CHAPTER 11

Quality of Life
Assessment
spatial variation and social stratification in quality of life (QOL) per-
sists throughout all postindustrial cities owing to the uneven
development among nations, regions, and cities. The study of qual-
ity of urban life has drawn increasing interest from a number of disci-
plines, such as planning, geography, sociology, economics, psychology,
political science, behavioral medicine, marketing, and management
(Kirby, 1999; Foo, 2001), and is becoming an important tool for policy
evaluation, rating of places, and urban planning and management. QOL
is a great research topic and relates many different aspects of the lives of
human beings. There has been a great increase in amount of time, effort,
and resources being concentrated on QOL studies. Over 200 communi-
ties in the United States and over 589 in the world have conducted QOL
indicator projects (Barsell and Maser, 2004). Studies have been adopted
by governments and public agencies to assess and compare changes in
QOL within and between communities, cities, regions, and countries.
Although much exploration for the assessment of QOL has been
conducted (Cornwell, 2004; Schyns and Boelhouwer, 2004), a univer-
sally acceptable definition of and approach to QOL assessment is
lacked. Most previous work on urban QOL assessment used only
socioeconomic variables from census data. Remote sensing-derived
variables have been used for research related to socioeconomic condi-
tions through the integration of ancillary data and the use of modeling.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide a powerful tool for
data integration of physical and socioeconomic parameters for the
development of advanced models. This chapter explores the integra-
tion of remote sensing and GIS for modeling QOL assessment with a
case study of Indianapolis, Indiana. Although some explorations have
been conducted previously using remote sensing and GIS techniques
(Lo and Faber, 1997; Weber and Hirsch, 1992), numerous problems still
remain to be solved in terms of how to develop a synthetic QOL index
and how to better couple remote sensing and socioeconomic data,
which are different in data model, format, and structure.

327
328 Cha pte r Ele v e n

11.1 Assessing Quality of Life

11.1.1 Concept of QOL
There is no certainty as to the origin of term quality of life (QOL).
American economists Ordway (1953) and Osborn (1954) are among
the earliest people to use this term to address their concern about the
ecological dangers of unlimited economic growth. The concept of
QOL has been changing with the time and has become more complex. At
the beginning, QOL was defined as a good standard of living, which
is a measure of economic well-being. In 1960, the concept of QOL
expanded to include education, health, and well-being (Fallowfield,
1990). In a speech, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated, “Goals cannot
be measured by the size of our bank account; they can only be
measured in the quality of lives that our people lead.” This statement
brought to the forefront the idea that QOL is not necessar-ily a simple
function of material wealth. Increasing realizations of theimportance
of other aspects, such as environmental, social, psycho- logical, and
political health, inspired researchers to develop a more
comprehensive system to evaluate the overall health of nations,
regions, and locals and the well-being of citizens.
At present, there is no universally acceptable definition of QOL,
and there is a great deal of ambiguity and controversy over the concept
of QOL, its elements, and its indicators. Various concepts concerning
urban environmental quality and QOL can be found in the literature.
Kamp and colleagues (2003) reviewed the definitions of QOL and other
main concepts related to urban environmental quality and human
well-being, such as livability, sustainability, and environment quality.
There is neither a comprehensive conceptual framework concerning
urban QOL and human well-being nor any agreed-on indicator sys-
tem to evaluate physical, spatial, and social aspects of urban quality
because different disciplines address the concept from the perspective
of their own research interests and objectives. For example, public
health studies probably focus on communities, whereas medical spe-
cialists focus on individual patients; sociological researchers may
choose to focus on the structure and content of groups (such as ages
and races), communities, and societies; psychological researchers may
look at any individual-based characteristics such as well-being, mental
health, and the like; economists may direct their researchers to focus on
economic development; and environmentalists perhaps focus on the
impact of the physical environment on QOL. The fact that most defini-
tions of QOL are similar implies that QOL is physical and psychologi-
cal satisfaction of individuals or societies with their living conditions,
including health, social, economic, and environmental factors.
Although no consensus on the definition of the QOL has been
reached, this has not prevented QOL to be an academic discipline in
its own right since 1970s, when a peer-reviewed scientific journal,
 Q u a l i t y of L i f e A s s e s s m e n t 329
Social Indicators Research, was established (Scottish Executive Social
Research, 2005). Since then, a great number of studies related to QOL
and well-being issues have been released. Many community organiza-
tions at the national, provincial, municipal, and neighborhood levels
have conducted QOL research. These studies have provided much
information for governments and public agencies on which to formu-
late strategies and policies to improve QOL. Moreover, an association
called the International Society for Quality of Life Studies (ISQOLS)
specifically serves as a forum for all academic and professional research-
ers interested in the field of QOL; ISQOLS coordinates and stimulates
interdisciplinary research on QOL within policy, behavioral, social,
medical, and environmental sciences.
Indicators can be defined as measurable or observable variables
and parameters that indicate the status of a particular system or phe-
nomena. Over many years, researchers working to construct a con-
ceptual framework to improve QOL have attempted to identify com-
prehensive and distinct categories representing major factors that
affect QOL. Friedman (1997) proposed two approaches to identify
QOL indicators: societal and personal indicators of QOL. Moreover,
QOL has been assessed on different geographic scales ranging from
individual to global level, such as census block, neighborhood, com-
munity, city, state, country, and the like.

