially useful way.  To date no serious
attempts have been made to quantify QOL in a manner which
includes both objective and subjective variables and the
correlation between them.2  As a consequence, the crude
formula for this functional relationship presented here
can only be viewed as a guide for future research.  However,
it does introduce several interesting features and concepts
which have not previously been articulated.
     The proposed quantitification scheme is based on the
assignment of objective and subjective values to a series
of variables which are called QOL factors (e.g. income,
social participation, air quality, etc.).  These factors
(which are discussed in great detail in Section 6.0) have
been selected partly because they can be objectively
quantified in principle (though they have rarely been in
fact).  It is acknowledged that the list of factors which
is used is by no means unique or absolutely comprehensive.
However, it is felt that they at least provide a baseline
for measuring QOL.  The advantage of this quantification
scheme is that factors can be added to or subtracted from
the list without altering the methodology for computing a
QOL index, though the value of the index may change slightly.
     Assigning appropriate objective and subjective measures
to each QOL factor is necessarily a central task in which
little systematic research has been done.  Section 6.0
discusses what seem to be appropriate objective indicators
for each QOL factor  (for example, the air quality indicator
is a composite measure of air pollution characteristics).
In some instances the objective measure is appropriate to
a particular region  (as in the case of air quality), in
others it pertains directly to an individual (as in the
case of income).  Once objective measures have been obtained
for each factor, they are, in the proposed formulation,
transformed to a normal scale varying from one to ten in
which the volume of one corresponds to the lowest, or
least satisfactory measure (i.e. lowest QOL) and ten corresponds
to the highest.3  Clearly such a transformation requires that
appropriate upper and lower bounds be established for each
variable.  Though difficult, and subject to potential
criticism, this definition of boundaries is intrinsically
achievable in our opinion.  The transformation permits


                         21

-------
assignment of an objective measure, Oij, to each factor, j.
The measure is obtained for each individual, i, in the sample
population (P) .
     For each objective measure, a corresponding subjective
measure, Sij, must be developed and is obtained for each
individual, i, by asking him to rate his satisfaction with
the objective measure for each factor, j.  Again, a one to
ten scale is used such that one corresponds to the lowest
level of attitudinal satisfaction  (i.e., dissatisfaction,
dislike, unfavorability) and ten corresponds to the highest
possible level of satisfaction.  Obviously the anchoring
of this subjective scale is open to some question.  How, for
example, does one define -the greatest possible satisfaction
with one's working conditions, or with the availability of
wilderness areas?  A substantial amount of social research
is required to determine if the subjective scales can be
bounded in a meaningful way.
     An important point to emphasize is that the objective
and subjective scales, because they measure different things,
are not equivalent.  In other words, a particular value
on the objective scale is not equivalent to the same value
on the subjective scale.  Despite this fact, one would expect
the objective and subjective ratings for a given factor j to
be correlated across a selected population with P members.
Computing, for example, a Spearman correlation coefficient,
"r", for the jth factor:
                       P
          rj  =  1  -  Z (Oij  -  Sij)2
                      i =1
It is expected that rj would be near one if the subjective
measures for the selected population have any relation to
the objective measures.  An rj near zero could result either
from lack of significant association between the objective
and subjective measures, or from the fact that the associa-
tion is more complex  (e.g. curvilinear) than the simple
correlation procedure can measure.  It may be that a more
sophisticated test of correlation between Oij and Sij is
needed.  Since the objective and subjective measure are
derived from completely independent sources, the correlation
coefficient serves as an indication of the validity of the
measurements for the jth factor, and thus of the acceptability
of including that factor in a QOL index.  It is anticipated
that there will be considerable association between some
factors and very little among others.  At present no data
exist to test this assumption and no clear theoretical
perspectives suggest what associations can be expected.  As
data accumulate, it would be possible to delineate what
associations exist and how to measure them, and hence to state
specifically which factors should enter the QOL functional
relationship.
                            22

-------
     There is one more input to the quantification procedure
which must be discussed, the weight, Wij, which the ith
individual attaches to each factor, j.  In addition to
obtaining a subjective satisfaction level, three additional
methods, discussed in Section 6.0 are recommended for deter-
mining factor importance weights.^  Results from these
independent determinations are first to be averaged and then
ranked ordinally.5
     To recapitulate, four specific inputs to our functional
relationship for the quality of life are proposed for each
QOL factor (j); and each individual in the sample population
(i):

     (1)  Oij - The objective measure of the factor for
                each individual, normalized to a 1-10
                scale.
     (2)  Sij - The subjective, or satisfaction measure
                of the same factor for the same individual,
                also normalized to a 1-10 scale.
     (3)  rj  - The correlation between Oij and Sij for
                the entire population.
     (4)  Wij - The importance weighting which the indi-
                vidual attaches to the particular factor,
                relative to all other factors, on a rank
                order scale.

     The next step is to combine these factors into a reasonable
expression for the factor index, Fj, which describes the state
of that factor and its importance.
     It is necessary to carefully identify the population to
be assessed for QOL.  This population could be the whole sample
population or some subset of it.  In collecting data from
individuals, information is also collected on ten standard
population characteristics  (age, sex, race, income bracket,
geographic location, etc.).  These data permit an ordering
of the objective and subjective measures for all factors
in a matrix against population characteristics, and hence
an evaluation of the QOL for a variety of different populations.
(This approach will be discussed more fully in Section 7.0.)
For the moment, consider a particular region and the P members
of the population in that region.  Two averages may be computed
for that population base:

                       P
            =1   I   Wij Sij
                   P   i=l


                  t    p       )        r     p       }
          <0j>  =  1   Z   Wij I   X     1_  I   Oij I
                   P   1=1   JJ        IP  1=1
                            23

-------
In computing the average subjective measure for the population,
each individual's subjective rating is weighted with his Wij
for that factor.  On the other hand, when computing the average
objective measure a slightly different approach is adopted.
Because the objective measure is intrinsically less closely
coupled to the weight each individual attaches to it, it is
appropriate to compute the average objective measure for the
population and multiply that with the average weight which
the population attaches to the jth factor.6
     Next, these averages are combined and multiplied with
the correlation parameter to obtain the factor index for the
jth QOL factor:

          Fj  =  rj  X
The parameters aj and $j are included in this expression to
indicate that the average objective and subjective measure
may not be of equal importance.  For example, in the case of
the health factor, the objective measures are likely to be
considered most important; whereas for income, the subjective
measure may well be the most significant.  Because there is
no well defined way to evaluate the emphasis parameters, otj
and 3j, it may be most reasonable to set both equal to one
and perform a simple average of objective and subjective
measures.  This means that:

          Fj  =  1   rj  X   <0j>  +  


     There are two especially significant features of this
expression for the factor index:

        Both objective and subjective measures are included
        in a weighted fashion
        The combination of these measures is weighted with a
        correlation parameter which describes the association
        between these two measures.

     When the correlation parameter is zero, indicating no
significant relation between the objective and subjective
measures for a particular factor, the Fj = 0, which is the
desired result.  The simple functional way in which rj is
incorporated into the expression for Fj is, of course,
arbitrary, but it does at least provide the desired result.
The maximum value which Fj can assume, given the normalized
scales we have used for measures and weights, is ten.
                              24

-------
     An overall index for the quality of life can be generated
by computing the mean of all M factors;

                       M
          QOLI  =  1   Z      F-j
                   M   j = 1

It is not necessary to weight the factors again in this sum
because weights have already been included in the computation
of the factor indices.  Use of the mean of factor indices
seems more appropriate than just summing them because it
constrains the final index to a 1 - 10 scale and avoids
introducing major shifts in the total index if specific factors
are added or dropped from consideration.
     As an initial estimate of the QOL based on objective and
subjective measurements the index generating formula given
above is a promising point of departure.  It has the advantage
of varying toward zero if there exists no covariation between
the two measures of the same underlying factor, thus avoiding
the problem of an index generating numbers regardless of the
underlying characteristics of what is being measured.  It has
the advantage of weighting the satisfactions by rank order
of priorities and the objective condition by the average rank
order given by persons residing in the community under study.
     Under no circumstances should this formula be regarded as
providing a perfect or immutable index of the QOL.  It yields
only a reasonable strategy by which research thinking can
move to the next series of questions about the QOL,  once data
are available to show how the formula can be better expressed.
The formula has several potential drawbacks including the
likelihood that satisfaction and importance weighting are
measures of the same thing.
     Another potential difficulty is the strategy for deter-
mining :  is it to be done by comparing factors collectively
or individually; and will weights be determined by the assess-
ment of scale points across items with limited budgets which
form comparisons,  or with open scales such that the respondent
can weight everything highly?  Obviously much of the margin of
error can be a part of the operational strategy for determining
either subjective or objective measures.
     Finally, the political usage of the QOL Index should be
questioned.  Obviously it is not reasonable to govern people
based on their satisfactions with levels of air quality which
will kill them.  With the matter of qir quality the judgment
is comparatively simple, but what about job satisfaction?  Can
people or the government determine the relative weights which
might be attributed to these areas which this formula?  The
matter may in the end become a political problem again—and
there may be no escape for the decision maker from assuming
the responsibilities inherent in this game.
                          25

-------
     The formula developed above has a distinct advantage in
that it alerts the user to the important question without
offering a cloaked answer—e.g., one which seems determinate
and a "good" answer for policy purposes but which is invalid
as a reflection of actual conditions and public sentiment.
The important question is not what is a numerical analogue
to the QOL but what is the relationship between objective
measures of a condition and people's assessment of those
conditions.
                         26

-------
                  FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES
1.  We would like to acknowledge the technical assistance of
Dr. Robert W. Shaw, Jr., Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc.,
Bethesda, Md.  Dr. Shaw assisted in the technical writing
and presentation of the QOL formula and description.

2.  The only other QOL index which has come to our attention
is J. Alan Wagar's quality of living index:

   Z production-Z losses   services/time   experiences/time
u ~       population         population       population

Wagar's point is that current emphasis on material produc-
tion will shift to services which will shift to the quality
of experiences all of which atrophy with growth.
     "Growth Versus the Quality of Life," Science, Vol. 168
(June, 1970), pp. 1179-1184.

3.  This linear transformation is equivalent to that dis-
cussed in the Battelle Report (1972).

4.  Several strategies exist to determine weights including
an interesting "amenity trade off" game in which "partici-
pants are asked to allocate a certain sum of money to
improve various amenities in their neighborhoods and to
write these preferences against their evaluation of existing
conditions," reported by Timothy O'Riordan, "Public Opinion
and Environmental Quality," Environment and Behavior, June,
1971, pp. 191-214.

5.  There are some indications that importance and satisfac-
tion ratings may measure the same thing and, hence, that the
information contained in Sij and Wij may be redundant.  This
possibility was pointed out by Dr. Frank Andrews, Program
Director of the social indicator section of the Urban and
Regional Studies Division of the Institute of Survey Research,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.  Analysis of data collected by Dr.
Andrews' group as part of a study on life satisfaction casts
some doubt on the ability to distinguish satisfaction and
importance, though the results are not yet conclusive.  For
the present, the concept of importance weighting shall be
retained.

6.  It should be noted that there is no theoretical base to
justify the distinction between the subjective and objective
averages.  The choice is purely arbitrary, and is based
primarily on intuition about the relation between the weights
and the measures.  If subsequent research indicates the
necessity, the procedure should be changed.


                        27

-------
7.  For example, where and when is air pollution measured?
It makes a great deal of difference on the subjective
measure since the individual is defined as the psycho-
physiological arbiter of these objective conditions.
                         28

-------
                            SECTION VI
                      QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS
VI.A  Introduc tion
      The essence of this section is to discuss the merits
 of a suggested list of quality of life (QOL)  factors for
 use as a guide in developing representative indicators.
 Generating a workable list of indicators is a primary step
 toward the eventual measurement of QOL.
      Though the thesis of the QOL argument is that valid QOL
 measurement requires the use of both objective and subjective
 indicators,  only the former are given  in the text of this
 section.  A discussion of an approach toward obtaining a
 representative list of subjective indicators, including
 examples,  will be found as Appendix B of this report.

  VLB  Definition of Terms

      The following terms are used in this discussion in a
 restricted or special sense:^

      A parameter is a characteristic of the system being
 analyzed.   In developing an acceptable QOL index,  para-
 meters must be found which can be measured efficiently
 and are characterizations of important states of the
 system.
      A factor is an attribute or characteristic of society
 or of the environment which affects at least some people's
 quality of life.  A factor is thus a parameter of a special
 kind:  one which directly affects the QOL, but need not
 itself be directly quantifiable.  Some factors may not be
 measurable,  but are included in this discussion irrespective
 of their current suceptability to measurement.  A factor-list
 is a conceptual, rather than an operational tool of analysis;
 it should aim at comprehensiveness, so that more restricted
 operational lists are clearly seen only as approximations of
 the QOL.
      An indicator is a parameter which has a high correlation
 to an important condition which is less easily measurable.
 Indicators are operational, not conceputal tools.   An indicator
 need not causally affect the QOL, as must a factor,  but it
 must be a number of some kind:  expressed in percent, parts
 per million, dollars, or some other unit.  Further methodo-
 logical requirements for indicators will be cited later in
 this discussion.
      An index, like an indicator, is a number whose value
 tells us a measure of the relative magnitude of some condi-
 tion.  Unlike an indicator, however, an index need not
 directly measure a factor.  Indexes may be combinations of
 indicators designed to simplify the measurement of a factor:
 e.g., an air quality index combines several indicators,  so
 that the concentration of several kinds of particles are
 summarized in one number.
                           29

-------
     A sector  is a class  of  factors which are felt to have
some important aspects  in common.  Sectors are ways of
grouping  factors to  simplify discussion.  This report con-
siders six  such sectors:   Economic Environment, Social
Sector, Physical Environment, Political Environment, Natural
Environment, and Health.

     In discussing the  causal relationships between parameters,
the words "input" and "output" are used in a special sense.  An
input of  a  factor is a  parameter that causes the value of that
factor to vary.   (For example, occupational dangers are inputs
to work satisfaction.)  An output of a factor is a parameter,
usually an  indicator, which  is affected by that factor.   (For
example,  labor turnover is an output of, among other parameters,
work satisfaction.)  Sub-factors include such inputs and
outputs of  factors:  a  sub-factor is a parameter which is an
element of  a factor.  Sub-factors are useful in clarifying the
meaning of  factors and  in eliminating overlaps between them.
     To summarize:   Factors  and indicators are two sets of
parameters, the first directly affecting some people's QOL, and
the second  measuring the  factors.  Some words, such as "income",
represent both a factor and  an indicator, since they are
parameters  which can be said to measure themselves.  Indexes
are numbers which may either directly measure factors (such
indexes are in fact  indicators), or may combine indicators
into multi-dimensional  aggregative numbers.  To clarify the
meaning of  factors,  sub-factors were identified which include
both inputs and outputs of that factor.  Sectors, on the other
hand, are larger sets of  factors chosen to simplify the
discussion  of  the QOL.

VI.A.2 Factors:  Work by  Others

     While  any parameter  that affects the QOL is a factor,
further criteria are clearly needed in order to isolate a
list of factors to construct a QOL index.  Three such criteria
for a QOL factor-list are used here:  value-dimensionality,
comprehensiveness, and  commonality.
     Value-dimensionality means that two levels of a given
factor must correspond  to different levels of desirability
for a large group of individuals.  This would exclude a
factor such as "securities portfolios", because one portfolio
cannot arbitrarily be considered better than the next.  One
can look at the total wealth a person holds, (on the assump-
tion that more wealth is  better), but the way in which a
person allocates his wealth  corresponds to his/her own
preference  structure.   Only  factors for which "more is better"
or "less is better"  or  some  level is in principle optimal can
be included in a QOL factor-list.
     Comprehensiveness  means that, all things being equal, a
QOL factor-list that covers  all areas of the QOL is better

                        30

-------
than one which does not.  This criterion may seem obvious, but
seems to have been ignored by several previous studies.
     Commonality means that a level of a QOL factor must apply
to many individuals at once.  Purely personal factors such
as "ambition" do not meet the test of commonality.  A QOL
factor-list based on non-communal factors, as will be
demonstrated later in this discussion, has little or no
policy usefulness.
     There remains considerable room for disagreement over
what is a superior factor-list.  Table  1  presents lists of
factors of 10 authors and demonstrates the fact that one
person's factor-list is bound to be different from that of
another.2
     One way in which the studies can be differentiated is by
the degree to which they equate QOL with a number of purely
subjective personal characteristics (one extreme), and with a
number of objective indices (the other extreme).  The first
pole is represented by Dalkey and Rourke^ who present a set
of "QOL factors" including peace of mind, novelty, privacy,
egoism and love.  One might say that these are the products,
rather than the factors, of the QOL.  They are not directly
controllable by policy-makers, but rather are to some extent
the results of their actions through a complicated and unknown
series of causal links.  Since these links are so poorly
understood, the usefulness of a QOL index defined the way
Dalkey and Rourke suggest is severely limited.  The opposite
extreme is represented by Flax^ who presents thirteen quality
"categories", and attaches to each an objective social indi-
cator.  Examples of his categories are unemployment, housing,
health, transportation and "community concern".   Flax
"measures" the latter category by citing per capita contribu-
tions to the United Fund.  Flax's study, despite some real
merits in other respects, suffers from a lack of comprehensive-
ness.  Not only is there no attempt to "weight"  the categories
against each other, but.there is the possibility that whole
areas of measurable and controllable QOL categories have been
missed.
     A second dimension spanned by our compilation of factor-
lists is that between comprehensive sets of factors and/or
indicators, and factor-lists seeking only to describe a
limited group of QOL aspects,  such as "environmental quality".
The list of the San Diego Environmental Development Agency
(EDA)5 for example, is part of research on the environment,
in a fairly narrow sense of the term.  As the San Diego authors
point out, ° the environment surrounds and "acts upon" com-
munities and organisms, whereas quality of life involves
social, economic, and cultural factors not covered by their
study.  At the other extreme, the list of factors devised by
the Community and Environment Assessment Committee  (CEAC) in
Raleigh, North Carolina,7 is comprehensive, but redundant
and internally contradictory.


                         31

-------
                                                                                               TABLE  1
                                                                         COMPARISON   OF  QOL  FACTOR  LISTS1
                       FlflLOf f 11MH
                                                                                                     •{PORT OF TMI miTt HOUH
                                                              M*T w uwiw
                       MTI.IIOMHU OTMCN nun*
                                                                                                                                                               •AttftQUAU"
fvmmt-   i. rat tt 1
                                 HI HHUOCYJ «*») AM WOT MCUXWD
                                                     •
                                                      a ow"  TM«V n*vt M
                                                                                                              33
                                                                                                                                                                                            II-291

-------
      Other  studies,  some  of which are  only  secondarily QOL
 analyses, should also be  cited.  Wilson^ presents  a  set  of
 nine  areas  of  concern to  the  Commission on  National  Goals.
 The areas include individual  equality, education,  agriculture,
 living conditions, and  economic  growth.  The White House
 Conference  on  Youth  and Individualism^ presents a  similar
 list, whose areas are only vaguely defined  and are merely a
 confirmation of  the  present areas of government expenditures.
 The latter  fault is  shared by the categorization of  government
 expenditures given by Moss in Sheldon  and Moore.10  Since a
 QOL index is meant to be  a measure of  the effectiveness  of
 of government  activities, a list of QOL factors that merely
 reflects the range of those activities would accomplish
 little more than justify  the  status quo.  Gross and  Springer,H
 in a  general discussion of the need for better social statistics,
 make  some worthwhile suggestions of ways to measure  progress
 in such areas  as civil  liberties and electoral participation.
 Their list,  however, was  not  meant to be, and is not, a
 comprehensive  set of QOL  factors.  The Office of Management
 and the Budgetl2 also presents a list  of indicators  which
 is similarly overly  narrow.   Perloffl^ suggests a  "framework
 for evaluating policy measures for the environment"  which,
 perhaps, comes closest  to an  ideal list of  QOL factors.14
 His six large  categories  (e.g.,  the natural environment, the
 spatial environment, household shelter, workplaces)  are  sub-
 divided into a number of  specific "elements in the environment",
 the quality of which can  be objectively evaluated.

