A REVIEW OF THE NOTIONS OF QUALITY OF LIFE (QOL) AND LIVABILITY BASED ON ACKOVIAN SYSTEMS THINKING

2513

AMERICAN RESEARCH THOUGHTS ISSN: 2392 – 876X

Impact Factor: 2.0178 (UIF)

Volume 1 │ Issue 11 │ September 2015 Available online at: www.researchthoughts.us

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1528199

A REVIEW OF THE NOTIONS OF QUALITY OF

LIFE (QOL) AND LIVABILITY BASED ON

ACKOVIAN SYSTEMS THINKING

Joseph Kim-keung Ho

Independent Trainer, Hong Kong, China

Abstract: The notions of quality of life (QOL) and livability have been employed in Housing Studies

and other social sciences subjects. Their underlying ideas and relationship are reviewed here. The

paper also undergoes an evaluation of them via R.L. Ackoff’s systems thinking (i.e., Ackovian systems

thinking) as well as a Facebook-based questionnaire survey in the context of Hong Kong. The main

survey findings indicate that respondents in Hong Kong generally hold a more negative view on QOL

at the city and district levels than at the family and personal levels. The paper also recommends the

employment of systems thinking, notably Ackovian systems thinking, to pursue QOL and livability at

all levels of analysis. On the whole, it makes additional clarification on the quality of life and livability

notions, which makes them more employable in research works, e.g., housing studies.

Key Words: Ackovian systems thinking; Development; Facebook-based survey; Interactive

Planning; Livability; Multiple regression analysis; Quality of life

INTRODUCTION

The topic of quality of life (QOL) and livability catch the writer’s attention in the course

of dissertation project supervision for his Housing Studies students. Right now, it is also

quite a social issue in Hong Kong where this writer is located, as witnessed by the

reported plunge in global ranking of Hong Kong as a livable city (Ejinsight, 2015; Ting,

2015; Lee, 2015). In this paper, the writer conducts a literature review of the two closely

related concepts of quality of life (QOL) and livability. In particular, the two concepts

are examined using R.L. Ackoff (1981)’s systems thinking (i.e., Ackovian systems

thinking). The discussion is also informed by a Facebook-based survey on QOL and

../../../../Download/-%20art%20august%20-/www.researchthoughts.us

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1528199

Joseph Kim-keung Ho- A REVIEW OF THE NOTIONS OF QUALITY OF LIFE (QOL) AND LIVABILITY BASED

ON ACKOVIAN SYSTEMS THINKING

2514 AMERICAN RESEARCH THOUGHTS- Volume 1 │ Issue 11 │2015

livability perceptions. This study is intended to offer both academic and pedagogical

values to readers interested in these two concepts.

BASIC IDEAS ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE AND LIVABILITY

The ideas of quality of life (QOL) and livability have been explained in different ways in

the literature with inspirations coming from ecology, city planning, sociology and

biology (Veehoven, 2005). What is done here is to offer a terse account of the two ideas

and their inter-relationship, which can subsequently be analyzed with the systems

thinking lens of R.L. Ackoff. Simply put, quality is life (QOL) is “the general well-being

of individuals and societies” (Wikipedia, 2015a), wherein well-being is understood as

“the condition of an individual or group, for example their social, economic,

psychological, spiritual or medical state” (Wikipedia, 2015b). It is also tersely defined as

“the degree to which a person enjoys the important possibilities of his/her life” (The

global development research center. 2015), which underlines the subjectivity attribute of

the QOL notion. QOL differs from standards of living which is a much narrower

measure of “the quantity and quality of goods and services available to people” (The

global development research center, 2015). As to livability, it is taken as “the sum of the

factors that add up to a community’s quality of life – including the built and natural

environments, economic prosperity, social stability and equity, educational

opportunity, and cultural, entertainment and recreation possibilities” (Partners’ for

Livable Communities, 2015). These definitions highlight two things: (i) livability

examines a set of factors and the summation of their contribution to the QOL of a

society or community and (ii) QOL encompasses livability with the additional coverage

of the analysis level in smaller social units, i.e., the family and personal levels. In this

regard, both notions have a spatial scope attribute (e.g., city and district) and a social

unit attribute (e.g., the community of a city or district, a family and an individual). On

the QOL/ livability factors per se, the writer adopts the ones from Veehoven (2010) in

developing his line reasoning, namely:

a. Livability of the environment, i.e., whether the living condition is good or not.

b. Life-ability of the person, i.e., how well-equipped we are to cope with life problems.

c. Utility of life, i.e., how good life is for things of higher value, e.g., ecological

preservation and cultural development.

d. Satisfaction of life, i.e., the subjective well-being and happiness for an individual.