11.1.2 QOL Domains and Models

QOL is a multidimensional construct encompassing many different
dimensions, of which economic, social/cultural, and physical are the
core domains. Each domain consists of many factors affecting the well-
being of individuals and societies. Many researchers tried to define or
classify those factors (Campbell et al., 1976; Flanagan, 1978, 1982). For
example, Flanagan (1978, 1982) identified 15 factors defining QOL and
grouped them into 5 major categories: (1) physical and material well-
being; (2) relationships with others, including spouse, children, family
members, and friends; (3) civic, community, and social activities;
(4) personal development and achievement; and (5) leisure. Some
models are highly theoretical, whereas others are strictly empirical,
depending on different disciplines. As with the definitions of QOL,
there is little consensus about which models should be employed.
Lawrence (2001) developed a holistic framework of human ecol-
ogy that incorporates anthropologic, biologic, epidemiologic, psycho-
logical, and sociological perspectives. Two approaches—subjective
and objective—were used to evaluate the roles of individuals, social
groups, and institutions. From an ecological point of view, the human
ecosystem is related to other ecosystems. Camagni and colleagues
(1997) developed a model to approach sustainability and livability.
The physical, social, and economic aspects form the materials of society.
These three domains have been used by Shafer and colleagues (2000)
330 Cha pte r Ele v e n

Community Environment

Livable

Convivial Viable

QOL

Equitable/
accessible Sustainable

Movable
(mobility)
Economics

FIGURE 11.1 Shafer’s model showing the factors contributing to community

QOL from a human ecological perspective. (Adapted from Shafer et al., 2000.)

to conceptualize QOL (Fig. 11.1). They consider the quality of place

(livability) to be the result of the interaction between the physical and
social domains, and sustainability is the result of the interaction
between the physical and economic domains. The interaction among
three domains is alternatively defined as sustainability and QOL. The
model implies that social, spatial, environmental, economic, andland-
use planning cannot be done in isolation owing to the relation- ships
between them.

11.1.3 Application of Remote Sensing

and GIS in QOL Studies
Although many QOL studies do consider physical environmental
impact, most of the data were obtained from field measurement and
sampling (e.g., air quality and water quality are sampled at obser-
vation stations). As such, they could not provide detailed spatial
patterns. Remote sensing data provide a great resource for extract-
ing environmental variables for QOL analysis. Incorporating urban
biophysical variables derived from remote sensing data with socio-
economic variables extracted from census data to assess QOL was pio-
neered by Green (1957), who employed aerial photographs to extract
physical data, including housing density, the number of single-family
homes, land uses adjacent to/within residential areas, and distance of
residential areas to the central business district, and then combined
those data with socioeconomic data, such as education, crime rate, and
rental rates, to rank each residential area of Birmingham, Alabama, in
terms “residential desirability.” Later on, Green and Monier (1957) used
 Q u a l i t y of L i f e A s s e s s m e n t 331
the same method in other cities of the United States. Poverty of cities as
an aspect of QOL also has been studied based on housing density and
other indicators derived from aerial photograph by Mumbower and
Donoghue (1967) and Metivier and McCoy (1971).
Advances in digital remote sensing and GIS technology have
made QOL research more efficient to conduct based on the integra-
tion of remote sensing imagery and census socioeconomic data. For
example, Weber and Hirsch (1992) developed urban life indices by
combining remotely sensed Le Systeme Pour l’Observation de la
Terre (SPOT) data with conventional census data, such as population
and housing data, for Stasbourg, France. Strong correlations between
census and remotely sensed data were found, mostly with housing-
related data. Three urban QOL indices were developed based on the
mixed data. They were interpreted as housing index, attractivity
index, and repulsion index. However, each of these three indices
describes only one aspect of QOL and cannot give a whole picture of
QOL for a specific unit. Lo and Faber (1997) created QOL maps for the
Athens (Clarke County), Georgia by integrating environmental fac-
tors including land use/land cover (LULC), surface temperature, and
vegetation index [normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)]
derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) and census variables
such as population density, per-capita income, median home value,
and percentage of college graduates using principal component anal-
ysis (PCA) and GIS overlay methods, respectively. However, the first
principal component, which the authors interpreted as the “greenness
of the environment,” explains only 54.2 percent of total variance;
therefore, the measure of QOL based on the first principal component
was not comprehensive because it did not incorporate the second
principal component, that is, “personal traits,” or higher orders of
components. On the other hand, the GIS overlay method, which sums
up ranked data layers (variables), was not able to remove redundant
information existing in the highly correlated datasets.