VI.A.3 Factors:   Study  Methodology

      The method  used for  generating QOL sectors, factors and
 sub-factors for  this study was both inductive and  deductive.
 First, each team member listed the factors  he or she believed
 should be part of any QOL index. Second, factors  were grouped
 into  larger sectors, each uniting a number  of factors into a
 logical and non-redundant rubric.  Third, on the basis of a
 reading of  the QOL literature, new factors  were generated
 under each  of  the sector  headings.15   Fourth, each of the
 factors were broken  down  into sub-factors in an attempt  to
 clarify the meaning  of  each factor, and to  detect  redundancies
 between factors.  Such  redundancies are undesirable  because
 in the final QOL index  they would cause double-accounting.
 If all of the  sub-factors of  one factor were also  listed under
 the heading of another  factor, the former factor was eliminated.
 In cases of partial  redundancy,  factors were re-defined  to
 eliminate such overlaps.  Finally, another  search  was made of
 the relevant literature to further refine the list of factors.
 The final factor set is shown in Table 2    under six major
 headings.
                          35

-------
                         TABLE  2

                  QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS*
        Major Factors
                               Objective Indicators  (Examples)**
1.  Economic Environment;

    Income


    Income Pistribution


    Economic Security


    Work Satisfaction
                                -Per capita disposable income
                                -Median family income

                                -Gini coefficient of income
                                distribution

                                -Income support
                                -Wealth measures

                                -Accident, productivity, and
                                turnover rates
2.  Social Sector:

    Family


    Community

    Social Stability


    Physical Security

    Culture


    Recreation
                               -Marriage and.divorce rates
                               -Illegitimate births

                               -Social Responsibility Scale

                               -Upward social mobility
                               -Social disorder incident rates

                               -Violent crime rates

                               -Human effort directed toward
                                the arts

                               -Persons participating in outdoor
                                recreation and average days per
                                person
                             for determining subjective factors
"Examples of the methodology
 is given in Appendix B.

**This is not intended to be an exhaustive  listing.
                         36

-------
                     TABLE  2  (Continued)

                    QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS
          Major Factors
Objective Indicators (Examples)
3.  Political Environment:

    Electoral Participation


    Non-Eleetoral Participation


    Government Responsibility



    Civil Liberties


    Informed Constituency
-Per cent of registrants
 voting

-Bloomberg & Rosenstock's
 "Action Score"

-Budget allocations
-Per capita distribution
 of funds

-Rights Commission
-Citizen review board

-Content analysis of mass
 media
4.  Health:

    Physical
    Mental
    Nourishment
-Infant mortality rate
-Physicians/capita
-Health care facility
 utilization

-Persons in mental hospitals/
 population
-Per cent of patients "cured"

-Per capita consumption of
 food types
-Nutrients consumed per day
 per capita
                        37

-------
                     TABLE > 2   (Continued)

                    QUALITY OF  LIFE  FACTORS
          Major Factors
Objective Indicators (Examples)
5.  Physical Environments

    Housing



    Transportation
    Public Services
    Material Quality
    (both goods & services)
    Aesthetics
-Per cent deteriorated houses
-Per cent lacking plumbing
-Per cent overcrowded

-Family costs
-Per cent budget allocated
 to construction and main-
 tenance

-Cost of gas and electricity
-Frequency and coverage of
 services

-Product life
-Automobile recalls
-Cost and frequency of repairs

-Litter; Billboards
-Trees preserved and planted
6.  Natural Environment:

    Air Quality



    Water Quality


    Radiation


    Toxicity


    Solid Wastes



    Noise
-People exposed to sub-standard
 conditions
-Concentration of CO, N02r SO2

-BOD; Coliform count
-Turbidity; Temperature; pH

-Amount of radioactivity in
 water, soil, people

-Lead concentrations
-Cases of lead poisoning

-Pounds/capita
-Amount recycled
-Frequency of collection

-Community Noise Reference
 Scale (under development)
                             38

-------
  VI. B. 1 Economic Sector


VI.B.1.1   Introduction

       The economic environment may be defined as those aspects
  of the QOL that deal with the magnitude,  continuity,  and distri-
  bution of people's incomes,  and with the  welfare (or  "ill-fare")
  generated in the process of  attaining those incomes.   The
  following factors have been  identified as being part  of the
  economic environment:

                       Income
                       Income  distribution
                       Economic security
                       Work satisfaction.

  This section will define and justify the  choice of each of
  these factors,  and will discuss the means of measuring the
  factors with objective indicators.

 VI. B. 1.2  Income

       The most important factor in the economic environment
  sector is a broadly defined  per capita "income" factor.  The
  justification for including  this factor is that the welfare
  of nearly all individuals depends on the  existence of material
  goods.  If an individual decides to forego a certain  amount of
  consumption by investing some of his/her  income, it is pre-
  sumably because the investment will yield a greater amount
  of income in the future.  The relevant factor,  then,  is income,
  and not wealth or capital.  It is recognized,  however, that
  a  national income figure, no matter how carefully modified,
  will never be the same as welfare per se  and certainly not
  the same as the QOL.16

       Objective Indicators.  The Department of Commerce
  regularly publishes very complete data on the money income
  of individuals in the United States.  Two indicators  are of
  prime importance for this factor:  (1) per capita disposable
  income,  adjusted for changes in the consumer price index;
  and (2)  median family income.17  Disposable income is the
  income left over after taxes, and, for the purpose of this
  study, is therefore more appropriate than gross income,
  because we are interested in the money the individual has
  available for private goods.  Median family income would be
  more appropriate if the unit of analysis  were the family,
  rather than the individual.   It must be borne in mind that
  such a choice would be biased against large families, and
  therefore presumably against the poor.

VI.B.1.3   Income Distribution

       Income distribution is included  in the factor list because
  it is assumed that many people see a certain amount of equity
                           39

-------
 as being good of itself.   This assumption is supported by
 the long history of proposals to reform the distribution of
 incomer  all based on grounds of equity, and all receiving
 support from significant groups of people.  A simple and
 convenient way to express the amount of inequity is by
 plotting a Lorenz curve.^  In Figure   2, each percentage of
 the population is paired with a certain percentage of
 aggregate income (defined above).  The horizontal axis is
 ranked from the poorest to the richest.  In this case,  the
 bottom 45 percent of the population receives 19 percent of
 aggregate income.  The 45-degree line represents complete
 equality.  Therefore, the area between the two curves,
 divided by the area below the diagonal, gives the "Lorenz
 coefficient of inequality".19  What coefficient is optimal
 is, of course, a value judgment that can be determined by
 surveying the public.  It is evident, however, that the
 utility function of equity would be peaked:  i.e., beyond
 a certain point, most people would find an added increment
 of equity undesirable.  This may make it difficult to fit
 this factor onto a bipolar scale, in which the minimum
 number is considered "worst" and the maximum number "best".

      Objective Indicators.  Income distribution essentially
 involves the same data as the "income" factor, and therefore
 is limited in its present "measurability" to about the same
 degree.   The Bureau of the Census provides sufficient data
 to derive a Lorenz curve based on money income.20  The
 difficulties with such data are:  (1) Time income and time
 costs are not covered (although one could perform Sametz's
 kind of estimation using data on differing work-weeks).
 (2) The data should be adjusted for cross-sectional varia-
 tions in the cost of living, but such data is only partly
 available.  (3) Cross-sectional differences in social costs
 are similarly not covered.  Nevertheless, the existing
 indicators are sufficiently complete and easy to combine
 such that the income distribution factor can be approximated
 by the Census Bureau data.

VI.B.I.4  Economic Security

      Economic security is defined as the security the individual
 has against sudden loss of his or her regular source of money
 income.  This security may come in a number of forms; for the
 purpose of this study it seems sufficient to recognize two
 main forms:  personal wealth and income support.
      The justification for economic security being a factor
 is that most people seem to desire it.  This is evidenced
 by the age-old tendency to hoard wealth, by the existence
 of insurance companies, and by legislation designed to
 provide such security.  If everyone's private income were
 sufficient to provide economic security it would be arguable
 that the factor is superfluous, since it would appear to be


                           40

-------
 covered by the "income"  factor.   Since,  however,  many people
 depend on publicly provided income support,  the factor seems
 to be conceptually distinct from "income"  per se.

      Objective Indicators.   Two  sub-factors  were  recommended
 above as ways of "getting at"  economic security*   The first,
 data on income Support,  can be estimated by  Commerce  Depart-
 ment data21 as well as  the  records of  Congress showing how
 much the Federal government has  allocated  to income support.
 The amount of publicly  provided  income support is broken down
 by data in the HEW publication,  We1fare  in Review.22
      Data on personal wealth was compiled  for 1962 by the
 Internal Revenue Service for those with  wealth exceeding
 $60,000.23  This data is relevant to economic security because
 the wealthy are generally not  eligible for government income
 support.  It is not clear,  however,  how  this data should be
 combined with average receipts of income support  to arrive
 at a single index of economic  security.

VI.B.I.5  Work Satisfaction

      Work satisfaction  is defined as the value of the amenities,
 minus the value of the  disamenities, associated with  an indivi-
 dual's job.  Different  authors have presented differing lists
 of sub-factors for work satisfaction;  Kahn24 is representative
 with his list:  occupation  status, supervision, peer  relation-
 ships, job content, wages and  other extrinsic rewards, promotion,
 and physical conditions.  "Wages" is omitted from our list
 because it clearly would overlap with the  "income" factor.
 Otherwise, the list provides a good approximation of  what  is
 meant by the term, "work satisfaction".
      Work satisfaction  is included as  a factor because a good
 part of most adults' day is spent at a job,  so that the amenities
 and disamenities of the.job have a considerable effect on  their
 quality of life.  Evidence  for this contention can be found by
 studying differences in wages  offered by firms of the same
 industry.  Ceteris paribus, these wage differentials  may be
 taken to be offsetting  incentives for  workers to choose one
 firm over another.

      Objective Indicators.   This factor is hard to measure in
 objective terms"All that  is  available are  surrogate measures,
 the validity of which are open to serious  question.   One "input"
 to work satisfaction is exposure to work hazards, which in turn
 is measurable to some extent by  accident rates available from
 BLS.25  But it is only  one  input, and therefore is suspect as a
 surrogate variable.  It can be argued that job effectiveness
 (productivity) and labor turnover rates are  "outputs" of work
 satisfaction, the first varying  directly as  work satisfaction
 increases; the second varying  inversely.  One suspects, however,
 that both are functions of  other variables as well,  and there-
 fore, are not very reliable as indicators  of this factor.   For
 what they are worth, both are  available from BLS.26


                             41

-------
VLB.2  Social Sector


VLB. 2.1  Introduction

       A major consideration in the development rationale for
  the treatment of the social sector is that of stability—
  both in an individual, and in a societal sense.  Such stability,
  or lack there of, may be considered the general end-result of
  the integrative ability of various social units (from the indi-
  vidual, to the nuclear family unit, the secondary interest
  group, and finally to the polity).
       Below are listed those factors considered to best encompass
  the broad scope of the social environment as defined by this
  research:

       1.  Family
       2.  Community
       3.  Social Stability
       4.  Physical Security
       5.  Culture
       6.  Recreation


VLB. 2.2  Family

       The family, according to Sussman is "still a viable social
  system11.27  For a long time socialization has been one of the
  main activities of the family system.  The family develops,
  through its kinship network, roles and identities that separate
  it from other families.  Family units in general are constantly
  involved in maintaining their integrity as viable social units.
       The persistent pattern of the American family has been
  organization into nuclear units who "voluntarily choose to
  participate within a kin network, based on exchange and
  reciprocity, which is composed of other nuclear units living
  in separate households".28
       The basic structure of the family unit is undergoing some
  dramatic changes in certain instances.  Sussman talks about
  "dual-career" families and notes that not only is the role of
  the nuclear family changing due to this type of family structure,
  but that another type of family unit is evolving and becoming
  more prevalent in society.  The "anti-Traditional" nuclear
  family structure, resembling the classic extended family in
  eighteenth-century America, is becoming increasingly attractive
  to young Americans, and will, according to Sussman, have a
  tremendous "impact upon the traditional nuclear family1 s role
  structure, social and physical space needs, socialization
  patterns, value systems, and ideology"-29
       Threatened by disintegrative social forces, such as increased
  job mobility, and necessity of moving the family from place to
  place, family units are constantly involved in trying to maintain


                            42

-------
  their integrity as  viable  social  units.   Toffler has  suggested
  the possibility that dramatic  changes  in  human reproductive
  "technology" will lead to  a  total restructuring of  the  family
  life cycle.30

       Objective  Indicators.   There are  statistical data  avail-
  able which indicate roughly  certain changes  in the  family
  life cycle.  Glick  examined  the change, over time,  in these
  stages of  the family life  cycle:   first marriage, birth of
  last child, marriage of last child, death of one spouse,
  death of the other  spouse.31  These figures  elucidate the
  changes in amounts  of time devoted to  certain family  functions
  (e.g.  child raising,  time  spent alone  together before and
  after raising children).
       Also  important in the analysis of the family are marriage
  and divorce rates,  percent of  divorces with  children  involved,
  percent of married  women with  husbands absent, and  percent of
  live births illegitimate.  Some combination  of this data would
  give us an indication of the relative  stability of  a  community,
  neighborhood, or the nation.   It  would also  prove valuable to
  find any correlations that might  exist between life-cycle
  change and change in nuclear family structure on one  hand,
  and family instability on  the  other.

VI.B.2.3  Community

       Cantril described his classic study  on  human concerns
  as an attempt "to uncover  the  limits and  boundaries to
  aspirations set by  internalized social norms, by all  the
  group identifications that people learn in their particular
  social milieu and that serve as subjective standards  for
  satisfaction or frustration"-32
       That  Americans have certain  general  fears and  aspirations
  at any point in time is accepted. These  fears and  aspirations
  are related to  certain societal norms, among them that  of the
  need to "belong and be accepted".
       Rossi has  made an exhaustive study of community  social
  integration and talks at length about  perception of locality
  as a collectivity,  affective involvement  in  residential locality,
  and interest and involvement in local  events (the existence
  of locally-based and oriented  voluntary groups).33  Among these
  groups are professional associations and  unions  (which  provide
  an organized collectivity  for  purposes of work protection and
  assurance  of professional  integrity);  religious associations
  (enabling  concerted expression of mutual  religious  beliefs);
  and restricted  purpose "leisure"  activity associations
  (e.g. country- clubs and other  leisure  groups).  The types
  of groups  to which  one belongs will, in many cases, indicate
  the type of community or neighborhood  structure and its
  varying pressures for conformity  to generally accepted  norms.
                            43

-------
       Ob] ective Indicators.   Perhaps  the most germane measurement
 of community stability and  individual participation in the
 life  of the community is the Social  Responsibility Scale of
 Berkowitz and Lutterman.34   Tnis  scale attempts  to assess a
 person's traditional social responsibility,  and  orientation
 toward helping others even  when there is nothing to be
 gained from them.


VLB.2.4  Social Stability

       The area of social stability, as researched, has been
 approached  primarily from the aspect of community solidarity.
 Specifically, what are the  major  divisive points among the
 community's citizenry, and  at what point is  the  possibility
 of community "cleavage" eminent?
       According to Rossi, community differences can be classi-
 fied  as socio-economic, ethnic, racial, religious, life-cycle
 related, and time-of-arrival into community  related.35  The
 differences can be accentuated by various types  of group
 interaction.  For example,  "social distance" can be modified
 by the extent to which individuals admit various ethnic
 groups into varying degrees of intimacy (through such avenues
 as marriage and community assimilation).
       Another important aspect of  community difference involves
 the strength of agreement or disagreement on various community
 issues (with commitment to  norms  as  a strong influence on that
 agreement), and the possible polarization that may occur as
 a result of strong disagreement and  high commitment to issues.

       Objective Indicators.   Perhaps  the most sensible way to
 approach measurement of the social stability factor in this
 research is some combination of data into a  social disorder
 incidence rate (inclusion in the  measure could be based on
 such  disorders as community riots, reported  group confronta-
 tions per year, number of strikes per year,  etc. Each of
 those conflicts could be weighted as to its  severity relative
 to other social conflicts measured and an aggregate statistic
 arrived at).  The measure would admittedly be a  crude one in
 the beginning, but increased knowledge of social interaction
 based on the rationale behind the measure could  lead to the
 measure's ultimate improvement.

VLB.2.5  Physical Security

       Concern with physical  security  (or public safety) most
 often centers around occurrence of violent crimes.  Violent
 crimes are  defined in official statistics as murder, forcible
 rape,  aggravated assaults,  and robbery.  Also connected with
 violent crime are crimes against  property.
       A sophisticated delineation  of  physical security has
 been  urged  by Reiss.  In an article  entitled "Monitoring the
 Quality of  Criminal Justice Systems", he states:
                         44

-------
        To measure the quality of life in a community
     or society is no simple matter since what is at
     stake are human values, human judgements, and
     subjective perception of social reality.  More-
     over, indicators of the quality of systems may
     refer to rather distinct levels of the system.
     First,  there is the quality of the institutional
     order ....  Second, there is the quality of
     any organized service, for example the qualitative
     response of the police to citizen calls for
     service.  Third, there is the quality of the
     behavior of [public] servants within any system,
     for example, whether judges dispense justice.
     And finally, there is the quality of the behavior
     or responses to those who are served.  The level
     of violence or of hostility to policing in a
     population is an illustration.36

      Objective Indicators. Basic data on violent crime include
 the type of crime(as defined above), and number (in thousands)
 of crimes actually committed, rate per 100,000 populations,
 and crimes reported to police.37
      Although such data as these give us a good estimate of
 the pervasiveness of different serious crimes, they are subject
 to reporting deficiencies of differing magnitudes in different
 communities (especially in suburbs and among white collar
 workers).  This tends to make the available measures suspect
 when attempting to compare metropolitan areas or communities
 within those areas.

VLB.2. 6  Culture


      For many people, the arts constitute a fundamental
 contribution to the quality of life, as evidenced by increased
 attendance at museums, audience size at live performances,
 sales of classical and modern music recordings, and expanded
 study of the arts.  Art cannot be defined un-iquely-  Perhaps
 the highest level of concern with the arts is expressed at
 the institutional level called the "fine arts", including the
 performing arts, writing, poetry, painting,  sculpture, and
 music.  There are no fine lines between fine arts and applied
 or popular arts.

      Objective Indicators.  Alvin Toffler38 believes that a
 measurement of the high level of quality of culture should
 exhibit a high expenditure of both money and time, especially
 time.  Such a high level of expenditure  would suggest a high
 level of commitment to culture.
                          45

-------
       Perhaps the only reasonable measure available today is
  one of the amount of Tiumatt effort directed toward the arts.
  These data are available in the form:  ~~~~	

       •  Number of Artists by Field (number for the
          occupational group reported by the Census
          of Population).39

  Categories include actors, artists or art teachers, authors,
  dancer or dancing teacher, musician or music teacher, and
  other artist types.
      ^Expansion of the number of artists somewhat represents
  the judgment as to the capacity to promote the arts.  In
  addition to supporting the artists, the art forms must be
  promoted by institutions and media, such as building and
  renovating museums and concert halls, and presentation of
  artistic products in lectures, reproductions, and gallery
  showings.

 VI.B.2.7  Recreation

       As defined by this research, recreation encompasses those
  physical activities other than participation in "the arts'*,
  work activities, or passive expenditure of time on such acti-
  vities as sleep, rumination, and spiritual renewal.
       Most commonly mentioned as physical activities in any
  measure of recreation are bicycling,  horseback riding, playing
  outdoor games or sports, fishing, canoeing, sailing, other
  boating, swimming, water skiing, camping, mountain climbing,
  hiking, walking for pleasure, bird watching, wildlife and
  bird photography, and nature walks.  These are forms of out-
  door activities.  Indoor activities such as bowling, various
  indoor forms of essentially outdoor sports such as pool,
  billiards, or ping pong, and other recreational forms should
  also be included in any such definition.

