Studies in environment

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

EPA-600/5-73-012h
February 1974 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series

Coastal zone
Information
Center

Studies in Environment

Vole II- Quality of Lif e

'S'

Ok-
R,

t PROI

Office of Research avid Development

GF
503 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
.S81 Washington, D.C. 201160
@NWOO

1973
v. 2

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 i973

V, 5 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
A,(
A
ASIAL SERVICES CENTER
PD4 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
'@-04RLHSTON SC 29405-2413

STUDIES IN ENVIRONMENT

Volume II-

Quality of Life

Property of CSC Library AjvaqTq OGO go A;2Ddo2d

Kenneth E. Hotnback
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

Cl*
VC

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U,S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.85
Stock Number 055-001-00754-0
Catalog Number EP 1.23/3:600/5-75-012 B

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 whichwere 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 [email protected]:Vb% conditions :us-ed-as,;@,& the.QV--=O--qn,-!13.
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.

CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ii

Contents iii

Figures iv

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

FIGURES

No. Page

1 Comparison of QOL Factor List 32

2 Quality of Life Factors 34

ACKNOWLEDGU=S

PF4a= MANAGEMENT

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

HOMER HOYT INSTITLYIE

John Kokus, 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 Corrigan, Legislative Research Analyst, TAD

ENVIF40NMENTAL 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, Ccmprehensive Environmental Planning Branch,
ESD

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."l Writers of
the popular press diagnose various aspects of the problem as
'vfuture 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-cur,ious 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 Elsadvantaged 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 subj.ective
methods by which people 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, expecta-'-ions,
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-
ab16 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 ii the QOL measurement
problem is one which uniquely ad.dr Ies'ses 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 mea .surement, a source of vast criticism
and nearl total skepticism is introduced. Bertram M. Gross
y
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
ab,sence.of'apy common interests. It is rather the
profusion of common interests, 4 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 barriei
in consideration of the limitations suggested by Gross,
points 6, 7, and 8 were included in the list.

IX The Methodoloqv

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

1. Review of the lit 'erature which specializes in socii
indicators and research focusing more specifically on the
concept of QOL itself (Sections rl 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 measur,
ment (Section 371)

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 VIII).

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,
T-966), 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 um
p:4re
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.
XXIII, 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.

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 o'f Raymond Bauer,4 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-soclo-1-3-g-1-c-al 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
researchersi more attention to calibration, and cohoft
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 volu me (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 mote social-psychological
sort: the attitudes, expectations, aspirations, and
values of the American population."9

Campbell and Converse treat many important areas not earlier
discussed under the topic of social indicators: time use,
measures of "community," 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 expan�ion of Federal-statistidal 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 occupationalstatus, time budgets, mental health, politi-
cAl participation, etc.10 As yet, however, there hat, been
no merger of these developments into one theoretical or'

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
synthesie these developments.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Margaret Mead, et al., "Man in Space: A Tool and Pro-
gram for the Study of 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 (N ork:
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 Meani @na
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
@@_cience, vol. 371 (May, 1967), pp. 1-19.
1

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.

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).

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 parthave.been per-
formed by commercial research organizations or agencies of
government whose primary interest is other than basic
research. This report reviews eleven pie .ces 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 Viven to the' I
definitional problem is provided by Triplett' in a discussion
-is it relates to price.indices. He
of hedonic quality c
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 proble Ims. 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
1 4
distinction between "armchair" analysis and public surveys.
The major example offered -for "armchair" approaches is,the
Report of the President's Commission on National Goals and
Values (1960).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

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 op 1. posite,.sense,of Dalkey's,
psychological reductionism--it'suggests that what is good for
the country ib good for the individual.
The.difficulty-associated with the dependence on politi-
cally.oriented,goals,:s*uggests.a seri:es,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 -Eo establish evaluation criteria, interpretive
rationales, or specify confidefice-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 gene ral 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 w.ork.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.publia.
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) andf there are no schemes available which
show how this might be done . The following two sections
represent an attempt to COML to grips with the definitional
problem of the QOL and specify its scope limitations.

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 Proc*.edures 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, 30, and 31, 1972.

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

SECTION IV
QOL: AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

IV.A Def initions

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 socialand
institutional changes which characterize our time.

The QOL is defined as..a function'of the objective con-
.ditions And subjective attituTes 'in-volving a defined area
of concern. The kdy-termsunderlined above are defined as
follows:-

IV.A.1 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,g'eneralizations 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),

W.A. 3 Subjective Attitudes

Understanding the specific meaning of subjective atti--;'-
tude,requires a more compl6x-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,c-ombination with the concept of QOL.

Values/Goals/Desires Dimension. Subjective attitude
may be defined as dealing witK Va-lued 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 firom-pers'oh to.person, it is fleeting.
.,The new Buick owner soon "needs" a Cadillac and becomes,
"dissatisfied" with his Buick. Each new threshhold achieved
Js a-basis for setting up new standards@for-needs and satis-
factions... Values and goals are prone to paradoxes.without
appearin,g 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 isquestionable if a
study of values, goals, or desires can ever indicate a state
of satisfaction or.fa-il-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
confuF,od with social perceptions. Social-perceptions may be
de,fined as the impression*one has.of an event of physical
condition in a context of1meaning uniqueto the individual.

Since an individual's perception is a function of
his.pAst history and his state at the moment he is
viewing the stimulusf two individuals with@different
past experiences'may look,at'the same stimulus,
. . . receive'th4@!,'sdme 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
Attitudes. An attitude-may be distinguished from per-
ception.in thYT 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.7 Things.have real
effects if people'b6lieve themto 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 in
mental images and .systematic beliefs over time. An.attitude
is said to be present when there is'a disposition to act in
a certain way relative to the object of the a1titude.

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 threshhods,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 A. SUBJECTIVE C. 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.

IV.B Rules of Scope

The previous discussion defines QOL'in detailso 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 thepre,sent definition.
is narrow or invalid. The rules of scope were established
at the beginning of the QOL.TeamIs activity which'acted as
constraints (as well as funnels),C'hanneling the research in
certain directions. The present definitions and following
chapters should be.evaluated within the boundaries of: what
has been.attempted and whathas'been avoided. the following
points set forth the guidelines used by the researchers in
this-report:

1. The problem was not approached from thelperspective
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
argiiment 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 improvedenvironmental
characteristics and.childho6d 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. ilowever, this area is
beyond the immediate interest of this report.

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 con7
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
unmeasurable 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. Factor s which cannot be operationalized in
the form of a.s.ubjective questionnaire format And
an objective statistic of sufficiently rigorous and
dependable a form as t6be reliable and valid.

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.Se-well aHd Ian Burton, Research Paper
No 2,.(Ottaw&, Canada: Policy Research and Coordination
Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1971),
p. 7.

3. Marshall H. Segall, Donald T.,Campbell and.,Me*lville J.
Herskovitz, The Infuence of Culture onVisual Perception
(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966).