11.2 Case Study: QOL Assessment in Indianapolis

with Integration of Remote Sensing
and GIS
11.2.1 Study Area and Datasets
Indianapolis, Indiana, was chosen to implement this study. A detailed
description and a map of the study area can be found in Sec. 3.2.1 in
Chapter 3. There are two primary data sources: U.S. Census 2000 and
Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapping Plus (ETM+). The Census 2000
data from the U.S. Census Bureau used in this study include tabular
data stored in Summary Files 1 and 3, which contain information
332 Cha pte r Ele v e n

about population, housing, income, and education, and spatial data,

called topologically integrated geographic encoding and referencing
(TIGER) data, which contain data representing the positions and
boundaries of legal and statistical entities. These two types of data are
linked by Census geographic entity codes. The U.S. Census has a
hierarchical structure composed of 10 basic levels: United States,
region, division, state, county, county subdivision, place, Census
tract, block group, and block. The block-group level was selected in
this study. A Landsat 7 ETM+ image (row/path: 32/21) dated on June
22, 2000, was used. Atmospheric conditions were clear at the time of
image acquisition, and the image was acquired through the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resource Observation Systems
Data Center, which had corrected the radiometric and geometric dis-
tortions of the images to a quality level of 1G before delivery. The
Census data and satellite image were coregistered to Universal Trans-
verse Mercator (UTM) system before the integration.

11.2.2 Extraction of Socioeconomic Variables

from Census Data
Selection of socioeconomic variables is based on the commonly used
variables in previous studies (Lo and Faber, 1997; Smith, 1973; Weber
and Hirsch, 1992). These variables include population density, housing
density, median family income, median household income, per-capita
income, median house value, median number of rooms, percentage of
college above graduates, unemployment rate, and percentage of fami-
lies under the poverty level. Initially, a total of 26 variables was extracted
from Census 2000 Summary Files 1 and 3. A series of processes was
performed to obtain the variables selected. A TIGER shape file of block
group was downloaded from the Internet. The socioeconomic vari-
ables then were integrated with the TIGER shape file using geo-
graphic entity codes as attributes of the shape file.

11.2.3 Extraction of Environmental Variables

Previous studies show that vegetation greenness and urban land use
within given districts are important indicators of QOL, with high
greenness and low percentage of urban use being of higher quality.
Greenness relates to vegetation and can be measured using vegetation
indices such as the NDVI. However, NDVI values are affected by
many other external factors, such as view angle, soil background, sea-
sons, and differences in row direction and spacing in agricultural
fields; therefore, it does not measure the amount of vegetation well
(Weng et al., 2004). Urban land uses, such as transportation, commercial,
and industrial uses, may be described as impervious surface, although
impervious surface is not limited to urban uses. Impervious surface also
may include some features in residential areas, such as buildings and
sidewalks. Vegetation abundance and impervious surface are more
 Q u a l i t y of L i f e A s s e s s m e n t 333
accurate representations of urban morphologic composition. They
can be obtained by using the technique of spectral mixture analysis
(SMA).
In this study, three endmembers were identified initially from the
ETM+ image based on high-resolution aerial photographs. The shade
endmember was identified from the areas of clear and deep water,
whereas green vegetation was selected from the areas of dense grass
and cover crops. Different types of impervious surfaces were selected
from building roofs and highway intersections. The radiances of
these initial endmembers were compared with those of the endmem-
bers selected from the scatterplot of Thematic Mapper (TM) 3 and TM
4 and the scatterplot of TM 4 and TM 5. The endmembers whose
curves are similar but are located at the vertices of the scatter plot
were finally used. A constrained least-squares solution was used to
decompose the six ETM+ bands (1 to 5 and 7) into three fraction
images (i.e., vegetation, impervious surface, and shade).
Temperature is an important factor affecting human comfort.
High surface temperature is seen to be undesirable by most people;
therefore, it can be used as an indicator of environmental quality (Lo
and Faber, 1997; Nichol and Wong, 2005). Urban heat islands are a
common phenomenon in the cities in which the urban area shows a
higher temperature than the rural area. The thermal infrared band of
ETM+ provides the source to extract surface temperatures. The pro-
cedure to extract land surface temperatures involves three steps:
(1) converting the digital numbers of Landsat ETM+ band 6 into spec-
tral radiance, (2) converting the spectral radiance to at-satellite bright-
ness temperature, which is also called blackbody temperature, and
(3) converting the blackbody temperature to land surface temperature.
A detailed description of the procedures for extracting temperature
images from Landsat ETM+ imagery can be found in Weng and
colleagues (2004).
Since Census data and ETM+ data have different formats and
spatial resolutions, they need to be integrated. With the help of the
GIS function in ERDAS IMAGINE, remote sensing data were aggre-
gated at the block-group level, and the mean values of green vegeta-
tion, impervious surface, and temperature were calculated for each
block group. All these data then were exported into SPSS software for
further analysis.