These factors comprise the external and internal states of well-being experience (i.e.,

factors (a), (c) and (d).) as well as QOL enabling elements (i.e., factors (b) and (c).) In

practice, QOL and livability indexes, e.g., numbeo.com (2015) and the Hong Kong

Quality of Life Index (Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, 2015), focus mainly

on their outcome domains, e.g., cost of living and purchasing power, affordability of

housing, pollution, crime rats, health system quality and traffic (commute times)

(numbeo.com, 2015), thus crude in pointing out exactly what are the fundamental

causes or effective points of leverage to improve them in a specific communityi. For

example, when it is reported by the ECA International that Hong Kong has dropped in

ranking in the world’s most livable cities partly due to deteriorating political

environment with the Umbrella Movement, Chan kin-man, Occupy Central co-founder

said that “ECA only saw the surface of the problems in Hong Kong<. The development

of the city’s political system lags behind its social development, and that is the hidden

problem that led to unrest during the Umbrella Movement” (Ejinsight, 2015). The causal

factor pointed out by Chan kin-man is not identified in the QOL report of ECA

International and, naturally, Chan’s view is not accepted by his political opponents.

More often than not, discussion of the fundamental causes on QOL/ livability is

controversial. Readers are referred to Ho (2015) for additional basic information on the

notions of QOL and livability. With the main terms involved in quality of life and

livability defined, it is now feasible to synthesize the underlying ideas into the form of a

Table, see Table 1.

i Some basic cause-effect relationships among the component measures of QOL are suggested in the

systems model of QOL proposed by the University of Oklahoma School of Social Work (The global

development research center, 2015).




Table 1: quality of life and livabilityii with different levels of analysis

Quality of life

(QOL) factors

City level

(level 3)

District level

(level 2)

Family level

(level 1)

Personal level

(level 0)

QOL factor 1:

Livability of the

environment

More aggregate

measurement <---- ---->

Less aggregate

measurement

QOL factor 2:

Life-ability of the

person

More aggregate


Less aggregate

measurement

QOL factor 3:

Utility of life

More aggregate


Less aggregate

measurement

QOL factor 4:

Satisfaction with

life

More aggregate


Less aggregate

measurement

Table 1 consists of two dimensions, as represented by the columns and rows of the

table. Table column covers the level of analysis, namely, the city level (level 3), the

district level (level 2), the family level (level 1) and the personal level (level 0) while

table row acknowledges the four QOL factors of Veehoven (2010). Moreover, Table 1

also recognizes the main difference between the notions of QOL and livability. That is,

QOL can be employed at all levels of analysis (0 to 3) while livability is only applied at

the aggregate analysis levels of 2 and 3. It is unclear whether this view of the writer on

their difference is widely shared in the academic community. By sticking to one version

of explanation on all the key ideas underlying QOL and livability and with the

consolidated framework in the form of Table 1, the writer portrays a neat and easily

comprehensible view of these two concepts to readers. Apparently, Table 1 is not the

only way to synthesize the underlying ideas of QOL and livability. For instances, the

table does not explicitly consider all the ingredient output domain measures of QOL

and livability; it does not cover other subcategories of QOL, e.g., physical health,

ii The notion of livability covers all the cells for levels 2 (district level) and 3 (city level) in Table 1.




psychological well-being, functional status, life satisfaction, social functioning and

social relations of Addae-Dapaah (2008) and the being, belonging and becoming domains

of the global development research center (2015). Lastly, it does not identify more

refined and idiosyncratic causal factors of QOL and livability.

