malaysia quality of life
TRANSCRIPT
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
TRP 513: SOCIAL ASPECT OF PLANNING
Quality of Life
By;
Ai'da Fazihrah Nazri2007275618
1
Quality of Life
1.0 Introduction
Since the 1970s, there have been many attempts to measure how environment
and growth affect the health and well being of people or what is generally
referred to as QoL (QoL). QoL is a multifaceted concept that embraces not
only the material aspects of life such as level of living, availability of physical
and social infrastructural facilities but also the less tangible aspects of life
such as good health and opportunities for recreation and play. Unlike
standard of living, QoL is not a tangible thing, and cannot be measured
directly.
1.1 Definition of Quality of Life
According to Dr Dasimah Omar, more than 100 definitions of QoL have
been noted in the different disciplines. Some use QoL interchangeably
with other concepts such as subjective well-being, happiness, life
satisfaction and the good life. Although diverse strands of research have
been investigated individually, they have not been successful in
providing us with a holistic understanding of QoL and how to improve it.
In international comparisons, a major challenge is to cope with the
diversity of societies arising from different economic development and
the nature of the societies. For instance, the comparison of large
populous societies, dominated by agriculture and rural population with
those of small but highly urbanized societies would need to be
considered carefully.
2
Quality of Life
Cultural and religious factors can influence the measure of QoL which is
affected by different characteristics of the respondents giving their
assessment – their education, sex, age, life stage, social status and
experiences. People defining QoL would vary accordingly to where they
live and work. The diversity of these factors points to a multi-
dimensional approach to understanding the concept of QoL. However,
within a context, that is, a given time, place and society, some
agreements can usually be reached on what would constitute QoL. In
other words, people’s needs and the fulfillment of their aspirations and
needs can be defined in a relatively precise manner within a specific
cultural context. There are sufficient elements of QoL held in common
by members of a society for the concept of QoL to be meaningful.
While there is no certainty as to what QoL means, QoL had been define
as the degree of well-being, satisfaction and standard of living. It is also
believed that the quality of a person’s life is directly related to the
person’s capability. A capability is defined as the ability or potential to
do or be something or more technically to achieve a certain level of
functioning such as health and education.
1.2 Approaches to Determining Quality of Life
3
Quality of Life
The notion of measuring QoL could include the measurement of
practically anything of interest to anybody. Three major philosophical
approaches to determining QoL may be identified.
1. To describe characteristics of the good life that is dictated by
normative ideals based on religious, philosophical, or other
system. In this approach, we might, for instance, believe that
the good life must include helping others because this is
guided by our religious principles.
2. To defining QoL is based on the satisfaction of preferences.
The assumption in this approach is that people will select
those things that will most enhance their QoL within the
constraints of their resources. This approach to utility or the
good life based on people’s choices is very much influenced by
economic thinking.
3. To defining QoL is in terms of the experience of individuals. If
a person experiences his or her life as good and desirable, it is
assumed to be so. In this approach, factors such as feelings of
joy, pleasure, life satisfaction, happiness and contentment are
important. This approach to defining the QoL is associated
mainly with a subjective well-being perspective used in
psychological or behavioral sciences.
1.3 Concept of Quality of Life
4
Quality of Life
The concept of QoL entails changes by which an entire society and
social system move away from a condition of life widely perceived as
unsatisfactory towards a situation of life generally regarded as better.
As such, the QoL encompasses not only economic development but also
other aspects such as social, psychological, cultural, and political and
the environment. (Dr Dasimah Omar)
The Malaysian QoL is defined as encompassing personal advancements,
a healthy lifestyle, access and freedom to pursue knowledge, and a
standard of living which surpasses the fulfillment of basic needs of
individuals and their psychological needs, to achieve a level of social
well-being compatible with the nation’s aspirations (EPU, Malaysian
QOL 1999).
2.0 Measuring Quality of Life
The use of indicators to guide decision-making can be traced to some 50 years
ago. Some of the indicators that have been popularly used include Economic
5
Quality of Life
Indicators to track the performance of the economy and Social Indicators to
measure a whole host of social conditions and progress. Economic indicators
focus on material provision and rely heavily on the national income
accounts. Social indicators have also been developed to measure social
conditions. These include both objective and subjective indicators.
Objective social indicators look more broadly at the degree of
fulfillment of basic needs in a society while subjective social indicators
are concerned with how the members of a society perceive their own
QoL.