11.2.4 Statistical Analysis and Development of a QOL Index

Factor analysis is a statistical technique used to determine the num-
ber of underlying dimensions contained in a set of observed vari-
ables. The underlying dimensions are referred to as factors. These fac-
tors explain most of the variability among a large number of observed
variables. In factor analysis, the first factor explains most of the vari-
ance in the data, and each successive factor explains less of the variance
334 Cha pte r Ele v e n

(Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). The number of factors to be selected

depends on the percentage of variance explained by each factor. There
are different factor-extraction methods. This study employed principal
component analysis (PCA). Factors whose eigenvalues were greater
than 1 were extracted (Kaiser, 1960).
Each factor can be viewed as one aspect of QOL. Therefore, factor
scores can be used as a single index indicating the aspect with which
the factor associates. A synthetic QOL index is a composite of differ-
ent aspects. It is computed by the following equation:
n

QOL =  FiWi (11.1)

1

where n = the number of factors selected

Fi = the factor i score
Wi = the percentage of variance factor i explains

QOL maps were created to show the geographic patterns of QOL.

Ideally, either single or synthetic QOL scores developed based on
factor analyses should be related to real QOL, and further, the approach
can be validated. However, there were no such data available. There-
fore, in this study, QOL scores created from factors were related to
original indicators by developing regression models. For a single QOL
score, predictors were those that had large loadings on the correspond-
ing factor; for a synthetic QOL score, predictors included variables
that had the highest correlation with the corresponding factors. These
models can be applied to predict QOL in further studies.

11.2.5 Geographic Patterns of Environmental

and Socioeconomic Variables
The distribution of per-capita income by block groups in Marion
County shows that the highest per-capita incomes were found in the
north, northeast, and northwest portions of the county, whereas the
lowest per-capita incomes were found in the center of the county.
Three environmental variables, including green-vegetation fraction,
impervious surface fraction, and shade fraction, were further extracted
from the Landsat image using SMA. The green-vegetation fraction
showed that the highest values of green vegetation were observed in
forest, grassland, and cropland areas, whereas the lowest values were
found in the urban and water areas. In contrast, the highest values of
the impervious surface fraction were found in the urban area, whereas
the lowest values were found in forest, grassland, and water areas.
The temperature image derived from ETM+ band 6 indicated that
high surface temperatures were found in the urban area, especially
downtown, whereas low temperatures were found in vegetated areas
and water bodies. These remote sensing variables then were
 Q u a l i t y of L i f e A s s e s s m e n t 335
aggregated at the block-group level, and their mean values for each
block group were calculated.
Pearson’s correlation coefficient was computed to give a prelimi-
nary analysis of the relationships among all variables. Table 11.1 dis-
plays the correlation matrix. Green vegetation had a significant posi-
tive relationship with all income variables (r = 0.336 to 0.467), median
house value (r = 0.340), median number of rooms (r = 0.490), and
education level (r = 0.301) and a negative relationship with density
variables (r = –0.226 and –0.265), temperature (r = –0.772), impervious
surface (r = –0.871), percentage of poverty (r = –0.421), and unem-
ployment rate (r = –0.284). Percentage of college graduates had a very
high correlation with income variables and house characteristics,
which indicates that well-educated people make more money and
live well. The relationships between impervious surface and temper-
ature and other variables were in contrast to vegetation. Because high
correlations existed among these variables, it is necessary to reduce
the data dimension and redundancy.