AN ASSESSMENT OF QOL AND LIVABILITY VIA THE ACKOVIAN SYSTEMS

THINKING LENS

To start with, QOL and livability are the outcome property from the interactions of a

number of factors. In systems thinking parlance, they are the emergent properties of a

system comprising a set of related QOL/livability factors. On the notion of system, Ackoff

(1980) explains that it “is a set of two or more elements of any kind” with three

properties:

Property 1: “The properties or behavior of each element in the set has an effect on the

properties or behavior of the set as a whole”.

Property 2: “The properties and behavior of each part and the way they affect the whole

depends on the properties and behavior of at least one other element in the set”.

Property 3: “Every possible subgroup of elements in the set has the first two properties;

that is, each has an effect, and none has an independent effect, on the whole”.

Recognizing the systemic nature of QOL and livability, the writer primarily draws on

the systems thinking works of Ackoff (1980; 1981) in the discussion of them. So, for

Ackoff (1981), who refers to the ancient Greek philosophers, there are four pursuits that

together lead to development of men. They are: truth, plenty, good and beauty. These

outcomes of the four pursuits of development are similarly measured by a typical set of

QOL indicators, e.g., material living conditions, productive or main activity, health,

education, leisure and social interactions, economic and physical safety, governance

and basic rights, natural and living environment, and overall experience of life

(eurostat, 2015). More fundamentally, development comprises a desire and an ability

(Ackoff, 1981), therefore not able to be given to a person by another person. Based on

this view on development, (i) “a developed men with limited resources can often

improve his quality of life and that of others more than a less developed man with

unlimited resources” (Ackoff, 1981: 36), and (ii) the QOL that can be realized “is the

joint product of their development and the resources available to them (Ackoff, 1981:




36). As such, to be compatible with a development initiative, planningiii for a desirable

future for a community at the society and district level so as to improve QOL and

livability requires the endorsement of three operating principles (Ackoff, 1980; 1981):

(i) The participative principle: that “the principal benefit of planning comes from engaging

in it” (Ackoff, 1980).

(ii) The principle of continuity: that planning “should be continuous” (Ackoff, 1980).

(iii) The holistic principle: that “every part of a system and every level of it should be

planned for simultaneously and interdependently” (Ackoff, 1980).

Another reason for embracing these three operating principles when dealing

with QOL and livability is that a community is a social systemiv. Such a system is

obsessed with three types of responsibility at the same time (Ackoff, 1981): (i) “to the

purposes of the system they manage (control)”, (ii) to the purposes of the people who

are part of the managed system (humanization), and (iii) to the purposes of the

containing system and other systems that it contains (environmentalization)”. There is a

corresponding responsibility on QOL with these three types of social system

responsibility on its purposes at the society, district, family and personal levels.

Specifically, when applied to the QOL and livability concern, these three operating

principles of Ackoff point to requirement on the continuous pursuit (the continuity

principle) of QOL and livability by all the stakeholders involved (the participative

principle) at the society, district, family and personal levels (re: Table1) (the holistic

principle). In this case, the QOL and livability indexes are not recommended to be used

by planners to produce some kind of optimization models to be employed in city and

district planning for its stakeholders. More explicitly, based on Ackovian systems

thinking, planners cannot simply plan for others with the QOL/ livability indexes.

Instead, QOL and livability indexes should be utilized by the stakeholders involved to

plan for themselves so as to cope with the emergent and systemic nature of QOL and

livability effectively. The holistic principle of Ackoff also points to the need to consider

QOL and livability indexes at different levels of analysis (re: Table 1) simultaneously by

the stakeholders involved in their planning for themselves. At this point, one can

contrast the Ackovian way (i.e., interactive planning approach) to manage QOL and

iii Such a planning approach, which is a soft systems methodology, is called interactive planning (Ackoff

(1981).

iv A social system possesses purposeful parts and is also purposeful as a whole (Ackoff and Gharajedaghi,

1996).




livability with that of the “predict and prepare” approach of preactivismv (Ackoff,

1981), as exemplified by Wyatt (2009) who states that: “<city planners trying to boost

urban livability can only adopt approximate and heuristic strategies which they think

might increase livability and which will probably do no harm<”. From the Ackovian

systems thinking perspective, such QOL/ livability planning approach based on

preactivism simply does not work.