4. Sc.hiff,.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:

0. D. Duncan, ','Discrimination Again 'st Negroes,"
Annal of the American Association of Political and
-cial 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
@@ciences, vol. 371.(May,1967), pp. 15-16.

Bertram M. Gross, The-State of the Nation:
Social Systems Accoun London: TavistoT-, 196.6),,
pp. 138-141, 104._

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

SECTION V
THE FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP1

In keeping with the definition of.life quality as a
composite of objective conditions in a selected arealand
of the:subjective attitude toward 'these conditions voiced
by individuals residing in that area, a formula for the
functional relationshi' between them is proposed which
p
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*
n
includes both objective and-subjective-variab les,and the
correlation.between them.2 As. a, c.onseque'ncer the crude.-_`
formula.for-this functional relationship presentbd-here
can-only be'viewed7as a guide for 'future research., However#,
it does.:introduce several interesting features.and concepts
which have not-pre.viously been articulated.
The-propbs6d 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*parti-cipation, 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 haverarely beenIn
fact). It is acknowledged that the list of f actors 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 adva 'ntage of this quantification
scheme is that factors canbe added to or subtracted from
the list without altering the methodology for computing.a
QOL index, thouigh-the' valuelof the index may change slightly.
Assigning.appr9priate o 'bjqctive and subjective measures
to each QOL factor.is necessarily 4 central task in which
little systematic research has been done. Section-6..O
-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 theobjective',measure is appropriate Ito
a particular.region (as-in,the-case. of air quality), in
others it pertains directly. to an individual Cas 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 correspond s..t,o the lowest, or
least satisfactory measure U.6. lowest QOL) and ten corresponds
to the-highes-6.3 Clearly such a transformation requires'that
appropriate upper and lower bounds be established for each'
variable. Though difficult, and subject-to potenti 'al.-
criticism, this definition.of boundaries is intrinsically'
achievable in,our opin Iion. The-transformation permits

.21,

assignment of an objective measure, 01@r 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-r dissatisfaction,
disliker.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 working-conditionsi.or with the availability of
wilderness areas7 A substantial amount of social research
is required to d;'termine 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 i 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 E-(Oij Sij)2

P (P Z.
It is expected that r 3 would be near one if the subjective
.measures for the selected population havo.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.

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.4 Results from.these
independent determinations are first to be averagedand then
ranked'ordinally.5
To recapitulate,.four sppcificInputs to our functional
relationship for the qual 'ity,of life are proposed for each
QOL factor (j);.and each individual in the sample population
W:

(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-
Yidual attache's 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 ali factors
in a matrix against population characteristics, and hence
an evaluation of the QOL.for a variety of differ 'ent populations.
(This approach will be discussed more fully in Section 7.0.)
For the momenti consider a particular region and the P members
of the population in that region.. Two averages may be computed
for that population base:

P
<S.j> Z Wii S

P P
<0j> Z Wij X 1 E Oij
1=1 P 1=1

In computing.the average subjective.measure for the'popillation,',
..each individual's subjective rating is weighted with.his Wij
for that factor.- On the 'Otherhand, wheh.computing the-average
objective measur .e a slightly different approach is'adopted.
Becausd 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'.multipl'ied-with
the correlation parameter to obtain the factor.index for the
jth QOL factor:

Fj rj X ai <0P. < Sj>
ai + @J

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 exar@ple', 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 signifi:cant. .*B-ecause there is
no well defined way to.evaluate@the emphasis parameters,..aj
and $j, 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 <Oj> + .<Si>
2

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

Both objective-aind subjective measures are included
in a weighted fashion
The combination of these measures .. is weIighted witha
correlation parameter which describes'"the',association
between these two measures.

When-the' correlation parameter is zero, indicating'no'
significant,relation between.the objective- and sub'3e ctive
measures for a particular factor, the Fj = 0, which is the
desired result. The simple functional way in which Irj is'
incorporated into the expression for F3 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.

An overall index for the qua'lity of life' can be generated
by computing the mean of all M factors;

M
QOLI
M j

It is not necessary -to weight the f.-Actors 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 weigh;ting the satisfactionsby rank order
of priorities and the objective condition by the average rank
order given'by persons residing in the community.und *er study.
Underno 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 <Sj>: 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 satisfactionswith 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.

.The fo rmula.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 ;urposes 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.

-REFERENCES
FOOTNOTES AND

1. We would.,like toacknowledge 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:
QL=. E production-E losses services/time . experiences/time
populatioii- + 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 Si) 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.

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.

SECTION VI
QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS

VI.A Introduction

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.

VI.B Definition of Terms

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

A parameter is a characteristic of the system being
analyzed. In developing ancceptable 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 qaffects 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 1ists 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 anumber 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*9ector is a class of factors which are f elt 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,lcausa-1 relationships betweenrparame.tets,
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 whic .h may eitherdire,ctly measure factors-Ts-uch
indexes are".in fact indicator Is), or may combine indicators
into multi-dimensional aggregative numbers. To clarify the
meaning of factors, sub-factors were identified which include
both inputs.and outp s 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 isA factori-
further criteria are clearly-needed in order to isola'te,a
list of factors to construct a QOL index. -Three such criteria'
for a QOL factor-listare used here: value-dimensionality,
comprehensiveness, and commonalitv.
Value-dimensionality means ttat 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 portfoli6s",,because one portfolio,
cannot arbitrarily be considered better than the next. One
can look at the total wealth a person holds, (on the aissump-
tion that more wealth is better), but the way -inwhich 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 fa-c-tor-list that covers all areas of,the QOL is better

than one which does not. This criterion may seem obvious, but
seems to have been ignored by several previous studies.
ComMbnali tyImeans that a level of a QOL factor must apply
to many I_nT1'_v_i'd_uals 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 d 'emonstrates '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 charac 'teristics (one extreme), and with a
number of objective indices (the other extreme). The first
pole is represented by Dalkey and Rourke3 who present a set
of "QOL factors" including peace of mind, novelty, privacy,
egoism and love. One might say that these are the zroductsf
rather than the factors, of the QOL. They are not directiy
controllable by Folicy-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 FlaX4 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 fairl narrow sense of the term. As the San Diego authors
point outJ 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
Ral eigh, North Carolina,7 is comprehensive, but redundant
and internally contradictory.

TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF QOL FACTOR LISTS'

cam iTV AND ENVIRON- REPORT OF TIME MITE MOLISE SAFE MIGO ENVIRONMENTAL
fAOCS JISSIN (IF, SHELDON IS NEWT AUEUWNT CONFERENCE ON YOU IDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (19721 OFFICE OF WILABLAGESIMINT IS
IPA FELCOM I,- PERLOFF (IBM mo"E. PER. COMITTEE 119721 VALKEV & ROURKE (19711 P. 12 1101VIDUALISIA (19711 GROSS& WRINGER (1957) w. 4-S WILSON 119721 A, 34 P 53 FLAX 11970) p. 9 SIUDGET (ISM

PEDFCNOUXUCAL ASPECTS,
F-Ah.-I
- BUOM
ANNUT.-

-UNAN
AGOD1.11. ww
COAST FIT
SIOVE
PEO"INESUALRESS FERRY- AND GROUP VALUES: INDIVIMAL STATUS
---ON NZ!:M @ COMOT-1 TO
PAST LIFE EVENTS 'CULAR VALUES AND
EXPIECTS-1-MBIS BELIEFS
-R1AAUE1
FORCE.-TV
PART CIPATION
STATUSINSHECTRYT
CAGAPUZATIONAL

NO--: IS,
STATUS.-RU-
SOCIAL ST AT US NEW.
LIFE CYCLE TYP-OG
mor
ALI-OPOCEMS.
REESERVI
,BECOME, IVTA-1011
ENSENK PLACS1 ANDEMBAT. I--C MENT.
EXHIS, SA -ACT- WITI FWLIAAE BEHIM.- SLASUEESSI.-DERS UEEU,W,UOWWX` VIBRISIF-A-11
@N TIES PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AM RELIEF MOIAN UECCENE@ RAL-1
UNDOMBE -FIRUFT.- CH-LENGE URHwUOYw T ASSE.TtEDIN -I- .---.T A-AS
.CONDED-CLNUTY - ..-.BIT..-- Y-. -MIT,
CH.-TY AND FSPERON KTMLSALE LOR.-T. Pi
ALLOPMANDIS COST @ -m INCONRE . FTFUSUT-
LOYMENT ME--t., ARE, LEVEL OF KABONAL INCONIF

ANECURDES
INMUTICAL @-@T! WTAL, IFHC@DOPS OVIL LIBERTIES IMIVICIUAL EGUALITY -.1 -EU---
I-SHROCCERE TUE-1
LIBERTIES -E.- SEATTERSOF
ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION GOVERWENT .10RING 14Y.-RIT THE- -.A: STATE AND LOCAL GME.WENT -MEN
ADDII.CUICTORAIL PARTICJPATI O`[email protected] -RAI-S OF DEPT. INFORMED AND INVOLVED
GCYEFUHNENT RESPONSIVENESS R-Tl- CITIZENRY CITIETMPAPI@TICIWATICBI
PROFESSIONAL-
ILECTORAL PARTICIPATION

mousnot, CoSaffim
C-.- TICHN LOG-CHANGE
Alt PREACINX .-FIPEFYF
=HG AND
HOLD 1-.-.T TYPE LIVENG CONDITIONS:
TATION -TATHEN -LITHIS: ... SIR. .1-AL -111 ^11 QUA ITY OF LIVING
NAU 'ALWAUTY "L.-USURS1 DSAESFY G ALLEVIATING GENERAL -.."0.
PUSLCSEWICSS TRANSPOIRT.T. AVAILABILITY POVERTYI IFE IGI=W QUALITY
AtIFT-1. SEATIRSUM, I -MAYS-F-TILITODD EWIM WAL DUALITT
-,LRGE
..EHDFTE@
GAS
TILEMPONE
M.E.CoNSIDINDCATHER,

SAS.-LILSFOR-IRIONS
SOCIAL 1--; --.ITT FOR A-AME.
CONSED - ==: In- SOCULL CHERDERSERE -1. A-UACI PUBLIC ORDER LEARNING
SDC AL IFTAIDUTY cSompumarv EW-. L -TUBES V-Uf CORESENSUB VISUAL AND AEVIETIC Z.
GUL BE __ _.SW1 SOCIAL -.T CHARACTERISTICS L.-1EA-PWC -100i;
14HYS CAL SECURITY -.TV AAACTERISTICS E-T.OM METS
F-ILY SSRV....EH,UND-- @T- @.E I- TIME AVA'LASL
SOCIALIZATION ERNAITOR, COELRAts PARMIPA, ION
MCMATIC01 - - - AND DEL-RC1 -.L INEDITE.-ION INABLICSAFEWILEGALARTIED[w
SAFETY OF LIFE AMO MCP-T9@.
EZUES C' AS
ITAIRLECAUIDN LANTFICE
NEAL- MALTH121 ME.- PEALTM
-CA SENTH A.
-TA1 ATH RATE PWNTAL HEALTH PHYSIC LMDMITIL
MOUNISHEMPIT -LL.El-

UNE. . . . NO S, .
UNIC ERF-D
COY-D - - -- . . -HI-, ADFIANOTEATTILRELATEO' SHE Ow.",
.ADl-.Tk- SPAGE Al. WAIT.V
-n. DUALITY
NXSE
--NES: ftT-- &- 1-1-1USHRINDRIBUNT cloriqp-PIT.
-4, ; ' ' , , ., ., .
-TV OPENISPACE-REC-0. AD.- S-AHS PRE-11IDS:
!.ATSWC%NAL41jX =WVATI METEROLOGICAL VARIABLES E
fwzEo L-1 6ES
All" YtLONRNTC1F RESOU.M. NATURAL RE90URU LA%: -A.-- @ANCXS
POLU)SEASTE ciu.@, AM ".a Z0,01,S AVAILABILITY .. _,NNT-A-- SO--
TON.- SOLIDPUSTE,
NKDS4E =L%G`W`T`=xME`-.
-AC,

WECB

CHUMPAI INN1,171CAUGOVERSEEPENTAL:

GENERALGOVERNIMENT WYEANNIENTFISCALACTI-
INTE-TIO AL AFFAIRS
&FINANCE
GRI SE.Y.-
SUNHLI
DEMAND INTERNAL IGRATION
UTILIZATION! EWLOWENT DATA
SEGREGATION MIA [email protected]
AGESCUL-1 PlYUNIASUIAMEEFEENTS
SWILYSTRUCTURE
MIGIIATION LAND USEILAN. USE SHIFT
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
W@DLIAFE 6 NATURA VEGETATION
MR L ..$Q.KE .1UTICN4
FOOTNOTES: 1. THE 10 --UL CAT". FISE." OF ME. TEALECKYJ I'M ARE NOT INCLUMO IN THIS 2. -EALTH - AND VVELFARE" PERE CLASS@IFIEO BY WILSON TOGETHER AS HEALTH AkO INIELFARE 3. THE 'HOUSE :MLD'tATEGORY OF THE CEAC-1111G INCLUDES ELEMENTS THAT PARALLEL TIE 4. MOSS' CATEGORY -.-G E-FICIPBSENT AND UTILITIES" KAS BEEN SPLIT INTO 1vwO PARTS TO PAR
CHART. TfRUCK- LEFT. NHU* CORRESPONDING CLOSELY TO THE EPA FACTORS. CAME TO MR THEY HAVE MEN SE-1- T.-ALL11 THE EPA LIST. EPA 'ECONOMIC ENVIRONDEEN, OR - OTHERS THAT PARALLEL NO FACTORS IN THE EPA ALLEL THE EPA FELLOM LIST OF FACTORS.
ATTENVION PREEN V
THE IMAL DRAFT OF THIS ISANUSCRIPI *AS "ING PACPARED. FELLONS LIST. THIS FACT IS IN..CATED BY THE -TIONING Of THE 'HOUSE@-CATEGORY IN THE
TABLE.
33 11-291

Other studies, some of which are only secondarily QOL
analyses, should also be cited. Wilson 8 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 9 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, 11
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 Budget 12 also presents a list of indicators which
is similarly overly narrow. Perloff 13 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.