11.2.6 Factor Analysis Results

As a general guide in interpreting factor analysis results, the suitabil-
ity of data for factor analysis was first checked based on Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett test values. Only when KMO was
greater than 0.5 and the significance level of the Bartlett test was less
than 0.1 were the data acceptable for factor analysis. The second step
was to validate the variables based on communality of variables.
Small values indicate that variables do not fit well with the factor
solution and should be dropped from the analysis. Initially, all 13
variables were input for processing. The KMO (0.847) and Bartlett
tests (significant level 0.000) indicated that the data were suitable for
factor analysis. However, there were three variables, namely, median
number of rooms, unemployment rate, and percentage of families
under the poverty level, with low communality values. These three
variables were dropped from the analysis. Therefore, 10 variables
were finally entered into the factor analysis. Based on the rule that the
minimum eigenvalue should not be less than 1, three factors were
extracted from the factor analysis. For the purpose of easy interpreta-
tion, the factor solution was rotated using varimax rotation (Table 11.2).
The first factor (factor 1) explained about 40.67 percent of the total
variance, the second factor (factor 2) accounted for 24.69 percent, and
the third factor (factor 3) explained 21.86 percent. Together, the first
three factors explained more than 87.2 percent of the variance.
Interpreting factor loadings is the key in factor analysis. Factor
loadings are measurements of relationships between variables and
factors. Generally speaking, only variables with loadings greater than
0.32 should be considered (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). Comrey and
Lee (1992) suggested a range of values to interpret the strength of the
336

PD HD GV IMP T MHI MFI PCI POV PCG UNEMP MHV

HD 0.917
GV –0.226 –0.265
IMP 0.065 0.085 –0.871
T 0.510 0.506 –0.722 0.652
MHI –0.297 –0.328 0.467 –0.521 –0.536
MFI –0.273 –0.264 0.419 –0.508 –0.491 0.926
PCI –0.270 –0.194 0.336 –0.482 –0.453 0.808 0.856
POV 0.344 0.357 –0.421 0.370 0.427 –0.623 –0.622 –0.524
PCG –0.262 –0.181 0.301 –0.426 –0.399 0.700 0.746 0.818 –0.437
UNEMP 0.235 0.188 –0.284 0.265 0.273 –0.436 –0.465 –0.435 0.561 –0.459
MHV –0.210 –0.160 0.340 –0.451 –0.402 0.720 0.740 0.791 –0.372 0.725 –0.343
MR –0.092† –0.186 0.490 –0.522 –0.386 0.695 0.604 0.458 –0.367 0.384 –0.313 0.479

Note: PD = population density; HD = housing density; GV = green vegetation; IMP = impervious surface; T = temperature; MFI = median household
income; MFI = median family income; PCI = per-capita income; POV = percentage of families under poverty level; PCG = percentage of college or
above graduates; UNEMP = unemployment rate; MHV = median house value; MR = median number of rooms.
Correlation at the 99 percent confidence level (two-tailed).
†Correlation at the 95 percent confidence level (two-tailed).

TABLE 11.1 Correlation Matrix of Variables

 Q u a l i t y of L i f e A s s e s s m e n t 337

Communality
Indicator 13 Variables 10 Variables
Population density 0.933 0.947
Housing density 0.939 0.949
Green vegetation 0.920 0.932
Impervious surface 0.914 0.931
Temperature 0.781 0.816
Median household income 0.854 0.837
Median family income 0.879 0.874
Per-capita income 0.850 0.887
Percentage of college graduates 0.758 0.787
Median house value 0.710 0.762
Median number of rooms 0.496
Percentage of families under 0.515
poverty
Unemployment rate 0.349

TABLE 11.2 Communality for the 13 Variables and 10 Variables

relationships between variables and factors. Loadings of 0.71 and

higher are considered excellent, 0.63 is very good, 0.55 is good, 0.45 is
fair, and 0.32 is poor. Table 11.3 presents factor loadings on each vari-
able. Factor 1 has strong positive loadings (>0.8) on five variables,
including median household income, median family income, per-
capita income, median house value, and percentage of college or
above graduates. Apparently, factor 1 is associated with material wel-
fare. The higher the score on factor 1, the better is the QOL in eco-
nomic respects. Factor 2 has a high positive loading on green vegeta-
tion (0.94) and negative loadings on impervious surface (–0.904) and
surface temperature (–0.716). Factor 2 is clearly related to environ-
mental conditions. The higher the score on factor 2, the better is the
environment quality. Factor 3 shows high positive factor loadings on
population density and housing density and thus is related to crowd-
edness. The higher the score on factor 3, the smaller is the space in
which people live.
The factor scores can be used as indices to represent the QOL in
different dimensions. The distribution of each factor was mapped in
Figs. 11.2, 11.3, and 11.4, respectively. Factor 1, the economic sector of
QOL, has a similar distribution pattern as per-capita income because
338 Cha pte r Ele v e n