The Ackovian systems thinking lens offers insights on clarifying and employing

the QOL and livability notions and indexes. It is quite prepared to consider both the

objective and subjective topics in QOL/ livability studies in its interactive planning

approach. Nevertheless, Ackoff’s systems thinking itself has been subject to criticisms in

the systems community. On that, interested readers are referred to Jackson (2003:

chapter 9) for details. Lastly, the exercise of drawing a boundary on exactly what factors

should be included in various analysis levels of QOL requires an approach more critical

than that of Ackovian systems thinking. An example is Critical Systems Heuristics of

Ulrich (1983). The next section provides some empirical survey findings on people’s

perception on QOL in the context of Hong Kong.

FACEBOOK-BASED SURVEY FINDINGS ON THE PERCEPTIONS OF QOL IN

HONG KONG

A Facebook-based questionnaire survey was conducted from August 15 to 17 on the

writer’s Facebook by the writer. The online questionnaire was created using the free-of-

charge survey tool provided by kwiksurveys.com. Readers interested in Facebook-

based survey are referred to Ho (2014) for a more detailed discussion. The question was

posted on the writer’s Facebook wall as well as a number of his Facebook groups on

some social sciences subjects. Invitations were also sent via the Facebook message to the

writer’s Facebook friends. These Facebook friends are mainly the existing and former

students of the writer. At the time of the survey, there were 500 friends on his Facebook.

Most of them are located in Hong Kong. Subsequently, 117 respondents participated in

the survey; see Appendix 1 for the survey questions and basic survey statistics. The

survey questions cover the respondents’ profile as well as their perceptions toward

v According to Ackoff (1981: 58-59), preactivists believe in management by objectives and seek for

optimum solutions based on “quantitative science-based techniques”; planning, for them, is about

“predicting the future and preparing for it”.




certain QOL concerns in Hong Kong. The survey questions deliberately avoid using the

more technical term livability. Instead, they utilize the term quality of life (QOL), which

is more comprehensible to ordinary people. One set of questions focuses on QOL issues

at the society level; others deal with QOL issues at the district, family and personal

levels. Thus, the survey questions are informed by the ideas underlying Table 1. The

following are the five survey findings:

Finding 1 (re: survey questions 6, 7, 8 and 9): On perceived quality of life deterioration

over the last 2 years at different levels of analysis, the following statistics are provided

in Table 2:

Table 2: perception of quality of life deterioration over the last 2 years at different levels of

analysis

Society level District level Family level Personal level

Strongly agree 40.17% 26.5% 14.66% 19.66%

Mildly agree 44.44% 45.3% 35.34% 35.9%

Do not agree 13.68% 26.5% 45.69% 41.88%

No idea or

comment 1.71% 1.71% 4.31% 2.56%

With reference to Table 2, the majority of the respondents feel that the quality of life has

deteriorated over the last 2 years at all analysis levels. Such QOL perceptions are

stronger at the macro-environmental levels, i.e., the society and the district levels, than

at the family and personal levels.

Finding 2 (re: survey questions 10, 11, 12 and 13): On perceived ability deterioration to

improve quality of life in the coming 2 years at different levels of analysis, the following

statistics are provided in Table 3:




Table 3: perception of ability deterioration to improve quality of life in the coming 2 years at

different levels of analysis

Society level by

the government

District level by

the government

Family level by

the respondents’

family

Personal level by

the respondent

Strongly agree 8.55% 3.45% 10.34% 20.51%

Mildly agree 12.82% 8.62% 38.79% 37.61%

Do not agree 73.5% 83.62% 43.97% 36.75%

No idea or

comment 5.13% 4.31% 6.9% 5.13%

Regarding Table 3, the dominant majority of survey respondents are not confident that

the government is able to improve QOL at the society and the district levels; about half

of them have confidence that they and their families are able to improve their own QOL

in the coming 2 years. In short, they have higher confidence on their own and their

families’ abilities to improve their own QOL than that of the government on the general

QOL at the society and district levels.