TABLF 2-

QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS*

Major Factors Objective Indicators '(Examples)**

1. Economic Environment:

Income -Per capita disposable income
-Median f'amily, income.
income Di's'tribution -G'Ini@coefficient of income
distribution

Economic Security -Income-support.
-Wealth'measures

Work Satisfaction -Accident, productivity, and
turnover rates

2. Social Sector:

Family -Marriag''e and.divorce rates
-Illegitimate births

Community -Social Responsibility Scale

Social.Stability -Upward social mobility
-Social disorder-incident-rates

Physical Security -Violent crime rates

Culttre-,.; -Human effort'directed-.toward
the.arts

Recreation '7Persons participating in,outdoor
@recreation and average days per
person

*Examples of the methodology.for determining subjective factors@
is given in Appendix B.

**This is not intended-.to,be an, exhaustive li.sting.

TABLE 2 (Continued)

QUALITY OF L.IFE FACTORS

M4jo.rFactors Objective indicators (Examples)'

political Environment:

Electoral Participa ion Per cent of registrants
voting

Non-Electoral Participation @Bloomberg & Rosenstock's.
"Action Score

Government RQsponsibility. -Budget allocations
7Per ca ita.distribution
p
of funds

Civil.Liberties -Rights Commission
-Citizen review board

InformedConstituency .-Content analys�s of mass
media

4. Health:

physical --Infan.t mortality rate
-Physicians/capita
-Health care facility
utilization

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

Nourishment' -per capita consumption of
food types
-Nutrients consumed-per day
per capita

TABLE@ 2 '(Qpntinued)

QUALITY-OF LIFE. FACTORS

Major Factors Object:ive Indicators, (Examples;):

Physical. Environment::

Housing -Per cent deteriorated houses?
-Per cent- lackin.,g plumbing.
-@-Per cent overcrowded

Transportation ._Family'@osts
-Per Cent budget allocated
to construction and main.-
tenance

Public Services
-Cost of gas and electri.city
-Frequency and. Coverage of
services,

Material Quality., -Produ 'ct life.
(both goods@'-&' services). -Automobile:recalls
-Cos@t and frequency of repa-Irs,

Aesthetics
..Li.tter;, 13,111boards
@Trees preserved and plantedi,

6. Natural Environment:

Air Quality -people expo,,sed to. sub-:2ktandar,&
condi_ti@Qns-
--Concentratiop ot CG, NQ2tr, S
O:Z
Water Quality -..!BOD; Coliform, coun-.t-
-Turbidity;. Temperatuxet;. PH,

'vity
Radiation -Amount of: radlioac,,ti-
water- so-il,,, people

Toxicity -Lead concen,_trat-ionz-
-Cases o-f lead. po1.sjQn--1ng?

Solid Wastes @Pounds/capi ta,,
-Amount recycledi
-Frequency@ of collection,

Noise -Comm-unIty' Naise Referenae@
$cale- (under development-),,'

3.8'

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 importantfactor 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 welfareper 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 familyincome would be
more appropriate if the unit of the alysis 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

as being good of itself. This assumption is -supported by
the.long history of proposals to reform the distribution of
income,,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.18' 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 tothe 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 [email protected], gives the "Lorenz
coefficient of inequality . 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'i 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".

Ob3e'ctive 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: -(l) Time income'and time
costs are not covered (although one could perf6rm.Sainetz's
kind of estimation using data on differin g 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 Bure.au.da'ta.

VI.B.1.4. 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 re .cognize 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-evidiencbd
by the age-old tendency to hoard wealth,,by the existence
of insurance companies, and by legislation designed to "'
provide suc'h 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

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 "getFil-n-gat" economic securityi-'The first),
data on income support, can be'estimatedby Commerce Depart-
meht-data2l as well as-the records of Congress showing how
much the Federal government has allocated to,income support.
The 'amount df-publicly provided income support is broken down
by data in the HEW publication,* Welfare in ReView.22
Data on personal wealth was compiled for 1962 by the'
Internal 3evenue Serv*ice--for those with wealth exceeding
$60,@000. .2 This data is relevant to economic security because
the wealthy are generally-not eligible for government income
suppor-t. 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.1.5 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 thg-t is avaLlable are surrogate measuresf
the validity of which are open to serious question. one "input"
to work satisfaction-is exposure to work hazards, which in turn
is measurableIto 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

VI.B.2 Social Sector

VI.B.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 thereof, 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

VI.B.2.2 Family

The family, according to Sussman is "still a viable social
system".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 family'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

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 ercent 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 oof locality
as a collectivity, affective involvement in residential locality,
and interest and involvement inlocal 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.

Objective 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 This 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.

VI-B.2-4 Social Stability

The area of social stability, as researched, has been
approached primarily fr 'om.the aspect of community solidarity.
Specifically, what are the major divisive' p*oints among the
community's citizenry,.and at what point is the possibility
of community "cleavag@e" 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 re'lated.35 The
differences can be'accentuated by various types of group
interaction. For.example,."social distance" can be.modified
by the extent to which indiv'iduals 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-Unclusion 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
measurelsultimate improvement..

VI.B.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:

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 @olicing in a
population is an illustration.3

Objective Indicators. Basic data on violent crime inclade
the type of crime (as defined above), and number (in thousan'ds)
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.

VI.B.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,
-classical and modern music recordings, and expanded
sales of
study of the arts. Art cannot be defined uniquely. 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
i-evel of commitment to culture.

Perhaps the,'only reasonable measure available today is
lone of the amount 'of humea! eff or.:t directed toward the arts.
'These A-ata are available in the-form:

e Number of Artists by Fieldw(number for the
occupational-group reported by the Census-
of Population) .39

CategoriIes-include acto,r-s, artists or art teachers, authors,
@dancer or dancing teacher, musician or music teacher, and
other-artist types.
Expansion of the numberlof 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
zhowings.

VI.B.2.7 Recreation

As defined by this research,.recreation encompasses those
physical activities other that parti 'cipati.on 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
mea.sure of .recreation are bicydling,.horse.back riding, playing
outdoor games or sports, fishing, canoeing, sailing, other
boating, swimming, water,skiing, camping, mountain climbingr
hiking, walking for pleasure, bird watching, wildlife and
bird photographyj 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.

ObjectiveIndicators. There are certain considerations
that should be taken En--to 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
facilitiesi and
3. The number of different groups of persons having
access to and using the-fadilities..