2.1 Physical Quality of Life Index
The Physical QoL Index (PQLI) is an attempt to measure the QoL or
well being of a country. The value is the average of three statistics
which are:
Basic literacy rate;
Infant mortality; and
Life expectancy at age one
This statistic values is all equally weighted on a 0 to 100 scale. It was
developed for the Overseas Development Council in the mid-1970s by
Morris David Morris, as a measures created due to dissatisfactions
with the use of GNP as an indicator of development. PQLI might be
regarded as an improvement but shares the general problems of
measuring QoL in a quantitative way. It has also been criticized
6
Quality of Life
because there is considerable overlap between infant mortality
and life expectancy.
2.1.1Steps to Calculate Physical Quality of Life
1) Find percentage of the population that is literate
(literacy rate).
2) Find the infant mortality rate. (out of 1000 births)
INDEXED Infant Mortality Rate = (166 - infant mortality) × 0.625
3) Find the Life Expectancy.
INDEXED Life Expectancy = (Life expectancy - 42) × 2.7
4) Physical QoL =
(Literacy Rate + INDEXED Infant Mortality Rate + INDEXED Life Expectancy)
3
2.2 Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL)
Another method of measuring differences in QoL is as a difference in
the "standard of living", according to the technical definition of that
term. For example, people in rural areas and small towns are generally
7
Quality of Life
reluctant to move to cities, even if it would mean a substantial increase
in their standard of living. Thus the QoL of living in a rural area is of
enough value to offset a higher standard of living. Similarly, people
must be paid more to accept jobs that would lower their QoL. Night
jobs or ones with extensive travel all pay more, and the difference in
salaries can also give a measure of the value of QoL.
There is a growing field of research concerned with developing,
evaluating and applying QoL measures within health related research
(e.g. within randomized controlled trials), especially Health Services
Research. Many of these focus on the measurement of health related
QoL (HRQoL), rather than a more global conceptualization of QoL. They
also focus on measuring HRQoL from the perspective of the patient and
thus take the form of self completed questionnaires. The International
Society for QoL was founded in response to this research and is a useful
source of information on this topic.
2.3 Using free and Public Domain Data
Gene Shackman and Ya-Lin Liu are with the Global Social Change
Research Project (GSCRP), and Xun Wang is a member of the Faculty in
the Sociology Department at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside. Drs
Shackman, Liu and Wang have authored numerous reports for the
GSCRP describing global social, demographic, political and economic
8
Quality of Life
change. Many indicators are used to measure national QoL and human
development. These can be divided into single indicators and
component sets. Some emphasize 'objective' and some 'subjective'
measures. They review these approaches and describe public domain
and free data that can be used to measure QoL.
A worthy goal of any government is to improve the QoL of its citizens.
The government will know whether the QoL has improved or what the
QoL is using the one common approach is to use QoL indicators, usually
including measures of at least some of these dimensions: economic well
being, health, literacy, environmental quality, freedom, social
participation and self- perceived well being or satisfaction (André and
Bitondo, 2001).
QoL indicators allow governments to evaluate how well they are doing
compared with, for example, their development goals or the QoL in
other countries. The indicators may also be used by outside observers
or researchers to evaluate countries performance. The comparative
international approach to measuring QoL has been reviewed by Drs
Shackman, Liu and Wang. Some indicators are 'objective' or countable,
such as GDP per capita, infant mortality rate, and literacy rate.
Alternative indicators focus more on individual perceptions of well
being or satisfaction. Some QoL approaches use mainly objective
indicators, while others focus more on the subjective side.
2.3.1 ‘Objectives’ Approaches
9
Quality of Life
According to Sharpe and Smith (2005), the best known
composite QoL scale is the United Nations Development
Program's Human Development Index, HDI (UNDP, 2004).
This index is a single value measuring health and longevity,
knowledge (literacy and school enrollment) and standards
of living (GDP per capita). Countries are rated on how well
they are doing on each component compared to the range
of possible values for that component.
The HDI value averages the ratings of the three
components. To calculate an individual country's
comparative rating, the UNDP sets minimum and maximum
values for the components. However, the minima and
maxima and the country ratings themselves can vary
greatly from year to year, even if conditions do not change
much. In addition, the HDI is a comparative rating, so that a
country's HDI score depends on the achievements (or
failures) of other countries. Thus, the score cannot be used
to chart the progress from year to year of any one country,
compared only to its own previous achievements.