Finding 3 (re: survey questions 14, 15, 16 and 17): On personal feeling on present QOL at

different analysis levels, the statistics are summarized in Table 4:

Table 4: personal feeling on present QOL at different analysis levels

Satisfied at the

society level

Satisfied at the

district level

Satisfied at the

family level

Satisfied at the

personal level

Strongly agree 3.42% 4.27% 8.62% 5.98%

Mildly agree 30.77% 38.46% 48.28% 47.86%

Do not agree 62.39% 53.85% 39.66% 43.59%

No idea or

comment 3.42% 3.42% 3.45% 2.56%

About half of the respondents hold negative personal feeling on the present QOL at all

the analysis levels; nevertheless, the respondents, relatively speaking, feel more

satisfied with the present QOL at the family and personal levels than at the macro level,

i.e., the district and society levels.

Finding 4 (re: survey questions 18, 19, 20 and 21): On the respondents’ feeling on

expected QOL change in the coming 2 years, the survey statistics are summarized in

Table 5.




Table 5: expected QOL change in the coming 2 years at different analysis levels

Will get worse at

the society level

Will get worse

at the district

level

Will get worse at

the family level

Will get worse at

the personal level

Strongly agree 25.22% 17.24% 10.26% 10.26%

Mildly agree 47.83% 49.14% 38.46% 35.04%

Do not agree 14.78% 18.97% 37.61% 37.61%

No idea or

comment 12.17% 14.66% 13.68% 17.09%

With reference to Table 5, the majority of the respondents hold a rather pessimistic view

on QOL change at the society and district levels in the coming 2 years. In comparison,

the sentiment of them is slightly less negative at the family and personal levels. There is

also a significant minority of respondents who have no idea or comment on this topic,

reflecting some uncertainty and bewilderment on this topic.

Finding 5 (re: survey questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16 and 17): By means of the statistical

technique of multiple regression analysis (Lind et al., 2001) with the MS Excel tool, the

following multiple regression formula is formulated:

Interest in learning the subject of QOL (variable y) = a + b1 x (x1: gender) + b2 x (x2: age

group) + b3 x (x3: education background) + b4 x (x4: self-perceived social class) + b5 x

(x5: satisfaction with present QOL at the society level) + b6 x (x6: satisfaction with the

present QOL at the district level) + b7 x (x7: satisfaction with the present QOL at the

family level) + b8 x (x8: satisfaction with the present QOL at the personal level)

Additional information on the variables in the multiple regression formula is as follows:

Interest in learning the subject of QOL (variable y) is the dependent variable based on

survey question 22.

Gender (x1) is an independent variable based on survey question 1.

Age group (x2) is an independent variable based on survey question 2.

Education background (x3) is an independent variable based on survey question 3.

Self-perceived social class (x4) is an independent variable based on survey question 4.




Satisfaction with present QOL at the society level (x5) is an independent variable based on

survey question 14.

Satisfaction with the present QOL at the district level (x6) is an independent variable based

on survey question 15.

Satisfaction with the present QOL at the family level (x7) is an independent variable based


Satisfaction with the present QOL at the personal level (x8) is an independent variable based


To enable Excel to produce the variable values for multiple regression analysis, the

following coding scheme is used:

For perception items:

Yes, very much so: 3

Yes, I have this feeling mildly: 2

No, I do not feel this way: 1

For gender:

Female: 1

Male: 2

For age group:

18 to 27: 22.5

28 to 37: 32.5

38 to 47: 42.5

48 to 57: 52.5

58 to 67: 62.5

68 or above: 72.5




For education background:

Finished Ph.D. Degree study: 4

Finished Master Degree study: 3

Finished Undergraduate Degree study: 2

Not yet a degree-holder: 1

For self-perceived social class:

Upper class: 3

Middle class: 2

Lower class: 1

Based on the Excel report on the multiple regression analysis, the following resultant

formula is obtained (re: Appendix 2):

Interest in learning the subject of QOL (variable y) = 1.9228 – 0.17338 x (x1: gender) +

0.0118 x (x2: age group) – 0.2326 x (x3: education background) + 0.2544 x (x4: self-

perceived social class) – 0.2421 x (x5: satisfaction with present QOL at the society

level) + 2.9448 x (x6: satisfaction with the present QOL at the district level) + 0.7410 x

(x7: satisfaction with the present QOL at the family level) – 0.7650 x (x8: satisfaction

with the present QOL at the personal level)

Interpretation: The b1 value of -0.17338 for x1 indicates that female respondents have

slightly higher interest in learning the subject of QOL than male respondents.