VI.B.3 Political Sector

VI.B.3.1 Introduction

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

conflict and distribution of-resources.- political system,
of which these structures'are a par *t, is attuned to the
discovery of the presence and relative importance of various
societal issues. Such discovery, according to Helmet, 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 obj'ec-
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. Mon-Electoral participation
3. Government responsiveness to the public
4. Civil liberties protection
5. An informed constituency-

VI.B.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.Ametica 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 (eig. 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 exerci.se 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
bf the relative access of various ethnic, age cohort, and
ibocio@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
@coftidhities With similar demographic characteristics.

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

VI.B.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 local, 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 occurr .ing
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 probelms: (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 participa@El`on "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 scorell 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.

VI.B.3.4 Government Responsiveness to the Public

The outputs of political syptems--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-utilizati6n 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 incity expenditure patterns along functional lines
which are associated,with variations in three underlying
factors--socio-economic,status, age, and mobilityl,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 c 'haracteristics of the community involved. The study
did notattempt 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 expenditure.s on.certain services to the
socio-ec *onomic 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.

vi.13.3.5 Civil Liberties Protection

This.factor has been-called many things by.many
research6rs (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,.am .ounting 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
equalityro.46.-.

n into t
The rights of American cti,zenswere writte A he
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 'ight'.fr' usurpation. Yet
r s om
today there are calls, for a greater effort to assure indivi-
.dual civil rights.

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

VEL.B.3.6 An Informed Constituency

That the media of mass communication play an increasingly
important role in the purveying of information.c6ncerning
public issues both,during election campaignsand -the time
in-between'those campaigns has-become an accepted,fact. The
,degree to which the me -dia affect certain public-opinion on
issues is highly speculative.
In addition to the modia.of mass communication, communi-
cation on an interpers 'onal level,.between people who'are
accepted as.being somewhat more-knowledgeabld on certain
issues and others who-are less khowledgeable, 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 issuesqby virtue of the fact.that he is "empoweredl'
to be influential by.othermembers 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 i:s 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 that.-all
sides.of issu .es ar.e presented to the public through the media
of mass communication (the Federal Communication -s Commission
guidelines, usually.,:i7eferred 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 pQli@*
tical and organizational participation. This information,

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.'

VI.B.4 Health Sector

VT.B.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".48
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.

VI.B.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 fromits 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.

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
health, 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 1900-1958.51 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 tecnology,
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 diseaes
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 hea1th,

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.

VI.B.4.3 Mental Health

The field of mental health, as treated in the 1i

includes both*mental illness and mental retardation. A widely

quoted HEW definition makes the following distinctions:

Mental retardation is usually a conditio
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.54

As with physical health there is evident in the literature
a rising dissatisfaction with traditional indices of mental
illness,.which include suicide rates, alcohoism,etc. Ernest
Gruenberg55 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.

Objective Indicators. The Group for Advancement of
Psyciatry56 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: Cond IitIions In :18
Large Metropolitan Areas.57 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,60

it seems that for the purpose of our project, nutrition should
be limited"'to food 52 intake, or dietary considerations. All

three aspects are logically includ ed in the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare's Ten State Nutrition Survey,

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 menital 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.

VI.B.5Physical 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. Transportation
3. Public Service
4. Aesthetic Quality
5. Material Quality.

VI. B. 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
relationship of family life and influences the physical, social,
and psychological development of all who live within it. Besides
affecting the health and safety of household members housing
may be a source of pride and satisfaction and away of investing
money and accumulating,wealth66 The living conditions within
households and how the public views them in terms of the values
projected above will constitute the involvement of housing in
this sector.

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
usein 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 improved, differentiation between areas,may be
expected to diminish (as will the significance of the indi-
cators). However, since the measurement of housing donditions
is of less importance in or among, areas where housing pro-
visons 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 areas68,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 ones 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 lt makes the
difference between.access to outdoor recreation areas and

confinement to the limited parklands of many innercity 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.
Objective 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

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 con siderations of trip-time, congestion,-.,safety, and'
stress.7-2

VI.B.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 bedefined as a public
service. Clearly, the role'of supplying the public.with
various conveniences and is quite large 'nd there
services a fore
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.

Obj6ctive*Indicators. This.particulat factor of the
phypical environment*has'not been investigated.thoroughly in
terms of public concetn'.althou gh a few indicators hcive been
used by Harvey Perloff74 and Michael J. Flax75 in their quality
of, -iif& studied.

VI.B.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-mpney, The fact that a person is
dissatisfied with consumer products or services or perhaps
his expect-ti-_s'w_"e not founded, in reality indicates a
on er
distinct low material quality.. -In this.sense it is-the quality.
of those goods or services that an.individual obtains through-
the consumer-marke@ that constitue*s the material quality factor.

Material quality evolved,from a study on the Quality of the
Urban Environment by Harvey S. Perloff which -ir'n-cludqs 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 ofimportance to -consider and perhaps
construct reas'onable measures to evaluate public concerrr. 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.

VI.B.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; architiecture,.landscaping, clean stredts 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 surroundin s was demon-
strated by Thomas Lindvall and Edward Radford.79 In a public
opinion survey it was shown that a significant level of annoy-
ance developed because of unsightly environmental surroundings.

Objective Indicators. In compiling workabie, reliable,
and:quite reasonable indicators, the general,concept of what'
constituted an insult to the environment-was considered.,. Table
2presents indicators,found,to be most generally included
in various aesthetic Studies@ oii 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 of1ife. It has been-vari-
ously.defined'as the complex of climatic, edaphicand 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. So lid waste
6. Noise.*

'In considering all of these factors as being part of one's
quality of life the problem arisesas 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.,

VI.B.6.2- Air

As-President Nixon ihdiddted in his 10i 6hvirohmentai
message,

the problem of air pollution results not s6 much
from choices mdde',, As from choices ne4loctdd. in
our efforts to a6hieve the' most s'6ct&bi1l&k brogr,es's
the world has ever known, we failed to notice the

hazards of airborne contamihahts@ 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:sour'bes and from motor vehicles may be subdivided
into odorsi particulates, and irritants-. The size of the,
problem is indicated by several inv*estigations.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 ma"or factors under the natural environment is
. 3
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 p6llutio*nf- water
pollution has been the most damaging.83 Joseph L. Fisher in
his article complements this fact by saying that

water is a.-de:ceptiv'e commodity;,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 exdeed-
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 indicat:ors,of, for example, water
pollution. Suc Ih things As biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
which measures the pollution in the water by the amount of
6'
dissolved 'xygen required-t'd dec 6se 1 -the dolif6tm count-
9MP
which is a generalized "measure- 'of bacterial content of the
water; turbidity,. which expresses the amount of suspended
s
'l and other@ sediments in the.w`ater; inorgani mineral
oi c

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 [email protected]; number.and percent.of,persons
living in proximity topolluted 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 publip,-full
consideration should be given to all of the indicators noted4

VI.B.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 res@onsibility to kee.p 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.