Other international composite scales are Prescott-Allen's
(2001) Index of the Wellbeing of Nations and Estes' (1997)
Index of Social Progress. All these scales correlate with
10
Quality of Life
each other at a level of 0.89 or above and so seem to be
measuring similar qualities (Shackman, Liu and Wang,
2005).
A composite scale is useful as an overall indicator.
However, a single composite may sometimes be
problematic, as different scales use different indicators or
give different weights to indicators, and the construction of
the composite scale may not always be clearly explained.
Single scales may oversimplify the concept and do not
present information about its components (André and
Bitando, 2001). Finally, many QoL scales also correlate
fairly highly with income per capita and thus may not add
much useful information to this simpler economic indicator.
Thus, a set of key indicators may also be useful, because
they cover a range of topics and avoid the need for
combining or weighting individual components. Several of
the organizations measuring QoL described above (e.g.,
Estes, 1997; UNDP, 2004) also use sets of indicators. In
fact, this is the primary approach of the UNDP. The sets
used by the UNDP and Estes include measures of health,
education, economic well being, environment and
technology, and tend to focus on 'objective' measures. The
11
Quality of Life
indicators are aggregate level measures, using the country
as the unit of analysis.
2.3.2 Alternatives
Alternatives to these major approaches include attempting to
measure the non-economic aspects of the QoL; well being as a
hierarchy of needs; and 'Gross National Happiness' (GPI Atlantic,
undated). This last approach "links the economy with social and
environmental variables to create a more comprehensive and
accurate measurement tool" (GPI Atlantic, undated).
Researchers have also tried to measure the more 'subjective'
aspects of QoL, developed subjective QoL scales, and studied the
relationship between subjective and objective aspects.
Subjective QoL has been variously defined, for example:
This dimension covers perceptions, evaluations and
appreciation of life and living conditions by the individual
citizens. Examples are measures of satisfaction or happiness.
(Noll, 2005)
The outcome of the gap between people's goals and perceived
resources, in the context of their environment, culture, values,
and experiences. (Camfield, 2005)
Although the subjective well being does not correlate well with
'objective' measures, a recently developed scale of life
12
Quality of Life
satisfaction, the QoL scale (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005)
correlates highly (.77 and above) with the 'objective' measures of
GDP per capita, infant mortality rate and literacy. On the other
hand, another satisfaction with life scale correlates 0.4 to 0.5
with the major scales, but 0.74 with the Economist Intelligence
Unit's (2005) scale. Thus, as Veenhoven (2004) indicates, it may
be that 'subjective well being' is not a unitary concept, but rather
requires different indicators for different aspects.
Subjective QoL scales are also constructed somewhat differently
than are the 'objective' scales. These scales are, as the label
suggests, from the individual's own point of view.
3.0 The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality of Life Index
The Economist Intelligence Unit has developed a new QoL index based on a
unique methodology that links the results of subjective life-satisfaction
surveys to the objective determinants of quality of life across countries. The
index has been calculated for 111 countries for 2005. This note explains the
methodology and gives the complete country ranking.
3.1 Quality of Life Indices
It has long been accepted that material wellbeing, as measured by GDP
per person, cannot alone explain the broader QoL in a country. One
strand of the literature has tried to adjust GDP by quantifying facets
that are omitted by the GDP measure but the approach has faced
13
Quality of Life
insurmountable difficulties in assigning monetary values to the various
factors and intangibles that comprise a wider measure of socio-
economic wellbeing.
There have been numerous attempts to construct alternative, non-
monetary indices of social and economic wellbeing by combining in a
single statistic a variety of different factors that are thought to influence
QoL. The main problem in all these measures is selection bias and
arbitrariness in the factors that are chosen to assess quality of life and,
even more seriously, in assigning weights to different indicators
(measured on a comparable and meaningful scale) to come up with a
single synthetic measure. Some researchers have invoked the UN’s
Universal Declaration of Human Rights to identify the factors that need
to be included in a QoL measure. But, even if accepted as a starting
point, that still does not point to precise indicators or how they are to be
weighted. A technocratic and unsatisfying device that is sometimes used
is to resort to “expert opinion”.