Respondents with higher level of education background, with b2 value at 0.0118, also

have slightly higher interest in learning QOL. Respondents with higher education level

have slightly lower interest in QOL learning (re: b3 value is -0.2326). Referring to b4

(0.2544), respondents with higher self-perceived social class have slightly higher interest

in learning QOL. Regarding b5 (-0.2421), respondents who are less satisfied with the

present QOL at the society level have slightly higher interest in learning QOL.

Respondents who are more satisfied with the present QOL at the district level (with b6

value at 2.9448) have higher interest in learning QOL. Those who are more satisfied

with QOL at the family level have slightly more interest to learn QOL (re: b7 value is

0.7410). Finally, those who have less satisfaction with QOL at the personal level have




somewhat more interest in learning QOL (re: b8 value is -0.7650). It is important to note

that only the last two independent variables of QOL at the family level (variable x7) and

personal level (variable x8) have p-value below 2.5% (or 5% critical value for a two-

tailed test), which implies that the null-hypotheses of their b values (i.e., b7 and b8)

being zero can be rejected. As to independent variables x1 to x6, their corresponding p-

values are all beyond the 2.5% critical value. Thus, the null hypothesis for their b-values

being zero cannot be rejected.

Overall, the survey findings reveal that respondents have more confidence in

their own ability to improve their family and personal QOL than in what the

government is able to do for them on QOL. It is also clear that correlations among

variables per se, as shown in the multiple regression formula here, do not establish

cause-effect relationship among them. Such empirical findings lend support to the

appropriateness of the 3 operating principles of Ackoff’s interactive planning as

guidance for QOL and livability planning and management.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

By focusing on the basic underling ideas of QOL and livability, this paper comes up

with a consolidated framework expressed in the form of Table 1. Also, via the Ackovian

systems thinking lens, the notions of QOL and livability have been further clarified

(point 1); the value of using the Interactive Planning of Ackoff and its operating

principles in managing QOL and livability is underlined (point 2); and, the importance

of human development for the pursuit of QOL and livability is emphasized (point 3)vi.

The findings from the Facebook-based survey on QOL and livability in the Hong Kong

context can be fruitfully interpreted with the main line of reasoning anchored on

Ackovian systems thinking. All in all, the paper illustrates the intellectual value of the

Ackovian systems thinking view on QOL and livability to academicians and educators

interested in QOL/ livability study. Additional clarification on the two notions, done in

this paper, also makes them more comprehensible to employ in research works, e.g., in

housing studies.

vi A related theoretical question on the value of creative holism pursuit (Jackson, 2003) as a pathway for

QOL/livability improvement is not examined in this paper. [Creative holism is a notion in critical systems

thinking while development is a concept in Ackoff’s version of soft systems thinking (Jackson, 2003).]




BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ackoff, R.L. 1980. “2. The systems revolution” in Lockett, M. and R. Spear

(editors) Organizations as Systems. The Open University Press, Milton Keynes: 26-

33.

2. Ackoff, R.L. 1981. Creating the corporate future. Wiley. Chichester.

3. Ackoff, R.L. and J. Gharajedaghi. 1996. “Reflection on Systems and their Models”

Systems Research 13(1). Wiley: 13-23.

4. Addae-Dapaah, K. 2008. “Age Segregation and the Quality of Life of the Elderly

People in Studio Apartments” Journal of Housing For the Elderly 22 (1-2).

Routledge: 127-161.

5. Ejinsight. 2015. “HK plummets in global ranking of livable cities” ejinsight

January 23. (url address: http://www.ejinsight.com/20150123-hk-plummets-in-

global-ranking-of-livable-cities/) [visited at August 14, 2015].

6. Eurostat. 2015. “Quality of life indicators – measuring quality of life” Statistics

Explained June 1. Eurostat. (url address: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Quality_of_life_indicators_-_measuring_quality_of_life)

[visited at August 16, 2015].