VI.B.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.

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

V11 -61 6Solid 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.-

VI.B.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 isinteresting 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.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Definitions of "index," "parameter," and "indicator."
follow those 0f The Mitre Corporation, Water Quality Indices
April 1972.
2. Some of the authors explicitly stated that their list'
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, l971)p.28.

4. Michael J. Flax, A Study in Comparative Urban Indicators:
Conditions in 18 Large Metropolitan Areas (Washington, D.C.:
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 Move Emphasis: An Extract from the
ton Associates, ed.,
Report of the ..." in Booz-Allen Hamil
The Quality of Life Concept: A Tool for Decision Maker's
(Washington D.C.: mimeo, 1972).

10. Milton Moss', "Consump
tion: 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)

13. Harvey S. Perloff, ed-.-.11- The'Quality of the Urban
Environment:--Essays on "New Resources" in an Urban Age
(Washington, Resources for the Future: 1970), pp. 22-23.

14. Tbrleckyj'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-Asso'c., 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 s'urplus'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: 197-2).

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

19. A very.similar alternative inde'x@is the Gini index,
defined below:

100
(x f W dx

G
10,000

where Gis the Gini index of ine'quality, and f(x), is the
Lorenz curve. Source: Bruce M. Russett, et.. al.,,World
Ha dbook of Political and Social Indicatorg _(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).

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), Eassim.

31. Paul C. Glick, "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, 19657.

33. Peter A. Rossi, "Community Social Indicators," in The
Human Meaning of Social Change, 6d. 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," 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.

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 theAmerican 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 ReL)orts, Occupational
Characteristics, Final Report PC(2)-7A (Washington, D.C.:,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963T.

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

41. Richard M. Scammon,-"Electoral Participation," The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Soci@Tl
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 an-d 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. Rosenst-6ck,."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- 2 7.

47. Elihu Katz, "The Two-Step Flow of Communication," in
Mass Communications, 2nd ed., ed. by Wilbur Schramm (Urbana
Ill.: 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
ldon and Moore, Indicators of Social Change (New York,
Russell Sage Foundation: 1968), p. 585.

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, Mah, Medicine and Environment, p., 67.

54. Wilbur J. Cohen and Arthur J. Lesser and Wallace
.Babington, "New Approaches to Mehtal-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,'37overnments, 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. Groupfor Advancement of Psychiatry in Indicators of
Social Change.by She 'ldon and Moore, eds., p. 584. "Problems
of Estimating Changes in Fre*quency-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. 17,

59. White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and Healthj
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 1968-197001 DHEW pub. no.
(HSM) 72-8130-4, 5 vols.

62. Handbook of Household Surv.eys: 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.

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. 41-47.

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.

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

79. Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental
Quality (Washington, D.C.:- 19,71) p. 8.

80. National Planning Association,,Social Indicators
(Washington, D.C.: -1971) p. 8 (mimeographed).
81. Council on Environmental Quafity. .Environmental
Quality (Washington, D.C.: 1971) pp. 8-10.

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

U. Robert V. Ayres and Allen V. Kneese, "Pollution and,
Environmental Quality," The Annals (May 1967,'Vol;'.-3711)
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
Te-g-11-onal 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.Pres.s, 1969) pp. 3-26.

92. 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.

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 i's assumed that the
measures will not be initially reliable and that the reality
measured will not be well defined in the mind 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
progres,s 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 Assocated with Variation in the Q0l

A high QOL for one person may be radically different
from a high QOL for another person. Obviously the char-
actertization 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 ate 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

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 havea 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.1 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 bysex 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 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 distribu tion 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 followinq important variations
which are referred to as analytical dimensions: geographic
location, education, age, ethnicity, health, sex, political
disposition, 'socioeconomic status, and life adjustment.

VII.A. 1 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 Lynch's
.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.4
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.5
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 peopl-e'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

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 increase's 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 edu'cation 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

VII.A.4 Ethnicity (Pace)

Van Arsdo115 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.

VII.A. 5Health

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

'In a recent survey, Smith19 found that females are
bothered more than males by air pollution'.. This would seem@
'l differences in
to,show that there may be-some genera,
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 soc 'iopolitical
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, mor e
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 Medali.a'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.

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. B 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 Q0L
data' one can imagine questions which one would want to have
answered about the QOL: Does the Q0L 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-

tions. Research focusing on human deprivatioh27 and rela-
tive deprivation28 indicates that the abjectly p6br are
often less inclined to respond with.disContent than those
who have moved off the bottottf rung of Society. A rank
ordering of high scores would nevertheless.be discriminating
about the majority of the population..' Special considerations
will undoubtedly have to be developed for both,.extreme
poverty and wealth'as indicated by empirical data when it
becomes available.
Such data matrices can also answer important questions
about the factors and their measurement validity.- What.dPes
it mean when onefactor is subjectively evaluated the same
by'all persons regardless of the objective conditions or
breakdown by analytical dimension? What does it mean if the'
scores for a factor are apparently random? What does it
mean when one group of people-score low on a factor or group
of factors (remember, a low score from the formula may mean
only an untrustworthy not an unimportant factor). What are,
the causal relationships which exist.between analytical
dimensions and factors?
Data matrices can be generated which compare objective
scores and subjective scores for all members of the popula-
tion. A cluster analysis of these correlations would indi-
cate groups of the population which can be characterized by
different QOL. Who will they be, the rich, the old, the
poor? Is it necessarily a characteristic of high QOL to be
in a group or out of a group? The validity of a measure for
a QOL factor could be defined as the proportion of the popu-
lation with a correlation29 between objective and subjective
scores greater than r = .5.30

vii.c Time Series Analysis

"The 'quality of life' may register more dramatically
in the long term through upward adjustments of expectations
than by trends in gratifications themseives.,,31 The factors
which compose the QOL today will vary in emphasis as the
social and physical conditions which are instrumental to the
definition of those factors vary and become redefined over
time. It is possible to become accustomed to conditions
which would have been frightening at times when the condi-
tions were infrequently exposed to us. This year may bring
three smog watches and next year four (or three watches and
one smog-warning). The distinctions made in measurement may
make it difficult to- know the difference in fact. Without
information in the form of repeated measurements with the
same instruments it becomes difficult to know what has become
qualitatively "acceptable" simply because-it has become a
frequent event.
Our ability to improve the QOL depends on our ability
to generate programs to influence the QOL. Our ability to
know if our programs influence the QOL depends on our
ability to detect and measure social change. while a care-
ful discussion of time series analysis is premature there
are several points to be made.