3.2 Life Satisfaction Surveys
The starting point for a methodologically improved and more
comprehensive measure of QoL is subjective life-satisfaction surveys
(surveys of life satisfaction, as opposed to surveys of the related concept
of happiness, are preferred for a number of reasons). These surveys ask
people the simple question of how satisfied they are with their lives in
general. A typical question on the four-point scale used in the
Eurobarometer studies is, “On the whole are you very satisfied, fairly
satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied with the life you lead?”
14
Quality of Life
The results of the surveys have been attracting growing interest in
recent years. Despite a range of early criticisms (cultural non-
comparability and the effect of language differences across countries;
psychological factors distorting responses), tests have disproved or
mitigated most concerns. One objection is that responses to surveys do
not adequately reflect how people really feel about their life; they
allegedly report how satisfied they are expected to be. But people know
very well how satisfied they are. Responses to questions about life
satisfaction tend to be prompt; non-response rates are very low.
This simple measure of life satisfaction has been found to correlate
highly with more sophisticated tests, ratings by others who know the
individual and behavioral measures. The survey results have on the
whole proved far more reliable and informative than might be expected.
Another criticism is that life-satisfaction responses reflect the dominant
view on life, rather than actual QoL in a country.
Life satisfaction is seen as a judgment that depends on social and
culturally specific frames of reference. But this relativism is disproved
by the fact that people in different countries report similar criteria as
being important for life satisfaction, and by the fact that most
differences in life satisfaction across countries can be explained by
differences in objective circumstances. In addition, it has been found
that the responses of immigrants in a country are much closer to the
level of the local population than to responses in their motherland.
Answers to questions on satisfaction in bilingual countries do not reveal
15
Quality of Life
any linguistic bias arising from possibly differing meanings and
connotations of the words “happiness” and “satisfaction”. Self reports of
overall life satisfaction can be meaningfully compared across nations.
3.3 The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index
The survey results cannot be completely taken at face value and use the
average score on life satisfaction as the indicator of quality of life for a
country because of several reasons. First, comparable results for a
sufficient number of countries tend to be out-of-date and many nations
are not covered at all. Second, the impact of measurement errors on
assessing the relationship between life-satisfaction perceptions and
objective indicators tends to cancel out across a large number of
countries. But there might still be significant errors for any given
country. So there is a bigger chance of error in assessing QoL between
countries if a single average life-satisfaction score as opposed to a multi-
component index be taken. Finally, and most important, although most
of the inter-country variation in the life-satisfaction surveys can be
explained by objective factors, there is still a significant unexplained
component which, in addition to measurement error, might be related to
specific factors that we would want to net out from an objective QoL
index.
16
Quality of Life
Instead we use the survey results as a starting point, and a means for
deriving weights for the various determinants of QoL across countries,
in order to calculate an objective index. The average scores from
comparable life-satisfaction surveys (on a scale of one to ten) can be
assembled for 1999 or 2000 for 74 countries. These scores are then
related in a multivariate regression to various factors that have been
shown to be associated with life satisfaction in many studies. As many as
nine factors survive in the final estimated equation (all except one are
statistically significant; the weakest, gender equality, falls just below).
Together these variables explain more than 80% of the inter-country
variation in life-satisfaction scores. Using so-called Beta coefficients
from the regression to derive the weights of the various factors, the
most important were health, material wellbeing, and political stability
and security. These were followed by family relations and community
life. Next in order of importance were climate, job security, political
freedom and finally gender equality.
The values of the life-satisfaction scores that are predicted by our nine
indicators represent a country’s QoL index, or the “corrected” life-
satisfaction scores, based on objective cross-country determinants. The
coefficients in the estimated equation weight automatically the
importance of the various factors; the method also means that the
original units or measurement of the various indicators can be used.
They do not, unlike for other indices, have to rely on the potentially
distortive effect of having to transform all indicators to a common
measurement scale. We can also use the estimated equation based on
1999/2000 data to calculate index values for other years or even to
17
Quality of Life
forecast an index, thus making it up-to-date and facilitating comparison
over time.
4.0 The Malaysia Quality of Life
The Malaysia QoL is defined as encompassing personal advancements, a
healthy lifestyle, access and freedom to pursue knowledge and a standard of
living which surpasses the fulfilment of basic needs of individuals and their
psychological needs, to achieve a level of social well-being compatible with
the nation’s aspirations.