       Objective Indicators.  There are certain considerations
  that should be taken into account in any valid measure of
  recreation.  These include:

       1.  The number of persons having access to varieties
           of recreational facilities.
       2.  The number of persons actually using these
           facilities, and
       3.  The number of different groups of persons having
           access to and using the facilities.

 VLB.3  Political Sector

VI.B.3.1   Introduction

       Governmental structures are established in the United States
  in both formal and informal arrangements for the resolution of


                           46

-------
 conflict and distribution of resources.   The political system,
 of which these structures are a part, is attuned to the
 discovery of the presence and relative importance of various
 societal issues.  Such discovery,  according to Heliner, is a
 clue to the degree of dissatisfaction felt by Americans with
 the present conditions in their country.40  The dissatisfaction,
 in turn, is the guiding force behind aspirations for societal
 improvement.
      The Quality of Life group has,  as one of its major objec-
 tives,  attempted to discover methods of determining levels of
 satisfaction with existing societal  conditions.  In this
 sense one plays the role of societal evaluator, a responsibility
 incumbent upon politicians and government administrators.
      An examination of political systems based on interpretation
 of people's quality of life as related to those systems must
 take into account these five significant factors:

      1.  Electoral participation
      2.  Non-Electoral participation
      3.  Government responsiveness to the public
      4.  Civil liberties protection
      5.  An informed constituency.

VLB.3.2  Electoral Participation

      It is assumed that, except under certain conditions, every
 American adult has the right to vote for the political candi-
 dates of his choice.  Scammon mentions many of the qualifying
 conditions under which a person residing in the United States
 cannot vote.41  Among those conditions are:   (a) citizenship
 requirements (approximately three million alien adults living
 in America are not allowed to vote); (b) registration laws;
 (c) residence requirements for registration;  (d) early closing
 of registration books;  (e) literacy test requirements; (f) civil
 disabilities (e.g. criminal records); and  (g) the difficulty
 of absentee balloting.  As restrictive as these voting require-
 ments are, the fact remains that a great majority of Americans
 are able to exercise that understood right of citizenship—the
 vote.
      A combination of both legal and extralegal exclusion of
 some people from the voting process, and potential voter
 apathy under certain circumstances would appear to be the
 logical rationale behind any measurement of electoral partici-
 pation.

      Objective Indicators.  In order to get a fine breakdown
 of the relative access of various ethnic, age cohort, and
 socio-economic groups to the electoral process, disaggregation
 should be performed on the community level, using off-year
 local elections as a basis for comparative evaluation between
 communities with similar demographic characteristics.


                          47

-------
      In order to rate a community as to the level of its
 electoral participation, it would be helpful to compare
 mean percent of registrants voting in cities of similar
 ethnic, age cohort, socio-economic status, and mobility
 configurations.  Alford and Lee have done this to a
 limited extent by using the percent of registrants voting
 by Social Structure and Political Structure as the basis
 for evaluating voting behavior.42

VLB. 3. 3  Non-Electoral Participation

      Not all people feel that the only say they have in
 government operations rests with their prerogative to vote
 in localr state, and national elections.  Many people are
 concerned with specific problems that affect them personally
 and may only crop up between elections, due in many cases to
 policies carried out by those officials they elected.
 Gulick et al. examined residents in one community and dis-
 covered that although knowledge of certain problems occurring
 from time to time was general, individual citizen action
 concerning these problems was not extensive.43  Gulick defined
 action as doing any of the following things about one's
 concern over probe1ms:  (a) speaking directly to a public
 official; (b) writing a letter to a public official; (c)
 signing a petition addressed to  a public official;  (d)  writing
 a letter to a newspaper; or (e) talking to a friend.  By doing
 any of these various things, a constituent could make his
 views known to those people with authority to act on his
 recommendations.

      Objective Indicators.  Bloomberg and Rosenstock devised
 a political participation "action score" for questionnaire
 respondents.  The action score was based on the number of
 the following kinds of participation each respondent claimed
 for himself:

      1.  Registering complaints about the community or
          commercial services, politics or civil rights.
      2.  Requesting assistance from an alderman.
      3.  Attending meetings or public hearings.
      4.  Belonging to a neighborhood committee, civic
          group, or improvement association.
      5.  Voting in local elections.44

      The "action score" concept/ incorporating items 1 through
 4, can be used for a non-electoral participation measure to
 compare cities, neighborhoods, ethnic groups, age cohorts,
 and a variety of other sub-populations, making the indicator
 very versatile.
                         48

-------
VLB.3.4  Government Responsiveness to the Public

        The outputs of political systems—public policies and
   programs—are of central concern here because those outputs
   are the criteria against which political efficacy, or govern-
   ment responsiveness to its constituents' desires, can be
   measured.  If we consider society as a system and admini-
   strators as system managers, it is reasonable to assert that,
   aside from the officials' responsibility to regulate society's
   resources and deliver such services as will ensure the
   optimized utilization of those resources, administrators
   have a political accountability for achieving goals.  These
   goals must be achieved under budgetary constraint, through
   proper assessment of current conditions and future projections.
        Mosotti and Bowen found that there is a certain degree of
   variation in city expenditure patterns along functional lines
   which are associated with variations in three underlying
   factors—socio-economic status, age, and mobility.45  Their
   study emphasized previous findings that budgetary policy
   does not operate in a vacuum, and that budget allocations
   represented certain kinds of values, made in response to
   the characteristics of the community involved.  The study
   did not attempt to discern the "goodness" of the budgetary
   allotments, but rather to determine if there was a conscious
   attempt, indicated by the variation of expenditure patterns,
   to project a public policy based on a set of values.

        Objective Indicators.  A measure of government responsive-
   ness (or political efficacy) suggested by many researchers is
   the degree to which government activities meet community needs
   for public services.
        Although it is preferable to analyze one city over time,
   relating budgetary expenditures on certain services to the
   socio-economic level, age level, and mobility rate of the
   city's inhabitants, we cannot find evidence of such a compre-
   hensive statistic.  This is such an important area of community
   analysis, however, that it warrants further research.

   VLB.3.5  Civil Liberties Protection

           This factor has been called many things by many
   researchers (e.g. civil liberties, as listed here; civil
   rights, ethics and virtues, basic freedoms).  Most observers
   have found a great degree of consensus among all segments of
   the American population on moral values, amounting to an
   "American ethos".  Gendell and Zetterberg have called this
   ethos "an unusually explicit version of the humane ideals of
   Western civilization based upon Athenian philosophy, Roman
   law, and the Judeo-Christian tradition".  The ethos stresses
   the dignity of man and his "inalienable rights of freedom and
   equality".^^
                            49

-------
      The rights of American citizens were written into the
 Declaration of Independence, the Preamble of the Constitution,
 and the Bill of Rights.  They have been articulated by politi-
 cians, jurists, and editorial writers.  Statutes, such as the
 Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, have been specifically
 designed to safeguard those rights from usurpation.  Yet
 today there are calls for a greater effort to assure indivi-
 dual civil rights.

      Objective Indicators. After extensively screening the
 literature for measurements of civil liberties protection,
 it was concluded that no such measure existed.

va.B.3.6  An Informed Constituency

      That the media of mass communication play an increasingly
 important role in the purveying of information concerning
 public issues both during election campaigns and the time
 in-between those campaigns has become an accepted fact.  The
 degree to which the media affect certain public opinion on
 issues is highly speculative.
      In addition to the media of mass communication, communi-
 cation on an interpersonal level, between people who are
 accepted as being somewhat more knowledgeable on certain
 issues and others who are less knowledgeable, plays an
 important part in the conveyance of information.  On an
 average day, as reported by Katz, more people participate
 in discussion of an election than hearing a campaign speech
 or reading a newspaper editorial.47  Playing a leading role
 in the dissemination of information in interpersonal relation-
 ships is the "opinion leader".  An opinion leader is a person
 whose ideas are influential at certain times and with respect
 to certain issues by virtue of the fact that he is "empowered"
 to be influential by other members of his group.  Opinion
 leadership is not static.  It varies among individuals based
 on the issues involved and the position of an individual in
 a group hierarchy.
      The problem of acquainting the populace with public issues
 ultimately must concern whether or not information is available
 from various sources, and, if that information is unbiased
 enough so that individuals could make up their minds on key
 issues with objectivity.  By unbiased, it is meant tha:t all
 sides of issues are presented to the public through the media
 of mass communication  (the Federal Communications Commission
 guidelines, usually referred to as the Fairness Doctrine, are
 based on this concept).

      Objective Indicators.  No reliable measure could be found
 of the degree of informedness of a population in the literature
 reviewed.  There are studies which measure the number of media
 sources used in relation to the level of an individual's poli-
 tical and organizational participation.  This information,


                         50

-------
 however, says nothing about the content of the media presenta-
 tions and does not indicate the number of media sources available
 to an individual in any given location.

VLB.4   Health Sector

VLB, 4.1  Introduction

      In a widely-quoted report, the World Health Organization
 defines health as "a state of complete physical, mental, and
 social well being and not merely the absence of disease and
 infirmity".4B
      This utopian49 definition is relevant to our study, since
 the purpose of including the health sector in the QOL inventory
 is to permit an attempt at measuring the general health and
 well being of an individual, or more practically, to determine
 the general level of health in his community.  Within the
 framework of our study, the problem of social well being is
 addressed in its broad aspects in other sectors, and thus,
 will not be considered as a separate factor under health.
      In an addition to an attempt at measuring health, this
 sector also includes such considerations as quality of health
 care, and mode of delivery of that care.  The phenomenon of
 community health is one such mode which is becoming increasingly
 important.  It appears, however, that the rationale behind
 community involvement in physical health care is quite different
 from that of mental health care; thus, "community" will appear
 as a consideration within the physical and mental health
 factors, rather than as a separate entity.
      It was felt that a composite of the following factors
 provides a reasonable profile of general health and well being,
 both in line with the thinking reflected in the literature, and
 for the purpose of our investigation:

      1.  Physical health
      2.  Mental health
      3.  Nutrition.

VLB.4.2  Physical  Health

       The World Health  Organization  definition of health cited
 previously,  ("a  state  of complete physical,  mental,  and social
 well being and not merely  the  absence of  disease and infirmity"),
 indicates  the ambiguity associated  with defining and measuring
 health. Personal  experience will attest  to  the fact that
 the lack of  a satisfactory definition of  health does not
 detract from its importance as a concept.  Palmore  and Luikart50
 performed a  study  which used a multiple regression  analysis of
 eighteen variables,  and found  that  self-rated health was by
 far the strongest  variable related  to life satisfaction, and
 that it alone accounted for two-thirds or more of the explained
 variance in  all  groups analyzed.

                         51

-------
      The state of  the  art  of defining and measuring health
 is much the  same as  that of defining and measuring the quality
 of life.  While the  need has been  recognized for an index of
 healthr literature on  the  subject  reveals no consensus as to
 the elements that  should be measured to indicate this loosely-
 defined state of physical  well being, nor,  in most cases, have
 the proposed measurements  actually been made.
      Odin W. Anderson  and  Monroe Lerner discuss the suitability
 of various indices in,  Measuring Health Levels in the United
 States 1900-1958.5-1  They  note that historically, the mortality
 rate has been the  most commonly used index  of health, but now,
 even with various  refinements, it  is not a  very satisfactory
 measure.  With the present level of medical technology,
 mortality rates now  indicate only  the grossest differences
 in health levels.52
      Dubos notes that  changing patterns of  disease appear to
 accompany changing patterns of civilization.53  For example,
 cases of reported  tuberculosis, infestation with worms, and
 protein deficiency,  which  were once valuable indicators of
 health in the United States  (during the period of industriali-
 zation) , no  longer occur in meaningful numbers.  As overall
 living standards have  changed for  the better, the diseases
 that claim the most  lives  per year have also changed.

      Objective Indicators. In view of the lack of consensus
 concerning the definition  and measurement of positive health,
 it appears that the  most expedient solution to the problem
 of finding indicators  for  physical health is to use statistics
 measuring degree of  ill health:  morbidity, disability, and
 health care  facility utilization.

VLB.4.3  Mental Health

       The field of mental health,  as  treated in the  literature,
  includes both mental illness and mental retardation.   A widely-
  quoted HEW definition makes  the following distinctions:

         Mental retardation is usually a  condition
      resulting from developmental abnormalities that
      start prenatally and manifest themselves  during
      the newborn  or early childhood period.  Mental
      illness, on  the other hand,  includes  problems
      of personality and behavioral disorders
      especially involving the emotions;  it usually
      manifests itself in young^ and older adults
      after a  period of  relatively normal develop-
      ment. 5 4
                          52

-------
      As with physical health,  there is evident in the literature
 a rising dissatisfaction with  traditional indices of mental
 illness,, which include suicide rates,  alcoholism,  etc.   Ernest
 GruenbergSS has suggested that mental  illness should be measured
 in terms of social disability;  this measure would be applicable
 to people in hospitals as well as those out of hospitals.   He
 has also proposed that classifications of causes of disability
 should be re-examined to facilitate distinguishing mental  dis-
 ability from mental causes.

      Ob jective Indicators.  The Group  for Advancement of
 Psychiatry^*) clearly illustrates the problems involved in  the
 measurement of mental disorders:

        (1)  Social attitudes  toward illness change and
     may affect the number of patients  who seek help;
     (2)  available psychiatric  resources increase or
     diminish—contributing to  an increase or decrease
     in the number of reported  cases;  (3)  changes in
     diagnostic skills,  fashions and nomenclature
     also increase or decrease  the total number of
     reported cases in any specific diagnostic category.

 Michael Flax discusses traditional indicators of mental illness
 in A Study in Comparative Urban Indicators;   Conditions in 18
 Large Metropolitan Areas.*~i  He notes  that the main failing of
 suicide rates and narcotics  addiction  as indices is that they
 measure only one type of depression.   While schemes for measuring
 mental health such as those  suggested  by Gruenberg seem to have
 the same appeal to logic as  does the attempt to measure positive
 physical health, the problem,  as regards this project is also
 the same.  There is no consensus among experts in the mental
 health field, nor is the type  of data  available that Gruenberg
 suggested.

VI.B.4.4  Nutrition

      For the purpose of this study, nutrition will be limited
 to a dietary analysis.  "Man needs food as a source of energy
 for performing work and as a source of raw material with which
 to carry out the processes of procreation and tissue building."58
 The nutritional aspect of health, as such, is not included in
 the physical or mental factors, although nutrition has impli-
 cations in both areas.59

      Objective Indicators.  While it is understood that a
 complete profile of nutrition has three main components:  food
 intake data, a clinical examination, and biochemical tests,*»0
 it seems that for the purpose of our project, nutrition should
 be limited to food intake, or dietary considerations.  All
 three aspects are logically included in the Department of
 Health, Education and Welfare's Ten State Nutrition Survey,


                           53

-------
 1968-1970,61 (along with demographic and anthropometric data)
 where the goal is to assess the overall nutritional status
 of groups.  But this approach results in double-accounting
 among physical and mental health factors.  The United Nation's
 Handbook of Household Surveys62 avoids such problems by con-
 sidering in Chapter 4, "Food Consumption and Nutrition",
 only the food consumed and its nutritional value, and one
 assumes that the ramifications of food consumption are dis-
 cussed in the chapter entitled "Health", which includes such
 topics as illness, injury, health care visits, hospitalization,
 and impairments.63  it seems reasonable that the UN's example
 be followed, in an attempt to measure health as accurately as
 possible and with the least amount of overlap in the sector.
 Other indicators which have been used to describe nutritional
 status, such an dental statistics and incidence of nutrition-
 related disease, should be included where applicable.

VLB.5  Physical Environment


VI.B.5.1   Introduction

       The environment is a major factor in the Quality of Life.64
  To what extent this aspect should be evaluated depends largely
  on one's own conception of what constitutes environmental
  quality.  The physical environment includes a set of climatic,
  earth, and life-related factors (of which man is a part) that
  act upon communities and organisms.65
       From a review of the existing literature five predominant
  factors were evaluated and found to include most (if not all)
  possible components of environmental life quality.  The following
  are the factors included under the physical environment:

       1.  Housing
       2.  Transpor tation
       3.  Public Service
       4.  Aesthetic Quality
       5.  Material Quality.


 VLB. 5.2  Housing                                    ;

        It is well known  that people  spend more  than half their
   time  at home.  The  home  is the  locale  of  the  primary  social
   t    •   - •   -- family life-and influences the physical,  social,
                    development of all who  live within  it.   Besides
   pr^ecleTaSve will constitute the involvement of housing
   this sector.
                             54

-------
      Objective Indicators.   There exists no single,  comprehensive,
 national indicator of housing quality.   What must be considered
 though are indicators that would include three important ele-
 ments of housing:   condition of the unit,  functioning of
 facilities, and living space within the unit.   This  is not to
 say that the three aspects constitute all housing quality
 available, but they do allow accurate and efficient  data for
 use in QOL measurement.67  These aspects would,  of course,  be
 in terms of satisfaction and adequacy as the public  views them.
      Housing indicators should be interpreted with due regard
 to certain background information concerning climate, culture,
 the degree of urbanization, and the demographic, economic,  and
 social structure of the population.  When effectively used,
 housing indicators should distinguish areas with poor housing
 conditions from those with better conditions.   As housing
 conditions improve, differentiation between areas may be
 expected to diminish (as will the significance of the indi-
 cators) .  However, since the measurement of housing  conditions
 is of less importance in, or among, areas where housing pro-
 visions have become more adequate, this is not considered to
 be an undesirable feature of the indicators.  It would be wise
 if the indicators were applied separately to rural and urban
 areas because, as a rule, inadequate housing,  overcrowding,
 and lack of facilities are more common in heavily populated
 urban areas than in rural areas.68  There are exceptions, of
 course, which deserve special consideration.  Among  these are
 areas such as Appalachia, many Indian reservations,  and
 various black and chicano communities.

VI.B.5.3  Transportation


      We  can also  speak of  transportation  as part  of  one's  physical
 environment.   It  is very probable  that most of  the working popu-
 lation uses some  sort  of transportation,  thus making this  factor
 almost a necessity in  the  quality  of life.  It  is also  of  grave
 importance to the public since  in  terms of  leisure  it makes  the
 difference between access  to outdoor recreation areas and
 confinement to the limited parklands of many  inner city areas.69
 For QOL  purposes,  transportation  should deal with the degree
 of satisfaction that it provides  users as well  as dissatisfac-
 tion of  those who are  affected  by  it as non-users.

      Objec ti ve Indicators.  If the  quality of America's  cities
 is to  be commensurate  with the  nation's wealth, construction
 will be  required  on an unprecedented scale  to provide many
 facilities for the public.   Transport arteries, terminals,  and
 services will then be  necessary to provide  access to these
 developments  and  to furnish residents with  the  mobility that
 makes  it possible to take  advantage of  the  city and what lies
 beyond it. This.is the obvious function  of the transport
 system:   to provide the means of accomplishing  the  many goals
 of daily living through ease of moving.70

                           55

-------
      In the urban future the use of transportation is an invest-
 ment to help design and redesign a city.  The very large outlays
 to be made available for transport modernization can be an
 integral part of slum clearance, housing, recreation, and
 renewal programs.  In addition, urban designs that are transport
 minimizing can resolve many of the most vexatious transport
 problems through built-in transport solutions.  It seems that
 since transport absorbs and affects such a large proportion
 of the land in urban use, any serious effort to improve the
 urban environment will depend to a major degree on a broad
 community approach to providing transport.71
      Accessibility, including relative accessibility to amenity
 resources, is a basic consideration in many aspects of the
 environment.  Indicators of transportation quality should cover
 such items as availability of mass transit, expedient travel
 routes and the conditions surrounding movement in general,
 including considerations of trip-time, congestion, safety, and
 stress.72

VLB.5.4  Public Services

       The business of  supplying some  commodity like electricity
 or gas,  garbage  collection,  street cleaning,  water,  sewerage
 and solid wast disposal,  etc,  can  be defined as  a public
 service.  Clearly,  the role  of supplying the public  with
 various  conveniences  and services  is quite  large and therefore
 is of considerable importance  to an  individual's well being.
 For example,  Sand Diego County sponsored a  study entitled
 "Environmental Quality Index:   A Feasibility Study"  which also
 considered  delivery of public  service.73 The extent to which
 an individual is affected by any of  these services depends
 largely  in  what  area  he resides.   It is  important, therefore,
 that when weighing public opinion, due considerations should
 be given to location  of dwelling.