If our data are to be-used to a nswer .que.stions about-
the direction and extent of change in the QOL it must be
data 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.P Causality Is@sues Related to the QOL

Our-agfl-ity to ass .ess_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 c&m@!
to our attention was Otis D. Duncan's schematic representa-
tion of the."Socioeconomic Life Cycle" reproduced below:3.2

SEQUENCES OUTCOMES
Family Background @0 Life.Chances

Schooling of Living

Job Health, Welfare
\@a Income status, Acceptance

Expenditures ;'A- 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

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 ramification's of such
k.nowle,dge'about-generatiiig,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 sin'gle 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
9
part of this section has discussed..what.can be..learnea by
inspection of the disaggrega.ted'index numbers. Aft outstand-
ing question is, what is a "relevant.area" for which to
determine-the QOL or,how far' can we' aggregate the OOL?
The answer,to this question might bethat it doesn't
matter how far the-data is-aggreg4ted undet'certain condi-
ti6ns. If national determination of the QOL is desired,
then sam ling tech propriate to the entire range of
p niques ap
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 gener alizations are scientifically valid,
but who or what level of'gQvernment 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 argume'nt.for scrutinizing variation in patterning
across QOL factor,index s cores by population groups is based
on the-realizwt@ion that human-goal.s and values are rarely,
consistently, or plearly 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 QQL.

FOOTNOTES AND.REFERENCES

1. -Assume the following dat 'ahas.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 atz.8 on a-scacle
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-
l
ion is cu -seen in the graph below:
at* rvilinear. As can be

4 4-
r4
lu
2-

0
1 2 4 6 8

Subjective Score

Objective conditions are measured as moderate (mean
4.9) and are variable within 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 1.2
3) .6 4 4 1.6
4) 4 2 :4 .81
5) 5 3 .4 1.2
6 4 .4 1.6- Women
7) 4 2 .4 .8
8)t 5 3 .4 1.2@
9) 6 4. .4 1.6
10) 4 2 .4 .8
sum 49 - A.0 11.6

MY (S. W)
Objective Subjective- Weight (Sub. x Wt.
11) 4 9 .8 7.2
12) 5 @8 .8 6.4
13) 6 7 .8 5.6
14)' .4 .8 7.2
15) .5 8 .81 6.4, Men
16) 6 5.6
17) 4 9 .9 7.2.
18) 5. 8 .8 .6.4
.19) 6 .8 5.6-
20) 4- 9 .8 7.2
Sum 49 8.0 64.2

From the formula: F 1/2 r. (6 +�)

Where: (1/p E W)(l/p E 0),
l/p z WS
P Number in Population

It is computed for women that:
(.1 x 4)(.l'x 49) F = (.50) (.40) (.1.96 1.16)
1.96 = .62
(.1 x 11.6)
1.16

And, it is computed for men that:
0 = (.1 x 8)(.1 x 49) F = (.50)(.40)(3.92 + 6.42)
= 3.92 = 2.07
S = (.10 x 64.2)
= 6.42

Which may be graphically represented by the following chart:

6
k Females Males
:1
0 5
0 4
4-4
0
3

$4
rx, 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10
Satisfaction Score

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

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

.4. Hazel Erskine. "The Polls: Pollution and Industry."
Public Opinion Quarterly, FaIll 1971, p., 263.
5. Irving Hock. "Urban Scale and Environmental 'Quality.';
Resources for the Future (January 1M) 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. .'Tublic Awareness and Concern-with Air
Pollution in.the'St '.. Louis Metropolitan Area." Journal of..
Air Pollution Control Association: 16 No. 2, Fe ary 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 196641
p. 72.

11. Charles F. Hohn. "Reality and Perception of Air Pollu-
tion." University of Southern.,California,.Jun,e 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 E@. Van Arsdol-i Jr..,. Francesca Alexander and
George Sabage.@ "Human Ecology andthe 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.

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., 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 F. Holm. "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 o f 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,
Psycological, 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.

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
th4qe 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 approprate 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 inffusion," 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 an-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
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. Arid 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).

SECTION VIII
'POLICY IMPLICATIONS

VIIT
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 fof 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
r'. elate 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 iri'ways contrary to the' intention of its framers?

VIII.B The Use of a QOL Index:. -Polia Analysis.

The first large group of possible uses ofa 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.1 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.

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 commprehensive 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 serious 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

VII.B.2 Anaylsis of Impacts and Trade-offs

The development of 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 anaylyyss, would be in judging the relatibe importance
of those impacts. In the past, efforts to judge these relative
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 foungd, 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 10.6 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 incrase of 02 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

VIIII.B.3 Outcome Evaluation

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

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 educatio, 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

abstraction from reality in order to give computer game
"players" a better feel for social and environmental inter-
actions. Nevertheless, the two shake 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, a11 are such examples. It is reasonable to suppose
that a high-quality QOL index could have a similarly impor-
tant impact.

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.en.'tre-
preneur to make more rational investments, and to allocate
his resources in ways.-that are most beneficial to him and to
soc iety.
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 1 'itter 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 exist 'ence 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
privateindividuals is in helping them decide where to live.10
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.

VIIT.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 pote'ntial.ities.of such an'index and ignore the
possible misuses and dysfunctions of a,QOL index. There''are
three.potential misuses.of a QOL index per se: (1) the
attempt by policy-makers'to change subjectiTe-ly determined
weights instead of objective conditions; (2) the treating of
QQ.'@, as the only measure of a society's well being; and (3)
the conformIng of individuals to the standards of a QOL
formula.

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
de
.gree of work satisfaction),-and those reflecting@the re'la-
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 Af the QOL turns
out to be a highly variable number-br set of numbers. After
a number ofyears 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 ind
P QbL ex turns out to be'a
fairly constant number--changing, for example, one percent
per year--the chances of this scenario odcurinig 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 extrem'ely limited. Among the hardest to quantify are
those relati ng 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
of the index, this would amount to the sacrificing of ' such
intangib.les--e.g. freedom and justice--in order to maximize
the easily quantified factors. The result wouldbe much
like that of thefirst misuse, although the route to this
misuse would be slightly different.

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 potntial 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 reality; and second, problems
in the actual gathering of social indicators, no matter how
valid they may be.
As Etzioni and Lehman point outll 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 qualitive 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 and
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
ail 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,

There is a danger that persons who develop the
"best" programs for society may tend 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 Suqgested, 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

funding could be made permanent by the establishment of a
trust fund or'by establishing a public corporation to fihanCe
the research. -An existing research institution funded by the
Federal government, such as the Urban Institute, would be an
alternative channel for measuring QOL. Alterhativelyj the
job of measuring QOL could be'cointracted to a University or'
a group of univer-sities:.-14,
Third, it is essential that the QOL measurement process
be-madia the subject of wide public discussion and periodic,
formal re-examination.15 This re-evaluation should not be
limited to a-recalculation of QOL "weights", but should
instead cover the whole structure and philosophy-of the C)OL
index, focusihglespecially 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'additioh, stimulate discussion and
research in the social sdience-s, 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 ju,stice) 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 o 'ne 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 prob lem of guarding against these
dangers perhaps deserves the greatest amount of further
discussion and.research.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Both alternatives are considered because neither approach
has won general acceptance.i

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
f_o<A:9@ 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 obje6tive, however,
the QOL index is likely'to be useful in each of the three
ways cited above. In the one case, .'Istatus 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 bein.2, and are thus stock.concepts. The
weights in such irdlces 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,__@hose weights are &pproxima-
tions not of relative importance, but of marginal benefit.
It is anticipatbd that such approximations are much harder
to obtain than approximationsof relative importance, as

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, D. 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).