7. Ho J.K.K. 2014. “A Research Note on Facebook-based questionnaire survey for

academic research in business studies” European Academic Research 2(7) October:

9243-9257.

8. Ho, J.K.K. 2015. “Livability and quality of life study” Facebook Album of J.K.K.

Ho (url address:

https://www.facebook.com/josephho33/media_set?set=a.10153444326092090.1073

742048.713727089&type=3) [visited at August 26, 2015].

9. Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies. 2015. “Hong Kong Quality of Life

Index” Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of

Hong Kong (url address: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ssc/qol/eng/hkqol.html)

[visited at August 26, 2015].

10. Jackson, M.C. 2003. Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Wiley.

Chichester.

11. KwikSurveys.com. An online survey builder (url address:

https://kwiksurveys.com/).

12. Lee, E. 2015. “Occupy protests hits Hong Kong’s liveability, says Economist

Intelligence Unit” South China Morning Post August 18 (url address:

http://www.ejinsight.com/20150123-hk-plummets-in-global-ranking-of-livable-cities/

http://www.ejinsight.com/20150123-hk-plummets-in-global-ranking-of-livable-cities/

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Quality_of_life_indicators_-_measuring_quality_of_life

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Quality_of_life_indicators_-_measuring_quality_of_life

https://www.facebook.com/josephho33/media_set?set=a.10153444326092090.1073742048.713727089&type=3

https://www.facebook.com/josephho33/media_set?set=a.10153444326092090.1073742048.713727089&type=3

http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ssc/qol/eng/hkqol.html

https://kwiksurveys.com/




http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/1850420/occupy-protests-

hit-hong-kongs-liveability-says-economist) [visited at August 18, 2015].

13. Lind, D.A., W.G. Marchal and R.D. Mason. 2001. Statistical Techniques in Business

& Economics. McGraw-Hill Irwin. Boston.

14. Numbeo.com. 2015. “Quality of life index for country 2015 mid year”

Numbeo.com (url address: http://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-

life/rankings_by_country.jsp) [visited at August 20, 2015].

15. Partners for Livable Communities. 2015. What is Livability. Partners for Livable

Communities. 1429 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 (url address:

http://livable.org/about-us/what-is-livability) [visited at August 16, 2015].

16. Schmitt, R.B. and H.H. Noll. 2000. “Towards a European System of Social

Reporting and Welfare Measurement: Conceptual Framework and Structure of a

European System of Social Indicators” EU Reporting Working Paper 9, Centre for

Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA).

17. The global development research center. 2015. “Notes on “Quality of Life”.” The

global development research center (url address: http://www.gdrc.org/uem/qol-

define.html) [visited at August 26, 2015].

18. Ting, S. 2015. “H.K. Declines in Livable City Survey for Asian Expats” Bloomberg

January 23 (url address: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-

23/hong-kong-falls-out-of-top-30-most-livable-cities-survey-shows) [visited at

August 14, 2015].

19. Ulrich, W. 1983. Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical

Philosophy. Wiley.

20. Veehoven, R. 2005. “Is life getting better?” How long and happy people live in

modern society” European Psychology 10: 330-343.

21. Veenhoven, R. 2010. “Capability and Happiness: Conceptual difference and

reality links” Journal of Socio-Economics 30: 344-350.

22. Wikipedia. 2015a. Quality of life. Wikipedia.com (url address:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life) [visited August 16, 2015].

23. Wikipedia. 2015b. Well-being. Wikipedia.com (url address:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-being). [visited August 16, 2015].

24. Wyatt, R. 2009. “Heuristic Approaches to Urban Livability” Malaysian Journal of

Environmental Management 10(1): 43-65.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/1850420/occupy-protests-hit-hong-kongs-liveability-says-economist

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/1850420/occupy-protests-hit-hong-kongs-liveability-says-economist

http://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

http://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

http://livable.org/about-us/what-is-livability

http://www.gdrc.org/uem/qol-define.html

http://www.gdrc.org/uem/qol-define.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-23/hong-kong-falls-out-of-top-30-most-livable-cities-survey-shows

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-23/hong-kong-falls-out-of-top-30-most-livable-cities-survey-shows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-being




APPENDIX

Appendix 1: the Facebook-based survey questions (22 questions) and responses statistics

(from August 15 to 17, 2015).