       Objective Indicators.   This particular factor of the
 physical environment  has not been  investigated thoroughly in
 terms of public  concern although a few indicators have been
 used  by  Harvey Perloff74 and Michael J.  Flax75 in their quality
 of life  studies.

 VLB.5.5 Material Quality

       When an individual buys an item on  the consumer market or
 contracts private services,  it is  generally accepted that he is
 getting  the best for  his money.  The fact that a person  is
 dissatisfied with consumer products  or services  or perhaps
 his expectations were not founded, in reality indicates  a
 distinct low material quality.  In this  sense it is  the  quality
 of those goods or services that an individual obtains through
 the consumer  market that constitues  the  material quality factor.
                          56

-------
 Material quality evolved from a study on the Quality of the
 Urban Environment by Harvey S. Perloff which includes public
 investment decision.76  it is of relative psychological
 importance that an individual be satisfied with what he buys
 on the open market.  Frequent dissatisfaction has resulted
 in the rapid growth of the consumer movement in this country,
 and with it the class action suit as a mechanism for the
 redress of grievances.

      Objective Indicators.  When the consumer is subjected to
 unfair practices by a producer selling poor goods, it is
 likely that that individual will buy less of that item or
 none at all.  The quality of material goods that one obtains
 should be of the value that one pays for them.  If such goods
 or private services do not meet personal standards or comply
 with consumer regulations, the product, of necessity, must
 either be improved or forced off the market.
      Although no indicators were found in existing literature
 for this factor, it seems of importance to consider and perhaps
 construct reasonable measures to evaluate public concern.  For
 example, major appliances might be compared in terms of product
 life, frequency of repair, cost of maintenance, and the safety
 hazards associated with using the product.  Other indicators
 are suggested in Table   2.

VLB.5.6  Aesthetic Quality

      According to  the County of San Diego Regional Issues,
 "aesthetic pollution is the sum of man's visible impact on
 the natural environment, measured by the incidence of objects
 that disturb the natural landscape and ought not to be seen
 by the general public".77  Yet there is a positive side that
 is virtually unexplored—that being, there are beautiful things
 in a city; architecture, landscaping, clean streets and parcels
 can all contribute to the aesthetic appeal of a city.
      The aesthetic quality of one's general environment is a
 function of perception, both individual and shared.  Aesthetic
 quality, by its very nature, has a strong affective component—
 in short, things are outwardly pleasant or unpleasant.  For
 example, a wilderness area, a waterfall, or even a graceful
 suspension bridge  may be pleasing to the eye.  Conversely,
 litter, grafitti,  defaced property, bill boards, automobile
 graveyards, and powerlines, may be regarded as unpleasant by
 many  (but not necessarily all) people.  Ugliness, like beauty,
 is in  the eye of the beholder.
      The importance of environmental surroundings was demon-
 strated by Thomas  Lindvall and Edward  Radford.78  m a public
 opinion survey  it  was shown that a significant level of annoy-
 ance developed  because of unsightly environmental surroundings.
                         57

-------
      Objective  Indicators.   In compiling workable, reliable,
 and quite  reasonable  indicators,  the  general concept of what
 constituted an  insult to the environment was considered.  Table
    2 presents indicators  found to  be most generally included
 in various aesthetic  studies on quality of  life.

VI.B.6  Natural  Environment

VI.B.6.1  Introduction

       We have seen that the natural environment has been  the
  focal point of present day public dissatisfaction.   It is
 without doubt that the quality  of the components of  the
 natural environment involves each and every one of us  that
  live on this earth.
       Previous research indicates that the  natural environment
  is a prime ingredient in quality of life.   It has been vari-
  ously defined as the complex of climatic,  edaphic and  biotic
  factors that act upon an organism or an ecological community
  and ultimately determines its form and survival. 79   The
  following factors are offered as constituent parts of  natural
  environmental quality:

       1.  Air quality
       2.  Water quality
       3.  Radiation
       4.  Toxic substances
       5.  Solid waste
       6.  Noise.

       In considering all of these factors as being part of one's
  quality of  life the problem arises as to what indicator would
  best give results in terms of natural environmental  quality.
  According to the National Planning Association, the  problem of
  indicators  must be put in terms of the number of people affected
  by pollutants.80  They maintain that although the amount of
  physical substances is important, what is most significant is
  the manner  in which these pollutants affect the population.
  Since there is a controversy as to which indicator would give
  better data, the following discussion of each factor will
  include all types of objective measures which could constitute
  a reliable, comprehensive, and quite inclusive indicator.


 VLB. 6.2  Air

        As President Nixon indicated in his  1971 environmental
  message,

       the problem of air pollution results  not so much
       from  choices made,  as from choices  neglected.   In
       our efforts to achieve the  most spectacular progress
       the world has ever known, we failed to notice the


                            58

-------
     hazards of airborne contaminants.  As we strove
     to achieve new goals in improvement, we failed
     to consider the consequences of dumping aerial
     filth.  Air pollution has become an unwanted
     by-product of our successful pursuit of higher
     standards of living.81

      Air pollution as a cause of annoyance from domestic and
 industrial sources and from motor vehicles may be subdivided
 into odors, particulates, and irritants.  The size of the
 problem is indicated by several investigations.82

      Objective Indicators. Significant indicators collected
 for air quality show not only physical characteristics but
 also the effect on the public.  Refer to Table   2 for a
 comprehensive list of air quality indicators.

VI.B.6.3  Water

      One  of the major factors under  the natural environment is
 that of water pollution.  Robert V. Ayres and Allen V. Kneese
 in their  article "Pollution and Environmental Quality" indicate
 that among the various major categories of pollution, water
 pollution has been the most damaging.83  Joseph L. Fisher in
 his article complements  this  fact by saying  that

     water is a deceptive  commodityi  it appears to be
     more  or less the same everywhere, but actually
     it varies over wide  ranges with  respect  to many
     characteristics.  What is suitable water for
     certain industrial purposes such as cooling would
     be quite unacceptable as drinking water.  And
     acceptable drinking water may contain far too
     many  impurities to be used as process water in
     certain industrial operations in which exceed-
     ingly high quality water  is absolutely necessary.84

 It seems  that in this kind of situation one  can hardly expect
 to find uniform and simple indicators of condition.

      Objective Indicators.  Some objective measurements of
 certain physical characteristics have been developed.  We can
 talk of these qualities  as indicators of, for example, water
 pollution.  Such things  as biochemical oxygen demand  (BOD)
 which measures the pollution  in the  water by the amount of
 dissolved oxygen required to  decompose  it? the coliform count,
 which is  a generalized measure of bacterial  content of the
 water? turbidity, which  expresses the amount of suspended
 soil and  other sediments in the water;  inorganic mineral
                            59

-------
 content; and temperature85 are commonly used measurements.
 Other parameters can also be included here, such as total
 dissolved solids, salinity, pH, phenyls, nutrients, and
 flow or discharge rates; number and percent of persons
 living in proximity to polluted boides of water, bodies of
 water or miles of stream meeting specific criteria.86
      Interrelations among the quality characteristics and
 uses are numerous, complex, subtle, and frequently not well
 understood.  Therefore it is important that careful and
 knowledgeable use of most of the indicators be employed.
 At this point we are not qualified to select the water
 pollution indicators that would be most relative to a given
 quality of life for this factor.  We assume though that
 since water pollution is so damaging to the public,.full
 consideration should be given to all of the indicators noted.

VLB, 6.4  Radiation

      Radiation, both ionizing and non-ionizing, is increasingly
 present in the environment.  Exposures  to man-made radiation
 emissions from X-ray equipment, nuclear power plants, reactor
 fuel reprocessing plants, and electronic products such as
 color television receivers, microwave ovens, lasers, etc. have
 only increased the public concern about radiological hazards.
      Exposure of man to radiation can cause biological injury,
 including genetic effects and cancer.   It is generally agreed
 that any increase in radiation exposure will be accompanied by
 a commensurate increase in the risk of  injury.  Therefore,
 society has a responsibility to keep radiation exposures as
 low as possible.8/

      Objective Indicators.  Although radiation is such a concern
 to the public, not enough data has been collected for a reliable
 objective measurement.  It would seem,  though, that such an
 issue as radiation protection could be  measured in terms of
 percent of radioactivity of such things as water, soil, people,
 and any other item that could harbor radiation.  These could
 be compared with lethal doses for perspective items and
 evaluated in terms of danger doses.  It is quite obvious that
 much work is needed in this area to properly develop a reason-
 able objective measure of radiation.


 VLB.6.5 Toxic Substances

      The use of  toxic substances has within recent years stirred
 intense controversy.  The major concerns fall into three cate-
 gories:  acute toxicity to humans, chronic toxicity to humans,
 and adverse effects on the natural environment.88
      Overall monitoring of particular toxic substances in the
 environment requires knowledge of all sources of exposure.
 Such data have not yet been collected in a systematic fashion.

                            60

-------
However,  steps are underway  to build an integrated  framework
for  such  monitoring.  Various agencies, departments and
organizations like the Council on Environmental Quality89
the  U.  S.  Department of Health, Education and Welfare,90
Resources for the Future,91  the Urban Institute, and others
have been investigating the  impact of toxic substances on
the  natural environment and  its effects on the population.

VI.,B,6,6  Solid Waste

     The  handling and disposing of refuse, trash and other
 solid  waste  (e.g. waste from municipal and industrial  sources)
 are  included  in  this sector. The measurement of this  factor
 should include such things as magnitude of the disposal problem
 and  a  measure of the efficacy of recycling programs, plus  an
 indication of hazards associated with waste disposal.

VLB.6.7  Noise

     Even though noise  has been of major  concern to occupational
 physicians for many years, it  is only  during  the last  few  years
 that it has been regarded  as an important public health problem.
 One  reason for  the  lack of attention is  the difficulty of  demon-
 strating effects other  than  those associated with  damage to the
 ear  and loss  of  hearing.   On the other hand,  it is apparent to
 many that noise  can create severe annoyance. ' Some of  the  princi-
 pal  sources of ambient  noise pollution are aircraft, including
 supersonic booms, other modes  of transportation, building
 construction, industrial or  commercial operations,  as  well as
 household appliances and air conditioners.92
     It is interesting  to  note  that  the  U. S. EPA  Noise Abatement
 and  Control Office  is currently working  on a  Community Noise
 Reference Scale  that  should  assist  in  establishing norms and
 monitoring techniques  for  noise pollution.
                           61

-------
                  FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES


1.  Definitions of "index," "parameter," and "indicator"
follow those of The Mitre Corporation, Water Quality Indices,
April 1972.                            	*	

2.  Some of the authors explicitly stated that their lists
were sets of factors influencing the quality of life or the
quality of the environment.  Others composed their lists for
other reasons, but their tabulations were felt to be rele-
vant to this study.

3.  Norman C. Dalkey and Daniel L. Rourke, Experimental
Assessment of Delphi Procedures with Group Value Judgements
(RAND R-612-ARPA, 1971), p. 28.

4.  Michael J. Flax, A  Study in Comparative Urban Indicators;
Conditions in 18 Large Metropolitan Areas  (Washington, D.C.t
Urban Institute, 1970), p. 9.

5.  San Diego Environmental Development Agency, Environmental
Quality Index—A Feasibility Study  (San Diego County, San
Diego: 1972).

6.  Ibid., p. 16.

7.  Community and Environmental Assessment Committee, "Sector
Variables Developed at  February 22, 1972 Meeting in Raleigh"
(mimeo, 1972).

8.  John Oliver Wilson, "The Concept of Social Indicators,"
in Booz-Allen Hamilton  Associates, op. cit., p. 3.

9.  White House Conference on Youth and Individualism,
"Quality of Life Needs  More Emphasis:  An Extract from the
Report of the . . ."in Booz-Allen Hamilton Associates, ed.,
The Quality of Life Concept;	A Tool for Decision-Makers
(Washington, D.C.:mimeo, 1972).

10.  Milton Moss, "Consumption:  A Report on Contemporary
Issues" in Sheldon, Eleanor Bernert and Wilbert E. Moore,
Indicators of Social Change  (New York, Russell Sage Founda-
tion!1968), pp. 504-505.

11.  Bertram M. Gross and Michael Springer, "A New Orienta-
tion in American Government," Annals of American Academy of
Political and Social Science, Vol. 371, pp. 4-5.

12.  Office of Management and the Budget, Social Indicators
Washington, D.C.:  Draft #7, mimeo, 1972)


                         62

-------
13.  Harvey S. Perloff, ed., The Quality of the Urban
Environment;  Essays on "New Resources" in an Urban Age
(Washington, Resources for the Future:1970), pp. 22-23.

14.  Terleckyj's list of 18 "social goal categories" may be
superior to Perloff's, but came to our attention too late to
be considered in this manuscript.  See Nestor E. Terleckyj,
"National Goals Accounting:  A Framework for Evaluating
Opportunities for the Achievement of National Goals"
(Washington, D.C., National Planning Assoc., mimeo 1972).

15.  Ms. Pamela Cooper, a researcher for the Environmental
Protection Agency with special experience with the problems
of blacks and the center city, aided at this point.

16.  National income accounts, no matter how well they
account for social costs, quality change, leisure, etc.,
will never be a measure of well-being, if only because they
value goods and services at the margin, while an index of
well-being would value goods by the consumer surplus area
under their demand curves.  Furthermore, there are numerous
goods which are likely never to be valued in terms of
dollars.  For these reasons, it seems appropriate to con-
sider income only one QOL factor, and not a substitute for
a QOL index.

17.  Available from Survey of Current Business  (U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Washington:1972).

18.  George J. Stigler, The Theory of Price  (third edition),
(New York, Macmillan:  1972), pp. 293-4.

19.  A very similar alternative index is the Gini index,
defined below:

                       r!00
                       \    (x - f(x))dx
               G  =
                         10,000
where G is the Gini index of inequality, and f(x) is the
Lorenz curve.  Source:  Bruce M. Russett, et. al., World
Handbook of Political and Social Indicator's  (New Haven,
Yale:1967), p. 238.

20.  Series P-60 (U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of the
Census, Washington:  1972).

21.  Statistical Abstract of the United States  (U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Washington, D.C.:1971), pp. 271-298.

22.  Welfare in Review  (U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, Washington, D.C.:  1972).

                        63

-------
23.  Internal Revenue Service, Treasury Department, Statis-
tics of Income, 1962; Supplemental Report, Personal Wealth.

24.  Robert L. Kahn, "The Meaning of Work:  Interpretation
and Proposals for Measurement" in William Campbell and
Philip E. Converse, The Human Meaning of Social Change (New
York, Russell Sage Foundation:1972), p. 18.

25.  Accident rates can be classified either as injury-
frequency measures  (counting the number of disabling work
injuries per one million employee-hours), or as severity
measures  (counting average days out of work per disability
case).  Both are available from:  Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Annual Report, Injury Rates by Industry (U.S. Department of
Labor, Washington, D.C.:1971).

26.  Reported in Employment and Earnings.

27.  Marvin B. Sussman, "Family, Kinship and Bureaucracy,"
in The Human Meaning of Social Change, ed. by Campbell and
Converse(New York:  Russell Sage Foundation, 1972), pp.
127-158.

28.  Ibid., p. 155.

29.  Ibid., pp. 157-58.

30.  Alvin Toffler, Future Shock  (New York:  Random House,
Inc., 1970), passim.

31.  Paul C. Click, "The Life Cycle of the Family," in
Sourcebook in Marriage and Family, ed. by Marvin B. Sussman
(Boston:Houghton and Mifflin Co., 1963), passim.

32.  Hadley Cantril, The Pattern of Human Concerns  (New
Brunswick, N.J.:  Rutgers University Press, 1965).

33.  Peter A. Rossi, "Community Social Indicators," in The
Human Meaning of Social Change, ed. by Campbell and Converse
(New York:Russell Sage Foundation, 1972), pp. 87-126.

34.  L. Berkowitz, and K. Lutterman, "The Traditionally
Socially Responsible Personality," Public Opinion Quarterly,
32  (1968), 169-85.

35.  Rossi, "Community Social'Indicators,11 passim.

36.  Albert J. Reiss, Jr., "Monitoring the Quality of
Criminal Justice Systems," in The Human Meaning of Social
Change, ed. by Campbell and Converse  (New York:Russell
Sage Foundation, 1972), p. 392.
                         64

-------
37.  U.S., Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation, Uniform Crime Report of the United States, 1971.

38.  Alvin Toffler, "The Art of Measuring the Arts," Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 373
(September 1967), pp. 141-155.

39.  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S.
Census of Population;  1960, Subject Reports, Occupational
Characteristics, Final Report PC(2)-7A (Washington, D.C.;
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963).

40.  Olaf Helmer, On the Future State of the Union (Menlo
Park, Calif.:  Institute for the Future,  1972), p. 9.

41.  Richard M. Scammon, "Electoral Participation," The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 371 (May 1967), pp. 59-71.

42.  Robert R.  Alford and Eugene C. Lee,  "Voting Turnout in
American Cities," The American Political Science Review, 62
(September 1968), pp. 796-813.

43.  John Gulick, et. al., "Newcomer Enculturation in the
City:  Attitudes and Participation," in Urban Growth
Dynamics, ed. by Chapin and Weiss  (New York:  John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1962), p. 346 et. passim.

44.  Warren Bloomberg, Jr., and Florence W. Rosenstock, "Who
Can Activate the Poor:  One Assessment of Maximum Feasible
Participation," in Bloomberg and Schmandt, Power, Poverty,
and Urban Policy, Vol. II  (Urban Affairs Annual Reviews,
1968), pp. 313-330.

45.  Louis H. Massoti and Don R. Bowen, "Communities and
Budgets:  The Sociology of Municipal Expenditures," Urban
Affairs Quarterly, 1  (September, 1965), pp. 39-58.

46.  Murray Gendell and Hans L. Zetterberg, eds., A Socio-
logical Almanac for the United States, 2nd ed.  (Totowa, New
Jersey:The Beaminster Press, 1963), pp. 25-27.

47-  Elihu Katz, "The Two-Step Flow of Communication," in
Mass Communications, 2nd ed., ed. by Wilbur Schramm  (Urbana
111.:University of Illinois Press, 1960), pp. 348-49.

48.  World Health Organization, "Constitution of the World
Health Organization, Annex I in The First Ten Years of the
World Health Organization, WHO, Geneva, 1958, fn. 32 in
Sheldon and Moore, Indicators of Social Change  (New York,
Russell Sage Foundation:  1968), p. 585.
                          65

-------
49.  Rene Dubos, Man, Medicine and Environment  (Washington,
Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers:1968) p. 67.

50.  Erdman Palmore and Clark Luikart, "Health and Social
Factors Related to Life Satisfaction," Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, Vol. 13, no. 1, March, 1972  (pp. 69-78).

51.  Odin W. Anderson and Monroe Lerner, Measuring Health
Levels in the United States 1900-1958, Health Information
Foundation Research Series 11, 1960, p. 3.

52.  Anderson and Lerner, Measuring Health Levels, p. 6.

53.  Dubos, Man, Medicine and Environment, p. 67.

54.  Wilbur J. Cohen and Arthur J. Lesser and Wallace
Babington, "New Approaches to Mental Retardation and Mental
Illness," Indicators, U.S. Dept. of HEW, 1963, p. xvii, in
Selma J. Mushkin, Health and Hospital Expenditures of State
and Local Governments;  1970 Projections/ The Council of
State Governments, Research Memorandum #390, 1966, p. 18.