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Population density –0.178 –0.085 0.953
House density –0.116 –0.132 0.958
Green vegetation 0.159 0.940 –0.153
Impervious surface –0.328 –0.905 –0.061
Temperature –0.283 –0.716 0.472
Median household income 0.835 0.295 –0.230
Median family income 0.885 0.244 –0.176
Per-capita income 0.918 0.168 –0.129
Percentage of college
0.871 0.152 –0.070
graduates
Median house value 0.853 0.174 –0.069
Initial eigenvalues 5.520 1.770 1.430
Percent of variance 40.67 24.69 21.56
Cumulative percent 40.67 65.36 87.21

TABLE 11.3 Rotated Factor Loading Matrix

Factor 1 score
–1.59 to –0.8
–0.8 to –0.34
–0.34 to 0.18
0.18 to 1.00
1.00 to 2.85
2.85 to 5.92
No data

N
0 5 10 15 20 Km

FIGURE 11.2 The first factor score—economic index. (Adapted from Li and
Weng, 2007.) See also color insert.
 Q u a l i t y of L i f e A s s e s s m e n t 339

Factor 2 score
–3.65 to –1.90
–1.90 to –0.81
–0.81 to –0.10
–0.10 to 0.50
0.50 to 1.18
1.18 to 2.75
No data
N
0 5 10 15 20 Km

FIGURE 11.3 The second factor score—environmental index. (Adapted from

Li and Weng, 2007.) See also color insert.

Factor 3 score
–1.88 to –1.04
–1.04 to –0.44
–0.44 to 0.17
0.17 to 0.89
0.89 to 1.89
1.89 to 5.57
No data
N
0 5 10 15 20 Km

FIGURE 11.4 The third factor score—crowdedness. (Adapted from Li and

Weng, 2007.) See also color insert.
340 Cha pte r Ele v e n

it has the largest loading on the per-capita income variable. Similarly,

factor 2, the environmental sector, has a distribution pattern similar
to that of green vegetation. Factor 3, which represents crowdedness,
has a similar distribution with housing density. It is noted that there
were some non-residential block groups lacking data because these
block groups missed at least one type of socioeconomic variable.
Development of a synthetic QOL index involved combination of
the three factors that represent different aspects of QOL. Factors 1 and
2 have a positive contribution to QOL, whereas factor 3 has a negative
correlation with QOL. The aggregate score for each block group then
was obtained by adding weighted factor scores of the three factors
using the following equation:

QOL = (40.666  factor 1 + 24.689

 factor 2 – 21.859  factor 3)/100 (11.2)

Figure 11.5 shows the distribution of QOL scores. The QOL scores
ranged from –1.15 to 2.84. About 5 percent of the block groups had
scores greater than 0.9, and most of them were found in the surround-
ing areas of the county, especially to the north. These block groups

to –0.50
to –0.18
to 0.16
to 0.58
to 1.35
to 2.84
ta

FIGURE 11.5 Synthetic quality of life index. (Adapted from Li and Weng, 2007.) See
also color insert.
 Q u a l i t y of L i f e A s s e s s m e n t 341
were characterized by low population density, large green-vegetation
coverage, low temperature, less impervious surface, and high family
income. Block groups with scores ranging from –1.15 to –0.3 accounted
for 30 percent. Most of them were found in the city center, which was
characterized by less green vegetation, high population density, and
low per-capita income.

11.2.7 Result of Regression Analysis

Once the QOL indices were created based on factor analysis, regres-
sion analysis can be applied to relate QOL index values to environ-
mental and socioeconomic variables. For a specific aspect of QOL,
factor scores were regressed against the variables that had high load-
ings. Since factor 1 had high correlations with income, home value,
and percentage of college or above graduates, these variables were
used as predictive variables in the regression model for the economic
aspect of QOL. Factor 2 had high correlation with green vegetation,
impervious surface, and surface temperature, so these variables were
employed in developing an environmental QOL model. Population-
and housing-density variables were used to develop a crowdedness
index model. Three variables, namely, per-capita income, green veg-
etation, and housing density, which had the highest loading on the
corresponding factor, were used in developing a synthetic QOL
model. Table 11.4 presents the best models selected based on R2 and
ease of implementation. All regression models produced a high value
of R2, especially for the synthetic model, in which R2 reached 0.94.