Survey questions Survey statistics

Question 1: What is your gender? Male: 49 (41.88%)

Female: 68 (58.12%)

Standard deviation: 9.5

Responses: 117

Question 2: What is your age? 18 to 27: 11 (9.4%)

28 to 37: 53 (45.3%)

38 to 47: 42 (35.9%)

48 to 57: 10 (8.55%)

58 to 67: 1 (0.85%)

68 or above: 0 (0%)


Responses: 117

Question 3: What is your education

background?

Not yet a degree-holder: 18 (15.38%)

Finished University Undergraduate Degree study: 78

(66.67%)

Finished Master Degree study: 21 (17.95%)

Finished Ph.D. Degree study (or equivalent): 0 (0%)


Responses: 117

Question 4: What is your perceived

own social class?

Upper class: 3 (2.56%)

Middle class: 65 (55.56%)

Lower class: 38 (32.48%)

Not applicable/ no idea: 11 (9.4%)


Responses: 117

Question 5: What is your marital

status?

Single: 58 (49.57%)

Married: 53 (45.3%)

Complicated/ no comment: 6 (5.13%)


Responses: 117

Question 6: Do you feel that the

quality of life for the society as a

Yes, very much so: 47 (40.17%)

Yes, I have this feeling mildly: 52 (44.44%)




whole has got worse over the last 2

years?

No, I do not feel this way: 16 (13.68%)

No idea/ no comment: 2 (1.71%)


Responses: 117


quality of life at the district level of

your residence has got worse over the

last 2 years?






Responses: 117


quality of life at your family level has

got worse over the last 2 years?






Responses: 116


quality of life at your personal level

has got worse over the last 2 years?






Responses: 117


present Hong Kong government is

able to improve the quality of life at

the society level in the coming 2

years?






Responses: 117


present Hong Kong government is


the district level of your residence in

the coming 2 years?






Responses: 116

Question 12: Do you feel that your

family is able to improve the quality

of life at your family level in the







coming 2 years? No idea/ no comment: 8 (6.9%)


Responses: 116

Question 13: Do you feel that you are


your personal level in the coming 2

years?






Responses: 117


satisfied with the present quality of

life at the society level?






Responses: 117



life at the district level of your

residence?






Responses: 117



life at your family level?






Responses: 116



life at your personal level?






Responses: 117


quality of life at the society level will

get worse in the coming 2 years?









Responses: 115


quality of life at your district level will







Responses: 116


quality of life at your family level will







Responses: 117


quality of life at your personal level

will get worse in the coming 2 years?






Responses: 117


interested in learning more about the

subject of quality of life?






Responses: 117




Appendix 2: Excel report on multiple regression analysis.

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.439092276

R Square 0.192802027

Adjusted R Square 0.083351455

Standard Error 0.712048932

Observations 68

ANOVA

df SS MS F

Regression 8 7.1450163 0.893127 1.761544253

Residual 59 29.91380723 0.5070137

Total 67 37.05882353

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value

Intercept 1.922845279 0.593164458 3.2416731 0.001956132

Gender -0.173379721 0.189787053 -0.9135487 0.364672247

Age group 0.011791454 0.010839019 1.0878709 0.281076209

Education background -0.232629615 0.168236102 -1.3827568 0.171950861

Self-perceived social

class 0.254382051 0.181747523 1.3996452 0.166855728

QOL satisfaction at

society level -0.242129073 0.233914722 -1.0351169 0.304838494

QOL satisfaction at

district level 0.294475682 0.215048485 1.3693455 0.176081351

QOL satisfaction at

family level 0.740995643 0.276054465 2.6842371 0.009421134

QOL satisfaction at

personal level -0.765048659 0.313619574 -2.4394162 0.017736761

A REVIEW OF THE NOTIONS OF QUALITY OF LIFE (QOL) AND LIVABILITY BASED ON ACKOVIAN SYSTEMS THINKING

Documents

Transcript of A REVIEW OF THE NOTIONS OF QUALITY OF LIFE (QOL) AND LIVABILITY BASED ON ACKOVIAN SYSTEMS THINKING