55.  Ernest M. Gruenberg, "On Measuring Mental Morbidity,"
Ch. 10 in S. B. Sells, ed., The Definition and Measurement
of Mental Illness, PHS pub. #1873, p. 227.

56.  Group for Advancement of Psychiatry in Indicators of
Social Change by Sheldon and Moore, eds., p. 584."Problems
of Estimating Changes in Frequency of Mental Disorders,"
Report No. 50  (New York:  August 1961), pp. 469-517.

57.  Michael J. Flax, A Study in Comparative Urban Indicators;
Conditions in 18 Large Metropolitan Areas, The Urban Insti-
tute, 1970, p. 74.

58.  Stanley Segall, "Food," in Environmental Health, P.
Walton Purdom, ed.  (New York, Academic Press:1971) p. 77.

59.  White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health,
final report, 1969, p. 45.

60.  Interview with Donald I. Miller and J. W. Boehne,
August 1, 1972, Nutrition and Food Composition Section,
Division of Nutrition, FDA.

61.  The Ten State Nutrition Survey 1968-1970, DHEW pub. no.
(HSM) 72-8130-4, 5 vols.

62.  Handbook of Household Surveys;  A Practical Guide for
Inquiries on Levels of Living, Statistical Office of the
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Studies in Methods Series F #10, United Nations, N.Y.
                           66

-------
63.  Ibid. / pp. 35-58.

64.  Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality ,
(Washington, D.C.:  1971), p. 3.

65.  Environmental Development Agency, Environment Quality
Index — A Feasibility Study.  County of San Diego Regional
Issues, Vol. 1 prepared by Donald Macdonald and Donald G.
Malcolm (California:  1972) p. 16.

66.  Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy
Division, Social Indicators  (May 1972, Draft #7) p. 2
(mimeographed) .

67.  Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy
Division, Social Indicators  (May 1972, Draft #7), p. 3
(mimeographed) .

68.  Office of Management and Budget, Statistical Policy
Division, Social Indicators  (May 1972, Draft #7) pp. 1-2
(mimeographed) .

69.  Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality
(Washington, D.C. :  1971) p. 202.

70.  The Urban Institute.  A Study in Comparative Urban
Indicators ed. by Michael J. Flax (Washington , D.C.) p. 39.

71.  Ibid. , pp. 100-101.

72.  Council on Environmental Quality.  Environmental
Quality (Washington, D.C. :  1971) pp.      ~
73.  Environmental Development Agency.  Environment Quality
Index;  A Feasibility Study County of San Diego Regional
Issues, Vol. 1 prepared by Donald Macdonald and Donald G.
Malcolm  (California, 1972) p. 84.

74.  Resources for the Future.  The Quality of the Urban
Environment ed. by Harvey S. Perloff  (Maryland, Johns
Hopkins Press:  1969) p. 22.

75.  The Urban Institute.  A Study in Comparative Urban
Indicators ed. by Michael J. Flax  (Washington, D.C.) p. 40.

76.  Resources for the Future.  The Quality of the Urban
Environment ed. by Harvey S. Perloff  (Maryland, Johns
Hopkins Press:  1969) p. 226, p. 67.

77.  Environmental Development Agency.  Environment Quality
Index — A Feasibility Study.  County of San Diego Regional
Issues, Vol. -1, prepared By Donald A. Macdonald and Donald G.
Malcolm  (California:  1972) p. 84.
                           67

-------
78.  The Fourth Karolinska Institute Symposium on Environ-
mental Health.  Measurement of Annoyance Due to Exposure to
Environmental Factors, ed. by Thomas Lindvall and Edward	
Radford  (Stockholm:1971) pp. 1-10.

79.  Council on Environmental Quality.  Environmental
Quality  (Washington, D.C.:  1971) p. 8.

80.  National Planning Association, Social Indicators
(Washington, D.C.:  1971) p. 8  (mimeographed).

81.  Council on Environmental Quality.  Environmental
Quality  (Washington, D.C.:  1971) pp. 8-TIT

82.  The Fourth Karolinska Institute Symposium on Environ-
mental Health.  Measurement of Annoyance Due to Exposure to
Environmental Factors, ed. by Thomas Lindvall and Edward
Radford  (Stockholm:1971) p. 10.

83.  Robert V. Ayres and Allen V. Kneese, "Pollution and
Environmental Quality," The Annals  (May 1967, Vol. 371)
p. 240.

84.  Joseph L. Fisher, "The Natural Environment," The Annals
(May 1967, Vol. 371) pp. 127-140.

85.  Environmental Development Agency.  Environmental
Quality Index—A  Feasibility Study.  County of San Diego
Regional Issues,  Vol. 1, prepared by Donald A. Macdonald and
Donald G. Malcolm (California:   1972), p. 41.

86.  Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy
Division, Social  Indicators  (May 1972, Draft #7) p. 2,
part E  (mimeographed).

87.  Council on Environmental Quality.  Environmental
Quality  (Washington, D.C.:  1971) p. 16.

88.  Environmental Development Agency.  Environmental
Quality Index—A  Feasibility Study.  County of San Diego
Regional Issues,  Vol. 1, prepared by Donald A. Macdonald and
Donald G. Malcolm (California:   1972) p. 36.
     »«

89.  Council on Environmental Quality.  Environmental
Quality  (Washington, D.C.:  1971) p. 226.

90.  U.S. Department of Health,  Education, and Welfare,
Environmental Health Problems  (Maryland:  1970) p. 20.

91.  Resources for the Future.   The Quality of the Urban
Environment, ed.  by Harvey S. Perloff  (Maryland, Johns
Hopkins Press, 1969) pp. 3-26.


                          68

-------
92.  The Fourth Karblinska Institute Symposium on Environ-
mental Health.  Measurement of Annoyance Due to Exposure to
Environmental Factors, ed. by Thomas Lindvall and Edward
Radford (Stockholm:1971) p. 10.
                            69

-------
                           SECTION VII
                      ANALYTICAL DIMENSIONS


      While it is clear that the QOL is composed of many
 facets,  it is not as apparent that there are similarly many
 characterizations of the QOL which vary from person to
 person,  group to group, and area to area.  Setting up an
 indexing formula to measure the QOL is a simple task only
 if there is consistency in the reality disclosed,  assuming
 the measures themselves are good.  It is assumed that the
 measures will not be initially reliable and that the reality
 measured will not be well defined in the~mlnd of the public.
 The questions addressed in this chapter are, (a) to what
 extent can generalizations be made about people's QOL; (b)
 to the extent that these generalizations are limited, what
 are the limiting factors; and (c) how do they influence the
 QOL index (QOLI).  It is through  this particularized under-
 standing rather than through a generalized statistic that
 progress can best be made on the policy problems related to
 improving the QOL.
      This Chapter will look at five analytical areas which
 will lead to answers for the questions raised above:  (1)
 what are the population parameters required to explain vari-
 ations in the QOL; (2) what questions and answers about the
 QOL are possible by creating QOL data matrices; (3) what can
 be learned from time series analysis of these matrices;  (4)
 what causal relationships are involved in determining high
 or low QOL; and (5) how far can we aggregate or generalize
 QOL data?

Vii .A Parameters Associated with Variation in the QOl


      A high QOL for one person may be radically different
 from a high QOL for another person.  Obviously  the char-
 acterization of the QOL for a Colorado farmer will be
 radically different from that of a New York cosmopolite.
 The dimensions which  influence the meaning of QOL to differ-
 ent people are themselves likely to vary in strength from
 person to person.  The first problem to  be solved is to
 better understand  the identity of these  influential dimen-
 sions and the circumstances under which  they become more or
 less important to  the QOL.
      Assume that there are no dimensions related to the QOL
 other than our measurements of the QOLI  for each of the
 thirty factors  (computed from the formula which combines
 objective and subjective data which can  vary on an index
 scale from 1-10).  Then, the following curve
 would represent the distribution of scores across a selected
 population of interest to us for only one factor.  The curve
 hypothesized here  is quite flat because  it has  been assumed
 that, even for a single factor, the distribution of scores
 will represent a wide variety of tastes,  values, and real
 conditions, i.e. the standard deviation  of scores is great.
 The QOL index scores for the hypothetical factor represented

                            70

-------
by the above graph is very interesting in that the number of
persons near the mean is so small as to be unrepresentative
of the condition for the majority of people.
     Suppose there is reason to believe, however, that a
component dimension of the curve does have something to do
with these scores.  This dimension has nothing to do with
the objective conditions per se_ but is associated with sub-
jective attitudes or, more accurately, with the character-
istics of people who give these attitudes.  Let the dimension
be the difference between male and female persons and the
factor in question be the quality of air.  It can be hypothe-
sized that women have a lower quality of life because the
dirty air makes it hard to clean clothes which get dirty on
the clothes line while men have a high quality of life
because smoke in the air means greater industrial activity
and easy, high paying jobs on the ground.  Imagine a QOL
distribution by sex as it might appear if these simplifica-
tions were true and unobscured by other things.^  In Figure
    we can see that the original distribution is "explained"
by keeping separate the two scores.  If there were no desir-
able difference in the QOL factor, by sex, the distributions
would be merged into one.
     How much of the variance is accounted for by sex of the
respondent?  How much of the variance is accounted for by
family income?  How are the parameters which account for the
greatest variations in QOLI score identified?  Generally, any
specific parameter which does not reproduce the same distri-
bution may illuminate significant differences in the QOL.  A
"good" explanatory parameter would result in a distribution
which has a smaller standard deviation around the mean score
for the group examined.  A "bad" parameter—like left-handed-
ness—would explain little because the distribution of scores
for this group is likely to be the same as for the total
population (assuming being left-handed does not affect the
chances of generating a QOL score any different than the
remainder of the population).
     Social science research routinely looks at standard
demographic variables such as age, sex, income, etc., to
establish a basis for isolating patterned variations.  Of
all the possible characteristics which might influence the
QOL, which should we include?  Since the QOL factors are
derived from areas of interest to many academic disciplines
we would have to cover a lot of ground to discuss the rela-
tionship between objective conditions and attitudes in each
of these areas.  We have settled for a brief review of the
literature related to environmental perception and attitude
to see if, in fact, considerable variations among people
occur and along what divisions they have been found to occur.
This review indicated the following important variations
which are referred to as analytical dimensions:  geographic
location, education, age, ethnicity, health, sex, political
disposition, socioeconomic status, and life adjustment.
                           71

-------
VII.A.I Geographic Location

      According to Lynch,2 impressions of objects become less
 vivid as distance from home increases.  Thus, he mentions,
 there is ground for considering the immediate area around
 one's residence as a highly influential factor in accounting
 for the degree of value perception.  Jeanne Sigler in her
 study on public attitudes of air pollution, confirms Lynch1s
 statement by stating that proximity affects the nature of
 air pollution phenomenon as experienced by respondents.  For
 example, respondents living closest to the sources of pollu-
 tion seem to be more likely to think of air pollution as bad
 odors, dustfall, and eye irritants than those living far
 from the sources of pollution.3
      Other studies related to geographic differences in
 perception showed that, in contrast to other areas, people
 in the West and Northeast are bothered most by exhaust.
 Westerners also are more likely to see considerable danger
 in the effects of insecticides and fertilizers on water
 supplies than respondents located elsewhere.  In contrast,
 people in the midwest were concerned more about industry
 and in the south by dust.*
      Recent surveys have shown that perceptions of outdoor
 noise levels in central sections of large cities are twice
 as high as those in the residential area of those cities.
 In turn, perceptions of noise in residential areas of cities
 are twice the perceived level than for suburban or small
 town residential areas.  The significance here is that noise
 level perception increases with population density.
      Public censure of different industries varied consider-
 ably by regions of the country.  As might be predicted each
 industry comes in for the greatest unfavorable attention in
 the areas where it operates in greatest volume.  For example,
 steel and automobiles are most disliked in the Midwest; pulp
 and paper plants are least well liked in the South and in
 the West.  Oil is the number one villain in the West, pri-
 marily because of the widely publicized oil slick disasters
 on the Pacific coast and its contribution to water pollution.6
      A comparison of air quality data indicated that the
 geographic distribution of two major pollutants (sulfur
 dioxide and sulfuration) is also different.  It would appear
 that the two measures of  air pollution do in fact measure
 different things in some cases, but that the people's
 response is only in part related to this difference.  It is
 also related to the concentration of the ambient air quality
 findings for these two pollutants.7
      In a study by Jane Schusky,8 residents who were asked
 intentionally vague questions concerning the definition of
 any life factor, tended to express their ideas in terms of
 personal experiences regarding conditions of local surround-
 ings.  In a related study, Hoch found support for the notion
 that environmental quality (open space, air pollution, solid
 waste, sewage treatment, noise levels, wages, time budgets)
 declines with growth of city size.9


                            72

-------
       That population  density also  is  a  significant factor in
  environmental  quality was  shown  quite clearly in  a survey
  done in St.  Louis.  Due  to the high concentration of traffic
  and business establishments,  plus  its high population
  density,  the problems of certain pollutants were  quite  large,
  hence eliciting the effects of overcrowdedness.   This is to
  say that perhaps high density areas increases or  magnifies
  the problem of air pollutants over low  density areas.10

 VII.A.2 Education

       Crenson found that  among individuals living  in high
  smog areas,  75 percent of  those  with  a  high school education
  or more reported they were bothered by  air pollution, while
  only 48 percent of those with less than a high school educa-
  tion reported  such annoyances.11
       In a similar study, Schusky found  that respondents with
  a moderate educational attainment  were  more likely to
  express dissatisfaction  with all their  surroundings than
  those with little education.  The  results of both studies
  suggest that level of education  could make a big  difference
  in value perception.12
       In general, the  higher the  educational level, the  more
  the citizen is likely to do about  pollution.  Further,  edu-
  cated people,  younger adults, and  people living in larger
  cities are the most concerned about pollution.

VII.A.3  Age

       Crenson found  that  individuals over forty years of age
  were less likely to  be bothered by air pollution  than were
  individuals forty and under who lived in similarly polluted
  neighborhoods.13  He  concluded  that perhaps this  indicates a
  perceptive difference in age.  Saarinen also demonstrated a
  similar relationship  between age and perception of drought
  hazards.14


 VI.I,A,4 Ethnicity (Race)


       Van Arsdol15 found that non-whites are less  aware of
  air pollution than whites, even in cases where air pollution
  is more severe  in the non-white residential areas.  He attri-
  buted his findings,  as did Alexander and Sabagh,16 and
  Crenson,17 to non-whites having special social hazards to
  contend with like poverty, discrimination,  and crime, which
  diverted their  attention from environmental problems.
                            73

-------
VII,A,5  Health
       In Jeanne Sigler's study the results indicated that a
  majority of people who complain of problems such as nose,
  throat, and eye irritations or breathing difficulties are
  more likely to attribute them to pollution.18
VII. A. 6  Sex
  ho<-HoiL.a recenj survey, SmithlS found that females are
  bothered more than males by air pollution.  This would seem
  to show that there may be some general differences in
  perception due to sex difference.


VII. A. 7  Political Disposition

       According to Tognacci,  Democrats tended to express
  greater concern about ecological issues than did persons
  who classified themselves as conservative or Republicans.
  Furthermore, persons holding a more liberal sociopolitical
  outlook were more concerned  about environmental issues than
  were more conservatively oriented individuals.20

  Socioeconomic Status (Income Level, Occupational Status)
       Crenson found that of those people making $5,000 and
  over,  76 percent were annoyed by air pollution, compared to
  only 51 percent of those making less than $5,000.21  Pollu-
  tion here appears to be somewhat of an elitist issue, more
  likely to be perceived as a  serious problem by the better
  educated (who generally have higher incomes)  than by the
  lesser educated (who have lower incomes) .
       Irving Hoch also gives  insight into the difference of
  perception due to income. He showed that the South had
  significant disagreements when assessing values to life
  factors.   This may have occurred because of low wage levels
  for male occupations.  A factor here may be low wages for
  black workers in the South,  and high concentration of blacks
  in those occupations.22
       In terms of occupation, the most concerned about environ-
  mental quality are professionals, proprietors,  and managers;
  the least concerned are the  semi-skilled or unskilled.  This
  can be coupled with education since generally the level of
  education determines one's occupation.
       Generally speaking the  lower socioeconomic groups seem
  to be  more affected by pollution problems but show less
  awareness of the problem than members of the higher socio-
  economic groups.   Research results are inconsistent at this
  point;  however women of low  socioeconomic status more fre-
  quently expressed concern about pollution than women of high
  socioeconomic status.  In fact, according to Medalia's23
  study  of Clarkston,  Washington, there is a variation with
  social class and attitude characteristics across all groups
  in spite  of equal exposure to pollution.

                            74

-------
VII.A.3  Life Adjustment

     •  The correspondence of our QOL measure insofar as it is
  based on a level of satisfaction scale brings it into the
  arena of "life happiness" research.  It is quite likely that
  the people with the highest QOL will be the most happy but
  does happiness cause high QOL or vice versa?  In their
  Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes,24 Robinson and
  Shaver review the correlates of life satisfaction.  Life
  satisfaction is reported to increase with social status, job
  satisfaction, income, and education.  Life satisfaction is
  reported as being higher for blacks in part because of a low
  association of income with satisfaction.  Satisfaction for
  blacks appears to decrease with elevation to middle income
  status.  Unhappiness was shown to increase with age, unem-
  ployment, retirement, and with urban density.


VII tB  Matrices of Factors and Population Parameters

       Using our list of QOL factors as one axis and the ana-
  lytical dimensions as the other axis, it is possible to
  generate a series of QOL matrices, e.g., factors by income
  matrix, factors by age matrix, etc.  Each matrix of data
  would show the relationship between the factors and one of
  the population parameters.  This comparison would help under-
  stand variations among people when considering only one
  characteristic.  Collectively, the matrices could be examined
  for their interaction effects,25 or for the clusters of
  highly interrelated factors or parameters.26  Such techniques
  can help answer questions about our measurement of the QOL
  which would not be visible without such dissection.  Such
  questions cannot be answered in the abstract  (without data).
       Imagine the following hypothetical QOL matrices  (see
  Figure 7.3), five factors by 10 age and income groups.
  Without even filling in numbers to these matrices of QOL
  data one can imagine questions which one would want to have
  answered about the QOL:  Does the QOL increase or decrease
  with age?  What discernable differences, if any, is QOL
  related to income levels?  Is there possibly a linear rela-
  tionship between QOL index and income increment?  Does QOL
  increase with every increment of income for all factors? for
  all racial groups? for all ages?  Is the QOL lower for our
  Colorado farmer  (age 35, income $6,000) than it is for our
  New York Cosmopolite  (age 35, income $60,000)?  If the
  answers come out "no", then explainations are in order.  If
  the answers come out "yes", then it becomes necessary to
  show which factors are lowest and what can be done about
  them.
       High scores do not necessarily constitute a higher QOL
  than low scores.  There undoubtedly are elements of the
  population which would score disproportionately high on
  their factor scores in comparison with their  actual condi-


                              75

-------
 tions.  Research focusing on human deprivation27 an
-------
      If our data are to be used to answer questions about
 the direction and extent of change in the QOL it must be
 date which people will still care about 10 years later.
 Special purpose data collection and one-time studies of  the
 QOL which are narrowly defined are likely to provide inade-
 quate answers for present questions and future questions
 alike.
      Time-series data will help to answer the following
 questions:  How do the factors change over time?  Do the
 factors change the same for all analytical dimensions?  What
 is the nature of their serial causal relationship?  How  are
 changes in public perception and factor measurement accuracy
 reflected in serial data?