Model Predictors Coefficients R2

Economic QOL Constant –1.698 0.92
Per-capita income 4.388  10–5
Median house value 5.093  10–6
Percentage of college or 1.537  10–2
above graduates
Environmental QOL Constant –1.143 0.91
Green vegetation 7.244  10–2
Impervious surface 5.871  10–2
Crowdedness Constant –1.282 0.92
Housing density 1.720  10–3
Synthetic QOL Constant –1.178 0.94
House density –2.756  10–4
Green vegetation 2.007  10–2
Per capita income 3.372  10–5

TABLE 11.4 Selected QOL Estimation Models

342 Cha pte r Ele v e n

11.3 Discussion and Conclusions

This chapter has presented a methodology to develop measures for
the QOL in Indianapolis, Indiana, based on the integration of remote
sensing imagery and Census data. Correlation analysis explored the
relationship between environmental and socioeconomic characteris-
tics and found that green vegetation had a strong positive correlation
with income, house value, and education level and a negative rela-
tionship with temperature, impervious surface, and population/
housing density. Factor analysis provided an effective way to reduce
data dimensions and redundancy. Three factors were derived from 10
original variables, representing the economic, environmental, and
demographic dimensions of the QOL, respectively. Regression analy-
sis allowed for prediction of QOL based on environmental and socio-
economic variables. An important issue encountered was how to
integrate different indicators into a synthetic index. There is currently
no compelling theory for combining different indicators into one
index (Schyns and Boelhouwer, 2004). Because of the lack of available
criteria for weighing the indicators, this study applied a rather prag-
matic solution: the factors as component indicators and the percent-
age of variance that a factor explains as associated weights.
This research also has demonstrated that GIS can provide an
effective platform for integrating different data models from different
data sources, such as remote sensing and census socioeconomic data,
and for creating a comprehensive database to assess QOL. This would
help urban managers and policymakers in formulating the strategies
of urban development plans. However, several issues raised in the
integration of disparate data should be kept in mind. Remote sensing
and census data are collected for “different purpose, at different
scales, and with different underlying assumptions about the nature
of the geographic features” (Huang and Yasuoka, 2000). Remote
sensing data are digital records of spectral information about ground
features with raster format and often exhibit continuous spatial vari-
ation. Census socioeconomic data usually relate to administrative
units such as blocks, block groups, tracts, counties, and states and
tend to be more discrete in nature with sharp discontinuities between
adjacent areas. More often, socioeconomic data are integrated into
vector GIS as the attributes of its spatial units for various mapping
and spatial analysis purposes. Integration of remote sensing and
census socioeconomic data involves the conversion between data
models. In this study, remote sensing data were aggregated to census
block groups with raster-to-vector conversion, where values were
assumed to be uniform throughout block groups. This would lead to
loss of spatial information existing in remote sensing data. In addi-
tion, the census has different scales (levels), and integration of remote
sensing data with different scales of census data would produce the
so-called modifiable area unit problem. Therefore, finding desirable
 Q u a l i t y of L i f e A s s e s s m e n t 343
aggregation units is important to reduce the loss of spatial informa-
tion from remote sensing data. Another method of data integration is
through vector-to-raster conversion by rasterization or surface inter-
polation to produce a raster layer for each socioeconomic variable.
More research is needed on disaggregating census data into indi-
vidual pixels to match remote sensing data for the purpose of data
integration.
QOL is a great research topic and concerns many different aspects
of human life. There has been a great increase in amount of time,
effort, and resources concentrated on QOL studies. However, there
are still vast differences of opinions on the indicators and ingredients
of QOL. Ideally, QOL research needs to incorporate every dimension
of QOL and combine objective and subjective measurements together.
In order to conduct such huge project, coalitions of different organi-
zation, such as nongovernmental groups and local government, are
necessary. Owing to difficulties in collecting all the data related to
QOL, especially for detailed geographic units such as census block
groups, this study was conducted only from socioeconomic and envi-
ronmental perspectives and explored the spatial variations of QOL,
which may help city planners to understand problems and to find
solutions to issues faced by their communities.