4.1 The Malaysia Quality of Life Index (MQLI)
To measure the changes in the QoL, the Malaysian QoL Index (MQLI)
was devised. The MQLI is a composite measurement based on ten
selected areas, namely income and distribution, working life, transport
and communications, health, education, housing, environment, family
life, social participation and public safety. These areas are assumed to
be of equal importance for the well-being and the QoL of the population
and as such, were assigned equal weightage. A total of 38 indicators
were used in the computation of the Index (Refer Table 1). The
indicators were selected on the basis of their importance, how best they
18
Quality of Life
reflect that particular area and the availability of data on a time series
basis (Refer Table 2). The indicators are aimed at providing an
aggregate measure of the QoL in order to assess the impact of
economic development on the population. In formulating the MQLI, the
data used were for the period 1980-1998, with the exception of data on
environment, which were available only from 1985. The year 1990 was
chosen as the base year as it was a relatively normal year, besides
being sufficiently recent.
Table 1 : Components of Malaysian Quality of Life Index
Area Indicator
Income and Distribution
Real per Capita GNP Gini Coefficient Incidence of Poverty
Working Life
Unemployment Rate Trade Disputes Man-Days Lost Due to Industrial Actions Industrial Accident Rate
Transport and Communications
Private Motorcars and Motorcycles Commercial Vehicles Road Development Telephones Average Daily Newspaper Circulation
Health
Life Expectancy at Birth (Male) Life Expectancy at Birth (Female) Infant Mortality Rate Doctor-Population Ratio Hospital Bed-Population Ratio
Education
Pre-School Participation Rate Secondary School Participation Rate University Participation Rate Literacy Rate Primary School Teacher-Student Ratio Secondary School Teacher-Student Ratio
Housing
Average Housing Price Low-Cost Housing Unit Housing Units with Piped Water Housing Units with Electricity
Environment Air Quality Clean Rivers Forested Land
19
Quality of Life
Family Life
Divorces Crude Birth Rate Household Size Juvenile Crimes
Social Participation
Registered Voters Membership in Selected Voluntary
Organizations
Public Safety Crimes Road Accidents
Table 2 : The Rationale for the Selection of Areas
Area Rationale
Income and Distribution
Gross income or per capita income reflects welfare or standard of living. Incomes provide the condition that allows individuals to sustain themselves and their families, while the distribution of income reflects equity and distribution of economic resources.
Working LifeWorking life is important because being employed provides a source of income that contributes to the standard of living and QoL
Transport and Communications
Transport and communications are vital factors for progress an development since they relate to the mobility of and accessibility to resources as well as opportunity for employment, education and movement of goods and services.
Health
Health, which includes physical and mental well being, enables people to work productively and participate actively in the social and economic life of the community.
Education
The education systems are the principal instruments for transmitting knowledge and culture from one generation to the next. It provides the foundation from which the technology to sustain and improve the QoL is developed and enhanced.
HousingHousing is a basic social need that is necessary for decent living, security and shelter for the family.
Environment
Environment has a direct effect on the well-being of the population. Air and water pollution and forested land are some indicator of the quality of environment.
Family Life The family unit represents the core institutions within the societal structure and its functioning
20
Quality of Life
fulfills the social economic and psychological needs of individuals.
Social Participation
Social participations is the reflection of the people’s commitment and willingness to be involved in social, political, religious and community activities.
Public SafetyPublic safety is essential as it ensures social peace and stability
Table 3: The Index for the 10 Areas of MQLI 1980-1998
AreaYEAR/INDEX
1990 = 100
Income and Distribution1980 = 77.39
1998 = 105.82
Working Life1980 = 106.13
1998 = 118.94
Transport and
Communications
1980 = 87.36
1998 = 112.78
Health 1980 = 83.24
1998 = 109.58
Education1980 = 85.97
1998 = 117.31
Housing1980 = 90.52
1998 = 107.72
Environment1980 = n.a
1998 = 100.94
Family Life1980 = 85.46
1998 = 113.86
Social Participation1980 = 81.55
1998 = 97.98
Public Safety1980 = 78.40
1998 = 72.11
Composites Index1980 = 86.22
1998 = 105.71
Change for Base Year
(1990)
1980 = (-) 13.78
21
Quality of Life
1998 = (+) 5.71
4.2 Malaysia Urban Quality of Life
Malaysia witnessed a fast pace of urbanization in 1990 to 2000, largely
contributed by rapid economic growth and transformation. The
population in urban areas increased at an average rate of 4.6% per
annum, about twice the national population growth rate of 2.2%. As a
result, the share in the urban population increased from 51.1% to 61.8%
during the period. The expansion of urban centres as well as the
establishment of new townships and satellite industrial towns also
contributed to this increase. Urbanization generated new economic
activities and created more employment opportunities as well as
provided greater access to modern social amenities.