VII.D Causality Issues Related to the QOL
      Our ability to assess accurately the QOL depends pri-
 marily on the quality of our descriptive data and secondarily
 on the predictability of our causal analysis.  The only
 treatment of causal sequences related to the QOL which came
 to our attention was Otis D. Duncan's schematic representa-
 tion of the "Socioeconomic Life Cycle" reproduced below:32

           SEQUENCES                     OUTCOMES
      Family Background            >  Life Chances
      \
         \.
Schooling                 ">  Level of Living

   Job         	>  Health, Welfare

      Income           ••  ^  Status, Acceptance

         Expenditures 	^  Satisfaction, Morale
            \
               \
      Duncan's model is basically a longitudinal conception
 of how a high or low QOL may emerge over time, an area we
 have excluded from systematic attention by our rules of
 scope.  It covers the sequence of formative events upon
 which a person's life is built and constrained.  This is to
 be distinguished from a cross-sectional sequence of causes,
 i.e., those operating at any point in time.  The two overlap
 in Duncan's diagram, but this simply reflects the poverty of
 data relating to these matters and the complexity of
 separating the two.33
      Once the conditions responsible for variations in the
 QOL can be identified, weighed, and the extent of their
 influence determined, as is suggested in the discussion of
 QOL matrices, then coefficients of determination can be sub-
 stituted for the arrows in Duncan's scheme  (or some variation
 of it).  This improved notion of causal links could lead to
 a QOL simulation model which would help us better understand
 the dynamic interaction among factors and analytical dimen-
 sions.  A QOL model would be beneficial in that one could

                            77

-------
  realistically determine the net QOL change effected by small
  changes in a series of key factors or by moderate to large
  changes in a few factors.  The policy ramifications of such
  knowledge about generating instrumental changes to improve
  the QOL would be widely spread and beneficial to decision
  making.

VII.E  Generalizing from QOL Data


       For each of the QOL" factors our formula combines two
  kinds of data to produce a single number.  That number, when
  summed for all individuals in an area for which the QOL is
  being determined, becomes a QOL factor index.  The earlier
  part of this section has discussed what can be learned by
  inspection of the disaggregated index numbers.  An outstand-
  ing question is, what is a "relevant area" for which to
  determine the QOL or how far can we aggregate the QOL?
       The answer to this question might be that it doesn't
  matter how far the data is aggregated under certain condi-
  tions.  If national determination of the QOL is desired,
  then sampling techniques appropriate to the entire range of
  cultural and geographic variations in the country should be
  employed.  The costs of such an omnibus endeavor are large
  and perhaps prohibitive.  The costs of sampling and survey-
  ing can be reduced to the extent that generalizations are
  required for regional, state or local QOL indices.
       The problem of assessing the QOL may not be cost or the
  level for which generalizations are scientifically valid,
  but who or what level of government would be appropriate for
  financing and administering such an endeavor.  The possi-
  bility that data collected by a local government for local
  government uses might be subject to various sources of bias,
  suggests that state or regional area government be the
  likely research agency for municipalities within that area.
       The argument for scrutinizing variation in patterning
  across QOL factor index scores by population groups is based
  on the realization that human goals and values are rarely,
  consistently, or clearly defined.  If QOL is to be made a
  meaningful concept for decision makers we must learn the
  circumstances under which it varies or becomes consistent
  for groups of persons if not for the society as a whole.
  This section identified the questions and problems which
  will have to be resolved before the social scientist can
  respond to the problem of measuring or indexing the QOL.
                           78

-------
                  FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES
1.  Assume the following data has been collected from  10 men
and women about "air quality."  The data conforms to the
demands of the formula for a QOLI.  For the sake of this
example weights are uniform for men  (high at  .8 on a scale
varying from 0.0 to 1.0).  The correlation for the combined
group is very low but when separated is increased to a
moderate .4  (where 1.0 is perfect association).
     The reason for this is that the combined score corre-
lation is curvilinear.  As can be seen in the graph below:
                   a  s-
                   o
                   o
                   w  e-
                  !  4:
                   +»
                   S  2-
                  §   :
                      1   2   46   8

                         Subjective Score

     Objective conditions are measured as moderate  (mean «
4.9) and are variable withir a narrow range for both groups.
The basic difference in the data is that women are  not
satisfied and men are.  None of this information becomes
apparent until the separation by sex is carried- out.

               (0)         (S)         (W)          (S.W)
           Objective   Subjective   Weight    (Sub,  x Wt. =)
     1)        4           2         .4
     2)        5           3         .4
     3)        6           4         .4
     4)        4           2         .4
     5)        5           3         .4
     6)        6           4         .4           1.6   Women
     7)        4           2         .4
     8)        5           3         .4
     9)        6           4         .4
    10)       ^4.           2         .4
    Sum       49                    4.0
                          79

-------


11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
Sum
(0)
Objective
4
5
6
4
5
6
4
5
6
_4
49
(S)
Subjective
9
8
7
9
8
7
9
8
7
9

(W)
Weight
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
8.0
(S.W)
(Sub. x Wt. -)
7.2
6.4
5.6
7.2
6.4 Men
5.6
7.2
6.4
5.6
7.2
64.2
From the formula:  F =  1/2  r  (6 +  §5

Where:  6 =  (1/p E W)(1/p E O)
        § =  1/p Z WS
        P =»  Number in Population

It is computed for women that:
     0 =  (.1 x 4) (.1 x  49)          F
       = 1.96
     S =  (.1 x 11.6)
       = 1.16
(.50)(.40)(1.96 + 1.16)
.62
And, it is computed  for men that:
     6 =  (.1 x  8)(.l x 49)          F = (.50) (.40)(3.92  + 6.42)
       =  3.92                         = 2.07
     § =  (.10 x 64.2)
       =  6.42

Which may be graphically represented by the following chart:

          7
0)
o
c
0)
M
O
O
O

*w
o
>1
0
a

\ {•
^ V * -'
4 ]


3


2


1
1 G- *
V - x"








1 2 i
^M» ^^ ,^







4
"^ y
^ s
\ ^




567
**"—






ti
-







r







10
Satisfaction Score

2.  Kevin Lynch.  The  Image of the City.   Cambridge,
Massachusetts:  The  M.I.T.  Press,  1960,  p. 41.
                         80

-------
3.  Jeanne Sigler and Alan Langowski.  Citizen Attitudes
Toward the Environment;  An Appraisal of the Research.
(University of Illinois, November 1971) p. 49.

4.  Hazel Erskine.  "The Polls:  Pollution and Industry."
Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall 1971, p. 263.

5.  Irving Hock.  "Urban Scale and Environmental Quality."
Resources for the Future (January 1972) p. 10.

6.  Hazel Erskine.  "The Polls:  Pollution and Industry."
Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall 1971, p. 264.

7.  Jeanne Sigler and Alan Langowski.  Citizen Attitudes
Toward the Environment;  An Appraisal of the Research.
Survey Research Laboratory, University of Illinois(November
1971) p. 55.

8.  Jane Schusky.  "Public Awareness and Concern with Air
Pollution in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area."  Journal of
Air Pollution Control Association;  16 No. 2, February 1966,
pp. 72-76.

9.  Irving Hoch;  "Urban Scale and Environmental Quality."
Resources for the Future (January 1972), pp. 17-21.

10.  Jane Schusky.  "Public Awareness and Concern with Air
Pollution in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area."  Journal of
Air Pollution Control Association:  16 No. 2, February 1966,
p. 72.

11.  Charles F. Hohn.  "Reality and Perception of Air Pollu-
tion."  University of Southern California, June 15, 1972,
p. 6.

12.  Jane Schusky.  "Public Awareness and Concern with Air
Pollution in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area." Journal of
Air Pollution Control Association;  16 No. 2, February 1966,
p. 74.

13.  Matthew A. Crenson.  "The Un-Politics of Air Pollution."
Baltimore  (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971) pp. 13-14.

14.  Charles F. Hohm.  "Reality and Perception of Air Pollu-
tion."  University of Southern California, June 15, 1972,
p. 5.
•  •-»

15.  Maurice D. Van Arsdol, Jr., Francesca Alexander and
George Sabage.  "Human Ecology and the Metropolitan Environ-
ment:  Environmental Hazards in Los Angeles."  Final Report
Air Pollution Control Division, U.S. Public Health Service
Contract PH 86-62-163, p. 147.

16.  Ibid.

                           81

-------
17.  Matthew A. Crenson.  "The Un-Politics of Air Pollution."
Baltimore:   (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971) p. 15.

18.  Jeanne Sigler and Alan Langowski.  Citizen Attitudes
Toward the Environment;  An Appraisal of~the Research.
Survey Research Laboratory, University of Illinois  (November
1971), p. 31.

19.  Ibid.t p. 50.

20.  Louis N. Tognacci.  "Environmental Quality, How Universal
Is Public Concern."  Environment and Behavior, Vol. 4, No. 1,
1972, p. 81.

21.  Charles P. Hohm.  "Reality and Perception of Air Pollu-
tion."  University of Southern California, June 15, 1972,
p. 6.

22.  Irving Hoch.  "Urban Scale and Environmental Quality."
Resources for the Future  (January 1972), pp. 7-12.

23.  N. Z. Medalia.  "Community Perception of Air Quality:
An Opinion Survey in Clarkston, Washington."  Public Health
Service Publication No. 999-AP-10, U.S. Department of Health
Education and Welfare.  Ohio, 1965.

24.  John P. Robinson and Phillip P. Shaver, Measures of
Social Psychological Attitudes Ann Arbor, Michigan:Survey
Research Center, Institute for Social Research.

25.  See the discussion of multiple correlation and path
analysis in Hubert M. Blalock, Jr. and Arlen B. Blalock,
Methodology in Social Research, New York, McGraw-Hill Book
Co., 1968.

26.  Robert C. Tryon and Daniel E. Bailey, Cluster Analysis.
New York:  McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970.

27.  HEW Perspectives on Human Deprivation;  Biological,
Psychological, and Sociological.  Washington, D.C.;National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 1968.

28.  Denton E. Morrison, "Some Notes Toward a Theory of
Relative Deprivation, Social Movements and Social Change,"
American Behavioral Scientist, May/June 1971, V 14, No. 5.

29.  Relationships among the population parameters may be
plotted or represented by several methods.  Each discipline
seems to have its own "turf" of analytical tools, e.g.,
economics would use indifference, iso-preference curves and
other devices, sociologists would use tables, factor and path
analysis.  Our discussion is limited from representing or
comparing the utility of these various schemes.
                         82

-------
30.  It is an axiomatic assumption among urban planners that
problems often occur in syndromes which correspond to physi-
cal locations.  We also expect that scores on many QOL
indices are likely to be highly interrelated for some physi-
cal location—the west Boston type ethnic community, the
decayed inner city ghetto, the match-box house suburb, the
wealthy Georgian estates.  Although such variations would be
captured partially by our physical environment factor and
the analytical dimension of geographic region, it is possibly
such an important distinction of QOL variation as to warrant
brief comment.  Literature in the areas of urban geography
and social area analysis are appropriate to apply to the
problem of relating patterns of QOL index scores to regional
location.  The idea of reporting QOL scores on map grids for
a locality provides an efficient means by which data can be
represented for policy and evaluation.  The NEEDS program
(see Apendix A) uses this device to report data.  As a
general example of the illustrative use of grids, overlap,
three dimensional time-space graphs, simulation patterns,
see "Spatial Diffusion," Washington, D.C., Association of
American Geographers, Commission on College Geography,
Resource Paper No. 4, 1969.

31.  Angus Campbell and Phillip E. Converse, "Monitoring the
Quality of American Life."

32.  Otis Dudley Duncan.  "Discrimination Against Negroes."
The Annals v. 371, May 1967, pp. 85-103.

       "In the career of ar individual or cohort of
    individuals the circumstances of the family of
    orientation—its size, structure, socio-economic
    status, stability, and so on—provide a set of
    1 initial conditions' whose effects are transmitted
    through subsequent stages of attainment or
    achievement."  (Duncan, 1967:87)

33.  "Informative data from longitudinal and retrospective
studies on representative samples permit something more than
impressionistic estimates of how and how much the advantages
or handicaps at one stage are transmitted to the succeeding
ones."   (Blaud and Dunca, 1972; Eckland, 1965, Sewell and
Armer, 1966).  Such evidence, however, does not exist for
earlier time periods in a form that allows reliable infer-
ence of trends.  And it does not exist  (save in the most
rudimentary form for 'non whites') for the minorities whose
life-cycle patterns are presumed to deviate widely from the
American norm."   (Duncan, 1967:88).
                         83

-------
                            SECTION VIII
                        POLICY  IMPLICATIONS
VIII.A  Introduction


        The idea of a quality of life index has aroused far
  more  than only academic interest.   Policy-makers,  business-
  men,  as well as academics find the prospect of such an index
  fascinating for a number of reasons.   This discussion will
  point out some of those reasons,  and  in particular,  begin to
  answer the following questions:  (1)  How does a QOL index
  relate to other work in the field of  policy analysis?  (2)
  What  might be the uses and (3)  the misuses of a QOL index?
   (4) What can be done to insure that the index will not be
  used  in ways contrary to the intention of its framers?

VIII.B  The Use of a QOL Index;  Policy  Analysis


        The first large group of possible uses of a QOL index,
  depending on how it is constructed, are those relating to
  policy analysis.  This set of possible uses breaks down into
  three areas, each relating to a major step in the formulating
  of public policy:   (1) assessment of  the public's values and
  preferences, and of objective conditions, (2) analysis of
  the impacts, trade-offs, and net effects of a given action,
  and (3) evaluation of the outcome of  a policy or action.

VIII.B.I  Assessment of Values and Conditions

        Rational social choice obviously rests on correct
  evaluation of the status quo.  In order to solve problems,
  information must be available concerning the extent and
  nature of those problems; and, furthermore, it is highly
  desirable to have information on problems that are just
  emerging.  The first condition, information on existing
  problems, is not the main channel in which a QOL index can
  aid assessment of the status quo.  Instead, the comprehen-
   sive social accounting effort implied in the development of
  such an index would be of major benefit in locating problems
  that are just emerging.  It is in this area that the present
  haphazard system of collecting data on social problems is
  most lacking.  A systematic assessment of the quality of
  life would do much to correct this deficiency.  Moreover,  it
  would help policy-makers and others to see problems in
  greater perspective, and would aid in the development of a
  holistic or systems approach to social and environmental
  reality.
                              84

-------
        But objective conditions are not the only concern of
   policy-makers:  the public's assessments and attitudes
   toward those problems are important as well.  The QOL index
   would be a comprehensive attempt to assess such values.
   This would be the case whether the index specifically
   included indices of satisfaction with objective conditions,
   or whether the index restricted subjective variables to the
   weighting of the indicators of objective conditions.1  In
   either case, a series of numbers reflecting the relative
   importance and/or the levels of dissatisfaction of the popu-
   lation would be available to decision-makers.  Since
   resources are limited, choices must be made between a number
   of problems needing solution.  A QOL index would help deci-
   sion-makers direct their efforts in the areas of most con-
   cern to the public.2

VIII.B,2  Analysis of Impacts and Trade-offs

        The development of a QOL index would not improve the
   means of assessing the magnitudes of the impacts of a given
   public policy, except insofar as the index furthered the
   development of a more comprehensive approach to social
   problems.  The value of a QOL index in, for example, cost-
   benefit analyses, would be in judging the relative importance
   of those impacts.  In the past, efforts to judge these rela-
   tive importance ratios have primarily been attempts to trans-
   late magnitudes of externalities into monetary figures.  A
   QOL approach would estimate instead the impacts of an action
   on one QOL figure.  It may be found, for example, that the
   effects of a project are:   (a) the lowering of the disposable
   "income" factor by 1.2 units;  (b) the raising the "air
   quality" factor by 1.6 units; and  (c) raising the "aesthetics"
   factor by 2.0 units.  When the weights and dissatisfaction
   levels associated with these factors are found, the QOL is
   projected to show a net increase of .2 units.  The consequent
   conclusion could very well be that the project should proceed.
        The traditional approach of economic theory to such
   choices is one of calculating marginal costs and benefits.
   While a QOL index, as conceived in this and most other
   studies, is not appropriate for the estimation of marginal
   costs and benefits, a modification of the surveying technique
   could in principle yield such information as well.3


 VIII.B,3  Outcome Evaluation


        A QOL  index could provide a focus for  the emerging  field
   of  social experimentation and outcome evaluation.   Campbell
   and  Ross describe  the goal of  such experimentation  as  follows:
                              85

-------
      While the social scientist cannot as a rule experi-
      ment on a societal scale, societal "experimentation"
      or abrupt focused social change is continually going
      on, initiated by government, business, natural
      forces, etc.  The social scientist adds to his tools
      for understanding the social system when he attends
      to these events and documents their effects in as
      thorough a fashion as possible.4

  No claim is made that such evaluations and QOL research are
  the same, but the two can clearly aid in each other's
  development.  The techniques of "quasi-experimentation"
  could be important tools for estimating changes in the QOL,
  while the QOL index could become a way of summarizing the
  impact of a given policy.
       Thus a QOL index would be useful in evaluating the out-
  comes of policies and actions, emphasizing both changes in
  objective conditions and in the public's attitudes toward
  those changes.


VIII.C The Use of a QOL Index;  Education and Social Science

       The possible uses of a QOL index are not restricted to
  the sphere of government and public policy.  The fields of
  education and social science would also benefit from such an
  index.  In the area of education, it could function as an
  adjunct to computer simulation models; in the area of social
  science, it is anticipated that a QOL index could spur the
  development of a unified science of social, psychological,
  and environmental interaction.


VIII,C,1 Computer  Simulations


        Computer simulation is the attempt to summarize many of
   the aspects of a socio-environmental system into  a  computer
   program with which students or policy-makers could  interact.
   An  example of this field is the River Basin Model of the
   Environmental Studies Division of the Environmental Protec-
   tion Agency.5  The River Basin Model "deals with  any geo-
   graphical  area and many of its associated economic, social,
   governmental,  and water resource characteristics."  It is
   designed to show the  interactions between these sectors so
   that  policy-makers and students of environment can  better
   understand the trade-offs involved in any decision  that
   society  makes.   It is possible that a QOL index could  be  a
   valuable input to such computer models.6  A QOL index  is
   primarily  concerned with the measurement of actual  social
   conditions,  including the degree of satisfaction  of actual
   members  of society, whereas a computer model is purposely an


                            86

-------
  abstraction from reality in order to give computer game
  "players" a better feel for social and environmental inter-
  actions.  Nevertheless, the two share a holistic approach to
  social reality and are thus well-suited to aid in the other's
  development.  Computer simulations may be one way to refine
  QOL "weights," and QOL indices are potentially important
  summary variables in computer models.

VII.C,2  Toward the Development of a Unified Social Science

       One obvious way in which a QOL measurement effort would
  affect the social sciences is in making them more oriented
  toward the problems of policy formulation.  It has been said
  in the past that the social sciences tend too much toward
  theory or toward specialized knowledge with relatively little
  practical usefulness.7  An attempt to regularly measure the
  QOL would involve many social scientists in an empirical,
  policy-oriented research endeavor.  The scale of such an
  endeavor would probably be so large as to have a real impact
  on the general orientation of the social sciences.8
       A larger implication of the development of a QOL index
  is that of spurring the development of a unified social
  science, emphasizing social interactions in all their
  economic, social, and psychological aspects.
       The idea of a unified social science is not new.  A
  great many observers have become dismayed by the extent to
  which the social sciences have specialized and become una-
  ware of the insights of their sister sciences.  In economics,
  for example, a call has gone out for a new approach to the
  measurement of economic performance, one which would look
  beyond the narrow horizon of monetary accomplishment.9  For
  a merging of the social sciences to occur, there must be a
  common empirical ground, a common unit of analysis.  This
  unit of analysis would be closely related to human welfare
  and happiness, and would need both micro- and macro-aspects
  for social scientists of various orientations to analyze.  A
  quality of life index, constructed in a way that is respect-
  able to the various social sciences, would provide such a
  common denominator.
       The history of science provides numerous examples of an
  empirical tool stimulating the growth of a vast theoretical
  body of knowledge.  Astronomy and the telescope, biology and
  the microscope, economics and the development of GNP account-
  ing—all are such examples.  It is reasonable to suppose
  that a high-quality QOL index could  have a similarly impor-
  tant impact.
                            87

-------
VIII,D The Use of a QOL  Index:  Improving the Market Mechanism

       A QOL index  could be useful to the  private sector  in
  ways that  are  quite similar to  the ones  outlined in  refer-
  ence to the public sector.  The entrepreneur cannot  ration-
  ally invest his money without information on the demand that
  exists for the good he is contemplating  producing.   In  the
  past,  such choices were often based on intuition and past
  experience. The  result has been that the market has not
  been as responsive to the public's needs as  it could be with
  more accurate  knowledge of what those needs  are. A  QOL
  index, by  making  explicit the relative importance of the
  various aspects of the quality of life,  would help the  entre
  preneur to make more rational investments, and to allocate
  his resources  in  ways that are  most beneficial to him and to
  society.
       As a  brief example, a QOL  index computed 20 years  ago
  might  have revealed rapid depletion of natural resources, an
  alarming rate  of  increase in litter and  solid waste, and a
  high weight placed by the public on having an environment
  without such litter and waste.   The development of ways to
  recycle such residuals by industry might have begun  much
  earlier, in response to the existence of a demand for
  recycling  devices.   Over a period of time, prices for such
  devices would  have dropped, and there could  be at present
  more recycling of residuals.
       Another way  in which a QOL index would  be useful to
  private individuals is in helping them decide where  to  live.
  An index broken down by locality would suggest those areas
  whose  environment is most pleasant.  Individuals in  crowded,
  unpleasant environments would be drawn to the more pleasant
  ones,  and  would thus exert a pressure on local governments
  to meet their  constituents' needs.  Otherwise, such  govern-
  ments  would lose  much of their tax base.   Thus the natural
  equilibriating processes of the social system would  be
  facilitated and time lags would be reduced.