References
Andrew, K. 1999. Quality of life in cities. Cities 16, 221–222.
Barsell, K., and Maser, E. 2004. Taking indicators to the next level: Truckee Meadows
tomorrow launches quality of life compacts. In Community Quality of Life
Indicators, Social Indicators Research Series 22, edited by M. J. Sirgy, D. R. Rahtz,
and D.-J. Lee, pp. 53–74. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Camagni, R., Capello, R., Nijkamp, P. 1997. Towards sustainable city policy: an
economy–environment technology nexus. Ecology and Economy, 24, 103–118.
Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., and Rodgers, W. L., 1976. The Quality of American Life:
Perceptions, Evaluation, and Satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Comrey, A. L., and Lee, H. B. 1992. A first Course in Factor Analysis, 2nd ed. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbuum.
Cornwell, T. L. 2004. Vital Signs: quality of life indicators for Virginia’s technology
corridor. In Community Quality of Life Indicators Best Cases, Social Indicators Research
Series 22, edited by Joseph Sirgy, Don Rahtz, and Dong-Jin Lee, Kluwer academic
publishers, Dordrecht/boston/London: Kluwer academic publishers, pp. 1–27.
Fallowfield, L. 1990. The Quality of Life: The Missing Measurement in Health Care.
London: Souvenir Press.
Flanagan, J. C., 1978. A research approach to improving our quality of life. American
Psychologist, 33, 138–147.
Flanagan, J. C., 1982. Measurement of quality of life: current state of the art. Archives
of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 63, 56–59.
Friedman, M., 1997. Improving the quality of life: A holistic scientific strategy. Westport,
Connecticut, London, pp. 19–57.
Foo, T. S. 2001. Quality of life in cities. Cities 18, 1–2.
Green, N. E. 1957. Aerial photographic interpretation and the social structure of the
city. Photogrammetric Engineering 23, 89–96.
Green, N. E., and Monier, R. B., 1957. Aerial photographic interpretation and the
human geography of the city. Professional Geographers 9, 2–5.
344 Cha pte r Ele v e n

Huang, T., and Yasuoka, Y. 2000. Integration and application of socio-economic

and environmental data within GIS for development study in Thailand; avail-
able at www.gisdevelopment.net/aars/acrs/2000/ts7/gdi004pf.htm. Last accessed on
June 15, 2008.
Kaiser, H. 1960. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Education
and Psychology 52, 621–652.
Kamp, I. V., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., and Hollander, A. U. 2003. Urban envi-
ronmental quality and human well-being towards a conceptual framework and
demarcation of concepts: A literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning 65, 5–
18.
Kirby, A., 1999, Quality of life in cities. Cities 16, 221–222.
Lawrence, R. J., 2001. Human Ecology. In Our Fragile World: Challenges and
Opportunities for Sustainable Development, edited by M. K. Tolba, 1, 675–693.
Li, G., and Weng, Q. 2007. Measuring the quality of life in city of Indianapolis by
integration of remote sensing and census data. International Journal of Remote
Sensing 28, 249–267.
Lo, C. P., and Faber, B. J. 1997. Integration of Landsat Thematic Mapper and census
data for quality of life assessment. Remote Sensing of Environment 62, 143–157.
Metivier, E. D., and McCoy, R. M. 1971. Mapping urban poverty housing from aerial
photographs. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Remote
Sensing of Environment, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 1563–1569.
Mumbower, L. E., and Donoghue, J. 1967. Urban poverty study. Photogrammetric
Engineering 33, 610–618.
Nichol, J., and Wong, M. S. 2005. Modeling urban environmental quality in a tropi-
cal city. Landscape and Urban Planning 73, 49–58.
Ordway, S. 1953. Resources and the American Dream: Including a Theory of the Limit of
Growth. New York: Ronald Press.
Osborn, F. 1954. The Limits of the Earth. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Schyns, P., and Boelhouwer, J. 2004. The state of city Amsterdam monitor:
Measuring quality of life in Amsterdam. In Community Quality of Life Indicators,
Social Indicators Research Series 22, edited by M. J., Sirgy, D. R., Rahtz, and
D.-J. Lee, pp. 133–152. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Scottish Executive Social Research, 2005. Well-Being and Quality of Life: Measuring
the Benefits of Culture and Sport: A Literature Review and Thinkpiece, p7.
Shafer, C.S., Koo Lee, B., and Turner, S. 2000. A tale of three greenway trails: user
perceptions related to quality of life. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49, 163–178.
Smith, D. M. 1973. The Geography of Social Well-Being in the United States. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Tabachnick, B., and Fidell, L. 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed. New York:
Harper Collins College.
Weber, C., and Hirsch, J. 1992. Some urban measurements from SPOT data: Urban
life quality indices. International Journal of Remote Sensing 13, 3251–3261.
Weng, Q., Lu, D., and Schubring, J. 2004. Estimation of land surface temperature–
vegetation abundance relationship for urban heat island studies. Remote Sensing
of Environment 89, 467–483.