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 Bureu 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
'Valid' 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.

SECTION@IX
APPENDICES

APPENDIX-A

I. Applied Research

A. TITLE "An'Envitorimental Quality Rating'Systemli*

KEYWORD A single index quality

AREA Human-population, community resources, water
resources, land forms, leisure, vegetative
resources, wildlife, historicai'areas.

FOR Bureau of:Outdoor Recreation, Department of
Interior

BY Rolland-B. Handley, J. R. Jordan and William
Patterson

LOCATION -Washington, D.C.

DATE Since 1971

This amounts to a rating systemthat 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.

B., TITLE "QOL in Urban America--NYC: A Regional and.
National Comparative Analysis"

KEYWORD Indices of Life Quality in Urban Areas

AREAS Crime, EQ, Revenue an d Budget, Taxation,
Welfare and Social Services

FOR

BY NYC Mayor's Office

LOCATION NYC

DATE May, 1971

"The NY study uses urban, economic, socialenvironmental
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, 1972:29-30i

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)

D. TITLE "Envirormental 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. Mon'tgomery--"The basic concept involved
in this approach is to determine-the value of the e*nviron-
mental assets of the regiori 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, Depa:rtment o? -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.

E. TITLE Neighborhood Environmental Evaluation and
Decision System (NEEDS)

KEYWORD Community Evaluation Plan

AREA Housing, environment, accessibilitv to con-,
veniences, crowding, stree t quality

FOR Volunteer Cities

BY Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Public'Health Service, Bureau of Community
Environmental Management

LOCATION Washington, D.C.

DATE From 196,8.

NEEDS is a methodology-combining both opinion and
factual data to determine numerical scores for pre-sel 'ecte'd-
urban czreas. The score patterns will be-used to.i.dentify
areas of high priority for-local city management officials.
Data is provided in the form of map present-ations.as well as
in tabular form. The program is currently under way having
collected data from a score of moderately sized urban,are -as
with a net population of over 3.5 million. The c *ombined
subjective and objective data is being analyzed by porre.-
lational and cluster analytical techniques.. Emphasis is
placed on the area of health data. 'Emphasis on this area,,
however, is tempered bya strong orientation towardlnter@_
related aspects of urban problems. The.analysis scheme
tends-to isolate areas where problems.o.ccur as syndrpmes 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 isa
part of the NEEDS model'and servets to implement changes
sugg ested through NEEDS by assisting coordination with
higher government funding agen-cies..

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 evaluting the environ-
mental impcts of the Bureau of Reclamation's water resource
development . . . Water resource developments may create
both beneficial and adverse impacts on the environment.
Becuse 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 note 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.

II. Pure Research

A. TITLE "The Quality of Life in Metropolitan
Washington, D.C."

KEYWORD Indices of Life Quality in Urban Areas

Areas Income, unemployment, poverty, housing (costs),
education, health, mental health, air pollu-
tion, public orderf racial equality, citizen
participation, community concern, transpprta-
tion, social disintegration

FOR

BY Urban Institute

LOCATfON- Washington'. D.C.

DATE March, 1970

Indicators of the focal area were developed and.compari'sons
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 valu 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 activiti es volun-
tarily engaged in-by individuals.and differentially weighted
and valued by them. Although riot a QOL study per se Chapin
is engaged in work which no informal di . scuPsIion-sh-ould 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)"socia.1 a44vities; (6) recrea-
tion and relaxation; M-interest. group activities; (8)
community service and political activities; (9) physical
maintenance activities (medical, shopping, etc.). Chapin
discusses an ex e im ntai survey technique aimed at tl '
.p r e ime
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 .preiere'nce'structur'e' can.become
apparent through such techniques then those policy alterna-
tives which enhancelthe QOL would be scaleable according to,
preference. A clear notion oi the trade-off options is
still required, however.

102.

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

KEYWORD Rank Ordering of States

AREA 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-
t.u're and a discussion of the type of information needed to
develop indicators.

104

APPENDIX B

Subjective Indicators
I A methodology may be devised by which a determination
is made of measures of subjective levels of(people'si
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.).l
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 ipost 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 oraerial 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 thecity . . . . 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.as'ked 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 aie-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 most applicable.
p
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 cardsi on each of whi ch.
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 theresults of the Q-sort rank order cor-'re-
lations developed from analysis of the sort, two additional
tests should be applied. One should discover the intensity
p
of an individual's commitment to solving the probl
relating to the'factors described in the factor list, in'
terms of sacrifice of both money and free time. 'To do thisi
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 p Iopulation) 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
Theinstructions to respondent R would bbi

Please read each of the following statements carefully and
CIRCLE the letter or,letter-s 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

166

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 Distribuion
S: Some 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
S: These 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
S: 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

2. Social, Sector

Family
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 attehtion to their
children. SA A - U D 81)

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
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 w 'alk 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
S: Children in this neighborhood would like to play in
the park but it is too far away.
SA A U D SD

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

3. 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

If a person doesn't care how an election comes out
he.shouldn't vote in it. SA, A,@U D SD
Non-Eiectoral Participation
S: I 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 isnr-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 gener al., 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

5. 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
S: Where 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
S: When 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
S: The air we breath 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
S: If 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: 195,G) passim.; Fred N.
Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research TN-ew York:
Holt, Rinehart, and ston, Inc.: 1964-T -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.7399.

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

4. P. Likert, "A Technique,fo'r 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

U.S: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1975 0-596-183

SELECTED WATER 3. Accession No.
Al
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS

INPUT TRANSACTION FORM

4. Title
STUDIES IN ENVIRONMENT Volume II Quality of Life

7. Author(s) Kenneth Hornback, Joel Guttman, Harold Himmelstein, 10. Project No.
Ann Rappaport, Roy Reyna

9. Organization
Homer Hoyt Institute 11. Contractl Grant NO.
80147
3
Washington, D. C.

_7
15. Supplementary Notes 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 dO-
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 4 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 distributt-on, family,
electoral participation, nutrition, housing and air. Objective measures, where they
exist, are given for each subfactor, 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 Fiela &Group

18. Availability o:

WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER-
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20240
bstractor John Gerba n..Enviromental Protection Agency
----------

WRSIC 102 (REV@ JUNF

RD-674
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Forms and Publications Center
Route 8, Box 116, Hwy. 70, West POSTA09 JMD FRES rAJD

Azzucr
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 LLSAWL

EPA-335
Official Business

(0
4t PR010-(:@,

C.0

If your address is incorrect, please change an the above label;
tear off; and return to the above address.
If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report
series, CHECK HERE [3 ; tear off and return it to the
above addres&