 VIII.E Misuse of a QOL  Index
        In examining the various implications of the develop-
   ment of a QOL index, it would be unappropriate to emphasize
   the positive potentialities of such an index and ignore the
   possible misuses and dysfunctions of a QOL index.  There are
   three potential misuses of a QOL index p^r se:   (1) the
   attempt by policy-makers to change subjectively determined
   weights instead of objective conditions;  (2) the treating of
   QOL as the only measure of a society's well being; and (3)
   the conforming of individuals to the standards of a QOL
   formula.


                              88

-------
      Any QOL index would be composed of two types of numbers:
 those reflecting objective conditions and actual states of
 mind, (e.g.  the amount of air pollution,  and the actual
 degree of work satisfaction), and those reflecting the rela-
 tive importance of such conditions to the individuals whose
 QOL is being measured.   The first type of numbers we have
 called indicators; the second, weights.   Now it is clearly
 laudable (within the limits of society's  choices)  for govern-
 ments to try to bring the first kind of numbers into line
 with what society considers "good."   But  it is equally clear
 that an attempt by governments to control the second kind of
 numbers—the weights which individuals assign to QOL factors
 according to their subjective tastes—is  outside of the
 bounds traditionally assigned to government activity.   Such
 an attempt would in fact be what Orwell and Huxley have
 warned in their descriptions of future "brave, new worlds".
      One could envisage such a development if the QOL turns
 out to be a  highly variable number or set of numbers.   After
 a number of  years the QOL would become fairly respected as a
 measure of social welfare, and politicians trying to unseat
 incumbents would use any drop in the QOL index as evidence
 of their opponents' irresponsibility.   Those in office would
 be tempted to raise the QOL by whatever means available.
 And they might find that changing weights is a more expedient
 route than influencing indicators.   Thus  a single-minded
 chase to improve that magic number,  QOL,  would lead govern-
 ments in the direction of despotism.
      If, on  the other hand, the QOL index turns out to be a
 fairly constant number—changing, for example, one percent
 per year—the chances of this scenario occuring are small.
      The second misuse of a QOL index is  closely related to
 the first.  Ideally, a QOL index would include everything
 that influences a community's welfare, but, as previous
 sections have demonstrated, the measurability of many factors
 is extremely limited.  Among the hardest to quantify are
 those relating to freedom and justice—the extent of civil
 liberties, and the responsiveness of governments to their
 electorates.  An operational QOL index would probably have
 to leave such factors out, due to their dichotomous and
 hard-to-quantify nature.  The second misuse of a QOL index
 is that, without trying to change subjective weights, the
 QOL index would be treated as the single measure of a govern-
 ment 's performance.  With certain vital intangibles left out

-------
        The third misuse of a QOL index relates not to a govern-
  ment's actions so much as to a change in the attitudes of
  individuals.   The QOL index is meant to register the people's
  preferences and concerns.  The index is not meant to actually
  influence those preferences.  Yet in a conformistic society,
  such an eventuality is quite possible:  it may become un-
  fashionable to have a preference structure that does not con-
  form to the average weights listed in the QOL index.  This
  would tend to make the index rigid and limit people's
  individuality, as well as destroy the whole purpose of the
  QOL index.

VIII.F  Misuse of Social Indicators
        The potential misuses of social indicators must also be
   considered, for any QOL index would be based in part on such
   indicators.  These abuses may be divided into two categories:
   first, problems that make it difficult for social indicators
   to adequately reflect social reality; and second, problems
   in the actual gathering of social indicators, no matter how
   valid they may be.
        As Etzioni and Lehman point outH there are essentially
   two kinds of dysfunctions with any kind of social measure-
   ment:  "fractional measurement," and "indirect measurement".
   The tendency to choose single-dimensional in preference to
   multi-dimensional measurements  (when the latter may be more
   appropriate) , and the tendency to choose quantitative rather
   than qualitative measures (when the quantities chosen do not
   necessarily correspond to that which they are supposed to
   measure) properly belong under the first heading.  As an
   example of the latter dysfunction, they cite the "story of
   the Soviet railroad manager, charged with having to deliver
   x wagons, but, having nothing to deliver, sending his wagons
   back and forth—empty".  Indirect measurement is the use of
   statistics for purposes other than those for which they were
   designed.  For example, in a study of population density in
   New York City, it was found that residential population
   declined while daytime employment and visitors were rising.
   In this case, population figures were not necessarily an
   accurate guide to overall population density.  Etzioni and
   Lehman also point out other similarly difficult-to-solve
   problems with social indicators.
        The difficulties related to the actual gathering of
   social indicators have been effectively stated by Henriot.
   One class of difficulties includes those which tend to raise
   one kind of social scientist and one class of citizen above
   all others.  The emphasis on "hard data" in social indicator
   research tends to exclude those who prefer to treat more
   qualitative aspects, and tends to elevate, in particular,
   the economists.  Similarly, the well-educated and well-
   organized are better equipped to argue in the language of
   numbers than are the poor and disadvantaged.  Thus, Henriot
   claims,

                              90

-------
      There is a danger that persons who develop the
      "best" programs for society may tend to impose
      these upon the non-elites who do not understand
      them or...who do not want them.12

  The social indicators approach tends to strengthen the posi-
  tion of those who see government as essentially a matter of
  solving problems, as opposed to resolving issues.  Thus the
  proponents of social indicators are linked in some people's
  minds with the more familiar technocrats.
       A second group of difficulties relates to the problems
  of choosing which indicators to gather.  Henriot poses such
  questions as:  "What influence will lobbying pressures have
  on the gathering of data?"  "What influence will the
  character of a particular agency have upon the gathering of
  data?"  "Who will see the information output?  Will it be
  restricted to the 'ins'?"  Closely related to these questions
  are the possible danger a "national data bank" might pose to
  privacy.  Finally, Henriot questions whether the emphasis on
  technical approaches to government may create a kind of
  vacuum of moral leadership.  The current nostalgia for
  leaders with "charisma" may indicate that such a vacuum is
  already developing.

VIII.G Suggested Ways to Guard Against Misuse

       Clearly, means must  be found to  avoid  such  abuses of  a
  QOL index  and national accounting system.   Of course, one
  alternative  would be  simply not to measure  the QOL.   But the
  interest in  and pressures for  such social measurement may  be
  so strong  as to outweigh  the dangers  cited  above.   In such a
  case,  the  following steps are  recommended to  avoid  misuse  of
  a QOL  index:
       First,  there is  a need for centralizing  the measurement
  of QOL, without making the QOL index  a mere tool to justify
  the status quo or an  administration's past  performance.
  Senator Walter Mondale's  proposal to  establish a Council of
  Social Advisors13  (modeled on  the existing  Council  of
  Economic Advisors) would  be a  step in the right  direction.
  These  Social Advisors would be distinguished  academicians  in
  the fields of sociology,  political science, and  the other
  social sciences  (economics would not  necessarily be excluded)
  and would  prepare an  annual Social Report.  To help insure
  that the QOL index would  not be-used  to  the disadvantage of
  the "outs,"  the Council of Social Advisors  could be made
  directly responsible  to Congress.
       Second, the actual measurement of QOL  should be done  by
  a research team as independent as possible  from  the main
  institutions of government.  If it is desired that  the
  .research team be funded directly by the  government, the
                            91

-------
funding could be made permanent by the establishment of a
trust fund or by establishing a public corporation to finance
the research.  An existing research institution funded by the
Federal government, such as the Urban Institute, would be an
alternative channel for measuring QOL.  Alternatively, the
job of measuring QOL could be contracted to a university or
a group of universities.I4
     Third, it is essential that the QOL measurement process
be made the subject of wide public discussion and periodic,
formal re-examination.I5  This re-evaluation should not be
limited to a recalculation of QOL "weights", but should
instead cover the whole structure and philosophy of the QOL
index, focusing especially on the choice of factors and
indicators.  Such a re-examination process would both add
to the quality of the measuring tool, and would minimize the
chance that the index would be used for purely political
purposes.  It would, in addition, stimulate discussion and
research in the social sciences, and thus spur the kind of
development in the social sciences generally that occurred
in economics subsequent to the establishment of the national
income accounting system.
     Fourth and perhaps most importantly, the philosophy of
the QOL index needs to be further developed, and both the
public and policy-makers must be made fully aware of the
limitations of a QOL index.  This is the only way to minimize
the chance that the index would be used as a means to create
conformity, or to justify actions that ignore those hard-to-
quantify factors {such as liberty and social justice) that may
never find their way into a QOL index.  It is anticipated
that this process of making the public aware of the limita-
tions of the index would be easier in the first years of its
use, when the public is likely to be skeptical about the
index anyway.  The difficulty would arise after a number of
years, when, assuming the QOL index survives at all, the
index would probably have attained greater credibility.
Familiarity with the index may tend to blind people to its
limitations.  This task, which is essentially one of educa-
tion, is perhaps the most difficult to implement of our
suggestions for minimizing the dangers inherent in a QOL
index.
     No claim is made that these suggestions would totally
eliminate the dangers cited earlier in this discussion.
They may, however, reduce those dangers to a level such that
the potential benefits of a QOL index would outweigh the
possible costs.  Of the many issues raised in this report
on QOL measurement, the problem of guarding against these
dangers perhaps deserves the greatest amount of further
discussion and research.
                          92

-------
                  FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES
1.  Both alternatives are considered because neither approach
has won general acceptance.

2.  It is not clear a priori whether government decision-
makers have as their primary goal the betterment of objective
conditions or simply to reduce dissatisfaction.  In many
cases it may be easier simply to reduce dissatisfaction by
persuading people that conditions are not as bad as they
originally thought, or by hiding from them the existence of
conditions which would make them more dissatisfied if the
conditions were known.  It seems likely, however, that the
overall level of dissatisfaction is not as easily controll-
able by policy-makers.  Reducing dissatisfaction in one area,
using the most expedient means, may only shift dissatisfac-
tion to another area.  The alternative approach, involving
an entirely different political philosophy, would be to
focus on solving objective problems, with reduced dissatis-
faction as the usual, but not necessary, result.  The useful-
ness of a given QOL index would depend on which approach its
governmental users intend to follow.  If they choose the
former route, the QOL index should emphasize numbers approxi-
mating levels of dissatisfaction.  If the latter route is
chosen, the QOL index should emphasize objective social and
environmental indicators.  Whatever the objective, however,
the QOL index is likely to be useful in each of the three
ways cited above.  In the one case, "status quo" and "costs
and benefits" would be stated in terms of levels of satis-
faction; in the other case, they would be stated in terms of
objective conditions.  The QOL index suggested in this report
represents a compromise between the two approaches.

3.  The policy usefulness of a QOL index is affected by the
degree to which it emphasizes conditions at the margin.  The
marginal benefit of any good, public or private, is the
benefit of one more increment of that good.  The relative
value or importance of that good is something quite differ-
ent, reflecting the contribution the stock of that good
makes to an individual's or community's welfare.  The former
concept is a "flow" concept; the latter is a "stock" concept.
QOL indices are normally thought of as reflections of a
certain state of being, and are thus stock concepts.  The
weights in such indices are therefore most appropriately
measures of relative value or importance.  But for the
policy-maker trying to determine just how much money to
allot to a given project, information at the margin is much
more useful.  This suggests the desirability of developing
a separate, "flow QOL" index, whose weights are approxima-
tions not of relative importance, but of marginal benefit.
It is anticipated that such approximations are much harder
to obtain than approximations 'of relative importance, as
                         93

-------
 defined elsewhere in this report.   In any case,  the "stock
 QOL"  index developed in this report is quite useful in
 determining whether a project should be started  at all,
 because in this case information at the margin is less
 important than overall relative importance and relative
 dissatisfaction data.

 4.   D.  T. Campbell and H. L. Ross, "The Connecticut Crack-
 down on Speeding:  Time Series Data in Quasi-Experimental
 Analysis," in E. R. Tufte, ed., The Quantitative Analysis
 of  Social Problems.  (Reading, Pa., Addison-Wesley:1970),
 pp.  110-125.

 5.   Peter House, et al., River Basin Model;  An  Overview
 (Washington, B.C.:  USGPO #16110 SRU, December 1, 1971).

 6.   The River Basin Model includes a QOL index,  but it is
 presumed that similar computer simulation models do not.
 In  any case, research in the direction of making such indexes
 more sophisticated could clearly help in the refinement  of
 such models.

 7.   See, e.g., Yehezkel Dror, Public Policymaking Reexamined
 (Scranton, Pa.:  Chandler, 1968~TT

 8.   Cf. Senator Walter Mondale, "Reporting on the Social
 State of the Union," Trans-action V  (June 1968)  pp. 34-38.

 9.   F.  Thomas Juster, "On the Measurement of Economic and
 Social Performance," National Bureau of Economic Research
 Annual Report, 1970, pp. 8-24.
     Mancur Olson, "The National Accounts and the Level of
 Welfare"  (mimeo, 1972—University of Maryland).

 10.   It must be remembered, however, that this applies only
 for those with a certain amount of mobility, and excludes,
 for example, many residents in urban ghettoes.

 11.   Amitai Etzioni and E. W. Lehman, "Some Dangers in
 •Valid1 Social Measurement," Annals of American  Academy of
 Political and Social Science Vol.  373 (September 1967),  p.  2.

 12.   Peter Henriot, "Political Questions about Social Indi-
 cators," Western Political Quarterly, XXIII (June 1970),
 pp.  235-255.

 13.   Mondale, ibid.

 14.   This point emerged in a discussion with Cherie Lewis,  a
 colleague of the author.

15.   It goes without  saying  that the  QOL data  should be fully
available  to the public.   Information on weights, however,  may
be more wisely restricted, in order to minimize the conformist
effects cited earlier in  this  section.

                         94

-------
I.

A.
                         SECTION IX
                         APPENDICES

                         APPENDIX A
Applied Research

TITLE     "An Environmental Quality Rating System"*

KEYWORD   A single index quality
    AREA
    FOR
    BY
          Human population, community resources, water
          resources, land forms, leisure, vegetative
          resources, wildlife, historical areas.

          Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Department of
          Interior

          Rolland B. Handley, J. R. Jordan and William
          Patterson
    LOCATION  Washington, D.C.

    DATE      Since 1971

     This amounts to a rating system that attempts to quan-
tify all of the (+) and  (-) values in an area in an additive
fashion.  The higher the score the greater the assigned
weighting.  Although this system has the advantage of
keeping separate and comparable the desirable  (+) and unde-
sirable  features  (-) it is limited in many other respects.
Evaluation in most categories is intuitive and value
standards arbitrary.
                          95

-------
B.  TITLE



    KEYWORD

    AREAS



    FOR
"QOL in Urban America—NYC:  A Regional and
National Comparative Analysis"*

Indices of Life Quality in Urban Areas

Crime, EQ, Revenue and Budget, Taxation,
Welfare and Social Services
    BY        NYC Mayor's Office

    LOCATION  NYC
    DATE
May, 1971
     "The NY study uses urban, economic, social environmental
and some general indicators to measure the QOL" ... "The NY
study does not include innovative indexing procedures, but
relies upon bar graphics to project the differences between
past and present levels of pollution.  The Study is intended
solely for the use of decision makers, and lacks the simpli-
fication needed to make it a useful public information tool."
(Research Analysis Corporation, 1972:29-30)
C.  TITLE
"Systematic Measurement of the Quality of Urban
Life—Prerequisite to Management"*
    KEYWORD   Indices of Life Quality in Urban Areas
    AREAS
 (undetermined)
    FOR       Los Angeles Community Analysis Bureau

    BY        Research Analysis Corporation, McLean, Virginia

    LOCATION  Los Angeles, California
    DATE
May, 1971
     "data for the indicators of life quality are obtained
from computerized files of the in-process activities of the
L.A. operating departments ..."  Utilizing the SYMAP computer
graphics program "a comparison of the QOL that is enjoyed by
different communities within the city" is possible.  Areas
are located "where conditions are worst and where funds
should be expanded by the city to improve the life of its
citizens."  (Research Analysis Corporation, 1972:29)
                          96

-------
D.  TITLE     "Environmental Quality Index" Volume I

    KEYWORD   Single Index of the Quality of the Environment

    AREAS     Air and water, land related, multi-media,
              social/aesthetic

    FOR       County of San Diego

    BY        Research Analysis Corporation

    LOCATION  San Diego

    DATE      June, 1972

     "This report describes the research, recommendations
and implementation plan for using the suggested indicators
to inform the public of the changes in the quality of the
environment  (p. V)."  The strategy adopted is similar to
that used by D. J. Montgomery—"The basic concept involved
in this approach is to determine the value of the environ-
mental assets of the region and then to determine and sub-
tract from this the degradation, or "insults" to the
environment.  The resulting number is a Single Index of
Environmental Quality.   (Appendix A, p. 99).
     R. B. Handley, et al., An Environmental Quality Rating
System, Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
N.E. Region, Staff Report, 1970.  Also P. J. Montgomery,
A Framework for Research, delivered to the 138th Meeting of
the AAAS, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, December 30, 1971.
This material did not come to our attention in time for
direct evaluation. ••
                          97

-------
E.  TITLE



    KEYWORD

    AREA


    FOR

    BY
Neighborhood Environmental Evaluation and
Decision System (NEEDS)

Community Evaluation Plan

Housing, environment, accessibility to con-
veniences, crowding, street quality

Volunteer Cities

Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Public Health Service, Bureau of Community
Environmental Management
    LOCATION  Washington, D.C.

    DATE      From 1968

     NEEDS is a methodology combining both opinion and
factual data to determine numerical scores for pre-selected
urban areas.  The score patterns will be used to identify
areas of high priority for local city management officials.
Data is provided in the form of map presentations as well as
in tabular form.  The program is currently under way having
collected data from a score of moderately sized urban areas
with a net population of over 3.5 million.  The combined
subjective and objective data is being analyzed by corre-
lational and cluster analytical techniques.  Emphasis is
placed on the area of health data.  Emphasis on this area,
however, is tempered by a strong orientation toward inter-
related aspects of urban problems.  The analysis scheme
tends to isolate areas where problems occur as syndromes as
well as areas characterized by single difficulties.  NEEDS
is well developed as a decision-making aid and asset to
local incentives.  An elaborate reinforcement program is a
part of the NEEDS model and serves to implement changes
suggested through NEEDS by assisting coordination with
higher government funding agencies.
                           98

-------
F.  TITLE     Environmental Evaluation System for Water
              Resource Planning

    KEYWORD   Environmental Evaluation System (EES)

    AREA      Ecology, environmental pollution,  aesthetics,
              human interest

    FOR       Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Interior

    BY        Battelle

    LOCATION  Columbus, Ohio

    DATE      January, 1972

     "The EES was designed for use in evaluating the environ-
mental impacts of the Bureau of Reclamation's water resource
development . . .  Water resource developments may create
both beneficial and adverse impacts on the environment.
Because properties are not commonly measured in commensurate
units, it is difficult to evaluate the net environmental
effects of a Bureau project.  To solve this trade-off
problem, Battelle-Columbus developed a technique to trans-
form all parameters into commensurate units (p.  6-7)."

     Step 1.  Transform all parameter estimates (actual
measure in feet, acres, etc.) into their corresponding
environmental quality  (defined onto a scale varying from
0 to 1.0)

     Step 2.  Weigh all parameters in proportion to their
relative importance.   (Weights are assigned.)

     Step 3.  Multiply the environmental quality of the
parameters by their relative weights to obtain common units
(Step 1 times Step 2 = a solution to the trade-off problem.)
(Parenthetical notes ours.)  The relationship between virtu-
ally any measurement and a scale of varying quality is
obtained upon which actual measurement can be plotted as a
graph line which is a common reference for diverse projects.
                          99

-------
II.

A.
 Pure Research

TITLE
    KEYWORD

    Areas
    FOR
    BY
"The Quality of Life in Metropolitan
Washington, D.C."

Indices of Life Quality in Urban Areas

Income, unemployment, poverty, housing (costs),
education, health, mental health, air pollu-
tion, public order, racial equality, citizen
participation, community concern, transporta-
tion, social disintegration
          Urban Institute
    LOCATION  Washington, D.C.
    DATE
          March, 1970
Indicators of the focal area were developed and comparisons
made for 18 large metropolitan areas.   "The indicators are
then employed to develop charts and summary tables which use
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area as an illustrative
example.  These sample charts show Washington's  (a) current
status in each quality category;  (b) its recent and latest
rankings; and  (c) its recent rates of change as compared
with similar data from the 17 other large metropolitan areas.
Central cities and  suburbs of the 18 metropolitan areas are
examined with respect to five of the QOL categories.  There
is a tabulation and summary of the five indicators as they
reflect conditions  for the central cities and suburbs, ratios
between city and suburban areas, and rates of change in these
factors  (from the abstract)."
                         100

-------
B.  TITLE     "Experimental Assessment of Delphi Procedures
              with Group Value Judgements"

    KEYWORD   Delphi Generated QOL Factors

    AREAS     (Undetermined)

    FOR

    BY        Rand (Dalkey and Rourke)

    LOCATION  Santa Monica, California

    DATE      February, 1971

     University students participated in a Delphi group con-
sensus seeking strategy to generate and rate value categories
relating to higher education and QOL.  Thirteen QOL factors
were identified:

     1.  novelty, change, newness
     2.  peace of mind, emotional stability
     3.  social acceptance, popularity
     4.  comfort, economic well-being
     5.  dominance-superiority
     6.  challenge, stimulation
     7-  self-respect, self-acceptance
     8.  privacy
     9.  involvement, participation
    10.  love, caring, affection
    11.  achievement, accomplishment, job satisfaction
    12.  individuality, conformity, spontaneity
    13.  sex

This work was designed primarily to test the utility of
Delphi procedures on non-factual data.
                         101

-------
C.  TITLE     Urban Land Use Planning

    KEYWORD   Urban Activity Systems

    AREAS      (Undetermined)

    FOR

    BY         F.  Steuart Chapin

    LOCATION  University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

    DATE       1965

     The QOL may  be defined as a pattern of activities volun-
tarily engaged in by individuals and differentially weighted
and valued by  them.  Although not a QOL study per se Chapin
is engaged in work which no informal discussion should leave
unattended.  Chapin has developed a household survey scheme
to probe the following QOL related activities:   (1) income
producing activities;  (2) family activities;  (3) education;
(4) spiritual  development;  (5) social activities;  (6) recrea-
tion and relaxation;  (7) interest group activities;  (8)
community service and political activities;  (9) physical
maintenance activities  (medical, shopping, etc.).  Chapin
discusses an experimental survey technique aimed at time
budget analysis.  This may provide an excellent means to
develop weightings on different aspects of the QOL and shed
light on the trade-offs and marginal choices people might be
prone to make.  If the preference structure can become
apparent through  such techniques then those policy alterna-
tives which enhance the QOL would be scaleable according to
preference.  A clear notion of the trade-off options is
still required, however.
                         102

-------
D.  TITLE     Monitoring the QOL

    KEYWORD

    AREAS

    FOR       National Science Foundation, Russell Sage
              Foundation

    BY        Institute for Survey Research

    LOCATION  Ann Arbor, Michigan

    DATE      Since 1971

     I.S.R. activity is the only basic scientific activity
under way on the issue of QOL which came to our attention.
Two projects are currently under analysis.  Angus Campbell,
Philip Converse and William Rodgers have attempted to estab-
lish a "base line" study of satisfaction with 13 QOL related
areas  (marriage, work, education, etc.) and the general
feeling of life satisfaction.  This study attempts to estab-
lish the role of "importance of factor" as an independent
measure in addition to the determination of satisfaction.
Analysis of this data includes correlational regression and
cluster analysis.  The study is based on a nationwide survey
conducted in August, 1971  (N = 2164).  With the sponsorship
of a N.S.F. grant, Steve Withey and Frank Andrews are
currently analzying data collected in May, 1972 from a
nationwide sample  (N = 1300).  This study attempts to deter-
mine the differences resulting from different "social indi-
cators" of life experience and life satisfaction.  Questions
about several QOL related areas were compared:  satisfaction,
happiness, semantic differential pairs, and a modified
internal-external control scale.  The purposes of this
research is an attempt to perfect better.subjective indica-
tors.  I.S.R. scientists also hope to be able to establish
empirically defined areas of concern among the American
people.   (The Russell Sage Foundation sponsored research is
well described in Lear, 1972).
                           103

-------
E.  TITLE




    KEYWORD

    AREA
"Quality of Life in the United States—An
Excursion into the New Frontier of Socio-
economic Indicators"

Rank Ordering of States

Individual status, racial equality, state and
local government, education, economic growth
quality, technological change, agriculture,
living conditions, health and welfare
    FOR
    BY        Midwest  Research  Institute  (John 0. Wilson)

    LOCATION  Kansas City, Missouri

    DATE      1969

     This paper  presents  a detailed  analysis  and  rank
ordering of the  50  states, based on  several socio-economic
indicators developed by Wilson.   (See  above listing  for the
nine areas on which states were ranked.)   Data used  had been
collected from national,  state,  local  and special sources.
Included in the  paper  is  a review of social indicator  litera-
ture and a discussion  of  the type of information  needed to
develop indicators.
                           104

-------
                         APPENDIX B
Subjective Indicators
     A methodology may be devised by which a determination
is made of measures of subjective levels of (people's)
satisfaction.  Furthermore, the levels may be levels of
measures of the factors and the importance (weighting)
people attach to each of those factors in relation to all
other factors.
     The most consistently used tool for such subjective
measurement of social psychological states is the survey.
Since it is not feasible to query the entire population
(due to time and budgetary limitations), a sample survey is
useful.  In such a survey, characteristics of the defined
population or universe are inferred from a small group of
"representative" subjects.

Selecting the Sample
     There are various types of sample survey techniques
used by social researchers (simple random sample, stratified
random or quota control sample, area sample, etc.).1
     For purposes of this research, the area sample was
considered the most useful technique.  As Kerlinger explains
it:

    Area sampling is the type of sampling most used in
    survey research.  First, defined large areas are
    sampled at random.  This amounts to partitioning of
    the universe and random sampling the cells of the
    partition.  The partition cells may be areas
    delineated by grids on maps or aerial photographs
    of counties, school districts, or city blocks.
    Then further subarea samples may be drawn at random
    from the large areas already drawn.  Finally, all
    individuals or families or random samples of indi-
    viduals and families may be drawn.2

     The basic example to be followed in sampling techniques
was taken from the "Neighborhood Environmental Evaluation
and Decision System  (NEEDS)" developed by the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare.  Stages I and II of their
survey rationale slightly modified are useful guidelines:

       The objective of Stage I is to delineate geo-
    graphic areas within the city. . . . Stage I con-
    sists of a ... survey on ... randomly selected
    blocks ... in neighborhoods of the community.

       State II consists of an interview of randomly
    selected families in the study areas. . . .3
                         105

-------
Measurement of Subjective Assessment of Objective Conditions
     A series of descriptive statements of the previously
defined factors can be used in the survey instrument.  The
respondent is presented with these statements and asked to
rate their applicability to him or his feelings about them
along the dimension "strongly disagree . . . strongly agree"
(a Likert Scale).4  Integral values are then assigned to
each scale point and total scores are obtained by a simple
summation.  By dividing the sum by N  (number of respondents),
a mean score for each variable will be obtained.  Statements
can be worded positively or negatively to avoid acquiescence.

Factor Weighting
     To weight the subjective factors as to their relative
importance to an individual, a Q-sort technique was con-
sidered roost applicable.
     The Q-sort methodology is a sophisticated form of rank
ordering objects, then assigning numerals to subsets of the
objects for statistical purposes.  The methodology centers
on sorting decks of cards into piles.5
     A set of objects  (in this case cards, on each of which
is listed a factor) is given to a respondent  (R) to sort
into a set of separate piles  (ranging from most important to
least important).  It is suggested that the card deck be
sorted by using an unstructured sort, and that the sort be
three-fold  (that is, R be given three cards at a time and
asked to place each card in the pile indicating the degree
of importance of the factor to him).
     To validate the results of the Q-sort rank order corre-
lations developed from analysis of the sort, two additional
tests should be applied.  One should discover the intensity
of an individual' s commitment to solving the problems
relating to the factors described in the factor list, in
terms of sacrifice of both money and free time.  To do this,
R can be given a list of the QOL factors and asked to indi-
cate how much money he would be willing to give to improve
the status of each QOL factor.  Next, he would be asked to
indicate how much of his free time (assuming an average of
free time throughout the population) he would be willing to
donate.  The money and free time donated would be recorded
beside each factor and compared with the rank order assigned
to each factor by R in the Q-sort, and correlations developed,

Subjective Assessment Sample Questions
     The instructions to respondent R would be:

Please read each of the following statements carefully and
CIRCLE the letter or letters which best express your feelings
about the statement.

If you STRONGLY AGREE with the statement, CIRCLE SA

If you AGREE (but not strongly), CIRCLE A


                          106

-------
If you are UNDECIDED  (that is, you neither agree nor dis-
agree) , CIRCLE U

If you DISAGREE (but not strongly), CIRCLE D

If you STRONGLY DISAGREE with the statement, CIRCLE SD

If you are in doubt, circle the letter which most nearly
expresses your present feeling.  Please circle only one
letter for each statement.

Following the instructions, the questions (in the form of
statements) would be listed.  Below are examples of this
technique oriented toward eliciting responses usable as
indicators for each of the Sectors presented in Section 6.0
of this report.

1.  Economic Sector

     Income
     S?  As soon as we get a pay raise the cost of living
         goes up and we are worse off than before.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:  Most of my friends have plenty of money left over
         each month to buy what they want and have a good
         time.                          SA  A  U  D  SD

     Income Distribution
     slSome people will always be poor no matter what you
         do for them.                   SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:  People like me should not have to pay high taxes
         while others pay practically nothing.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD

     Economic Security
     SlThese days it is almost impossible to save any
         money after the bills are paid.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:  The Federal Government should provide more benefits
         for people like myself.        SA  A  U  D  SD

     Work Satisfaction
     Sl  I really enjoy my job.         SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:  I don't particularly like most of the people I work
         with.                          SA  A  U  D  SD
                          107

-------
Social Sector

 Family
 S:  I think it should be just as easy to get divorced
     as it is to get married.       SA  A  U  D  SD

 S:  Most parents don't pay enough attention to their
     children.                      SA  A  U  D  SD

 Community
 S:  I think attending public hearings is a waste of
     time.                          SA  A  U  D  SD

 S:  Most elementary and high school teachers are over-
     paid.                          SA  A  U  D  SD

 Social Stability
 S:  If a person really wants to work he can always find
     a job.                         SA  A  U  D  SD

 S:  People who loot stores ought to be shot on sight.
                                    SA  A  U  D  SD

 Physical Security
 S:  It is safe for me and my family to walk on the
     streets at night.              SA  A  U  D  SD

 S:  If I were robbed, the police would quickly catch
     the criminal.                  SA  A  U  D  SD

 Culture
 S:  I would like to attend more concerts and plays but
     it costs too much to go.       SA  A  U  D  SD

 S:  Most people really don't appreciate the talented
     performers who live in this area.
                                    SA  A  U  D  SD

 Recreation
 Si  Children in this neighborhood would like to play in
     the park but it is too far away.
                                    SA  A  U  D  SD

 S:  Recreational facilities are usually open at times
     when most people can use them.
                                    SA  A  U  D  SD

Political Sector                                  '

 Electoral Participation
 S:So many other people vote in the general elections
     that it doesn't matter to me whether I vote or not.
                                    SA  A  U  D  SD
                       108

-------
     S:   If a person doesn't care how an election comes out
         he shouldn't vote in it.       SA  A  U  D  SD

     Non-Electoral  Participation
     SiI think it is just as important to vote for local
         candidates as it is to vote for a presidential
         candidate.                     SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:   Attending  public hearings is usually a waste of
         time.                          SA  A  U  D  SD

     Government Responsibility
     S:   People in  this area have to complain frequently in
         order to get the garbage picked up.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD

     Civil Liberties
     S~:   There isn't as much freedom in this country as
         there used to be.              SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:   The people around here who publish underground
         newspapers often get arrested.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD

     Informed Constituency
     S:   The coverage of news on television is generally
         biased.                        SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:   When the news is presented on television, it is
         hard to tell what is fact and what is opinion.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD

4.  Health Sector

     Physical
     S:   People like me can not afford to get sick because
         doctors and hospitals cost so much.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:   In general, my family receives good medical care
         whenever we have to see a doctor.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD

     Mental
     S:   In general, the mental health program in my com-
         munity is  quite good.          SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:   Most of my friends could not afford the cost of
         seeing a psychiatrist.         SA  A  U  D  SD

     Nourishment
     S":In my opinion the quality of the food sold  in
         grocery stores is not as good as it used to be.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD
                           109

-------
     S:  Food prices are so high that people like us can't
         feed our children the right kind of meals.
                                        SA  A  U  D   SD

    Physical Environment

     Housing
     S:  In my neighborhood people try hard to make  their
         homes look nice.               SA  A  U  D   SD

     S:  Almost any place would be better than where I am
         now living.                    SA  A  U  D   SD

     Transportation
'ransp
1  Whl
           ere I live a person really needs a car to get
         around.                        SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:  I would probably ride the bus more often if it
         didn't cost so much.           SA  A  U  D  SD

     Public Services
     SiWhen gas, electric, or telephone companies try to
         raise rates, the government makes a thorough evalua-
         tion of their requests with the interest of people
         like me in mind.               SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:  Garbage collection in my community is prompt and
         efficient.                     SA  A  U  D  SD

     Material Quality
     S:  The trouble with most products these days is that
         the manufacturers are just out to make a fast buck.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:  Everything we buy seems to fall apart.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD

     Aesthetics
     S:  In my area developers try to avoid cutting down
         trees unless it is absolutely necessary.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD

     S:  Local officials are very concerned about things
         like ugly billboards and commercial signs.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD

6.  Natural Environment

     Air
     ST~ The air we breathe is just as pure as it ever was.
                                        SA  A  U  D  SD
                        110

-------
S:  Air pollution is getting so bad that someday we
    might have to stop using automobiles.
                                   SA  A  U  D  SD

Water
S:  Our drinking water usually tastes pretty good.
                                   SA  A  U  D  SD

S:  I don't think that the local water treatment plant
    gets all the harmful substances out of our drinking
    water.                         SA  A  U  D  SD

Radiation
SiIf a nuclear power plant were built within a few
    miles of my home I would probably move somewhere
    else.                          SA  A  U  D  SD

S:  I feel certain that health officials will quickly
    notify us if there is a danger of too much
    radiation.                     SA  A  U  D  SD

Toxicity
S:  I really worry sometimes about the harmful sub-
    stances in the food we eat.    SA  A  U  D  SD

S:  People spend too much time worrying about things
    like mercury or lead poisoning.
                                   SA  A  U  D  SD

Solid Wastes
S:  The factories dump too much solid waste materials
    into the rivers and on the ground in this community,
                                   SA  A  U  D  SD

Noise
S:  Where I work the noise is often uncomfortable.
                                   SA  A  U  D  SD

S:  I have considered moving somewhere else because the
    noise is so bad.               SA  A  U  D  SD
                   111

-------
                  FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES
1.  For details on the applicability of certain types of
sample selection, see Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls, and
Samples (New York:  Harper & Row:  1950) passim.; Fred N.
Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research  (New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.:1964) Chapter 22; and
Bernard Lazerwitz, "Sampling Theory and Procedures," in
Blalock and Blalock, eds., Methodology in Social Research
(New York:  McGraw Hill:  1968) p. 278.

2.  Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research
(New York:  Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.:1964) p. 399.

3.  NEEDS;  Cleveland, Ohio, Stage I Report, March 1972,
p. 5.

4.  P. Likert, "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes,"
Archives of Psychology, 1932, No. 140, pp. 1-55.

5.  See W. Stephenson, The Study of Behavior  (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press:  1953).
                          112

-------
  SELECTED WATER
  RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
  INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
                        1  Rep
                                                                   3.  A ccession No.
                                            w
  4.  Title
 STUDIES  IN  ENVIRONMENT - Volume II - Quality of  Life
                                             5. R>
                                             ff.
                                             5.
  7. Authors) Kenneth Hornback, Joel Guttman, Harold  Hinmelstein,
            Ann Rappaport, Roy Reyna
                                                                            ir- OTgstt'*vtioa
                                                                     Report No
                                            10. Project No.
  9.  Organization
 Homer Hoyt  Institute
 Washington,  D.  C.
                                            11, Contract/Grant No.
                                             801473
                                                                  \13.  Type c * Repot f.n&
                                                                .. J    Period Covered
  12.
  IS. Supplementary Notes
MEnviromaentai Protection Agency	    Final Report

 Environmental Protection Agency report
 number  EPA-600/5-73-012b, November 1973
  16. Abstract  This report investigates the concept of  the  Quality of Life  (QOL)  and pre-
sents a  developmental methodology for constructing a measurement scheme  to  assess the
QOL.  Introductory sections give a breif synopsis of the research that has  been  done in
this area to date including various guidelines and rationale used in attempting  to de-
velop a  meaningful social indicator for the QOL, and the current state-of-the-art and
the research concerning attempts to adequately define and assess Quality of Life.
 The report  also discusses the -functional relationship between objective and subjective
conditions used as a theoretical framework to measure QOL and develop a Quality  of Life
Index.   A rationale for the statistical treatment employed for the various  parameters is
set forth stressing the importance of the relationship between what actually exists and
group perception of it.  QOL factors are presented encompassing Economic, Social Polit-
ical, Health,  Physical and Natural Environmental Sectors.   Each of these factor  lists
is divided into subfactors and encompasses such things as  income distribution, family,
electoral participation, nutrition, housing and air.  Objective measures, where  they
exist, are given for each subf actor, although they are merely examples and  by no means
an exhaustive listing.  The report closes with a discussion of analytical dimensions of
a Quality of Life Index (QOLI) and the potential uses and  misuses of such an Index.
  17a. Descriptors

Quality  of  Life,  Quality of Life Index, Social and Economic  Indicators




  17b. Identifiers
  17c. CO WRR Fieln & Group
  18.  Availability
   19.  Sr-urityC'.iss.
       (Report)
                          20.
                                   Clans.
21. A1 .-. of
   Pages

22. Price
Send To:

WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER-
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D. C. 2O24O
  Abstractor  John Gerba
                      rio« Environmental Protection Agency
WRSIC 1O2 (REV. JUNE 1971)

-------