4.2.1 Concept
The Malaysian Urban Quality of Life Index (MUQLI) was
constructed to measure the changes in the QoL in the urban
areas. MUQLI is a composite measure comprising 12 areas and
29 indicators for the period 1990 to 2000 (Table 4). The
indicators were selected on the basis of their importance and the
availability of data on a timeseries basis, and were assigned
equal weightage.
22
Quality of Life
Table 4: Components of Malaysian Quality of Life Index
Area Indicator
Income and Distribution
Real per Capita GNP Gini Coefficient Incidence of Poverty
Working Life Trade Disputes Industrial Accidents
Transport and Communications
Private Motorcars and Motorcycles Public Transports Telephones
Health Infant Mortality Rate Doctor-Population Ratio
Education
Primary School Teacher-Student Ratio Secondary School Teacher-Student Ratio Primary School Average Class Size Secondary School Average Class Size
Housing Average Rental to Household Income Ratio Average Prices of Houses to Household Income
Ratio
Environment River Quality Index Solid Waste per Kapita
Family Life Divorces Household Size
Public Safety Crimes Road Accidents
Community Participation
Registered Voluntary Organizations Rukun Tetangga Members Registered Voters
Culture and Leisure
Library Membership Sports and Recreation Club
Urban Services Expenditure on Social Services Expenditure on Landscaping
4.2.2 Overview
23
Quality of Life
MUQLI is calculated on the basis of the urban QoL indices of four
selected cities, namely, Ipoh, Johor Bahru, Kuala Lumpur and
Kuching. The four cities accounted for about 30%of the total
urban population of Malaysia in 2000 (Refer Table 5). The
MUQLI increased by 5.8 points to 105.8 points in 2000,
indicating an improvement in the QoL in urban areas (Table 6).
Table 5: Profile of Selected Urban Areas
State StatusPopulation
(2000 census)Land Area
Main Economic Activities
Ipoh Capital of Perak
451,558 peoples
136.9 sq.km
Trade, Commercial and Industrial activities
Kuantan Capital of Pahang
344,706 peoples
324 sq.km Trade and commercial activities and port services
Kota Kinabalu
Capital of Sabah
305,382 people 344 sq.km Trade and Commercial activities and tourism
Kuala Lumpur
Capital of Malaysia
1,297,526 243 sq.km Trade and Commercial activities, business services, tourism and education
Johor Bharu
Capital of Johor
385,213 185 sq.km Trade, Commercial and Industrial activities and tourism
Kuching Capital of Sarawak
163,846 369 sq. km
Trade, Commercial activities and tourism
Table 6 : MUQLI: Composite Index and Indices by Area, 1990-2000
24
Quality of Life
The QoL in urban areas during the period 1990 to 2000
witnessed an improvement as reflected by the upward trend of
the MUQLI. This was mainly due to the significant improvements
in family life, income and distribution, culture and leisure as well
as education. Other areas of QoL that witnessed improvements
were transport and communications health, working life,
housing, urban services and community participation, while the
quality of environment and the state of public safety declined.
The environment index deteriorated as a result of the decline in
the river quality index and the increase in per capita solid waste
collection. The decline in the state of public safety was due to the
rise in crime rates and the number of road accidents. However,
all the four cities recorded an overall improvement in the QoL.
4.3 Malaysia Quality of Life in Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010
25
Quality of Life
The Malaysian QoL, as measured by the MQLI, improved during the
1994-2004 period, increasingly by 10.9 points except for public safety
and the environment, all components of the MQLI made good progress.
The improvement in QoL is also reflected in the achievement of all the
Millennium Development Goals ahead of the target of 2015, expect for
HIV/AIDS.
The Millennium Development Goals, as agreed at the United Nations
General Assembly are to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;
achieve universal primary education; promote gender quality and
empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health;
combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other disease; ensure environmental
sustainability and develop a global partnership by 2015.
Infant and child mortality rates showed a significant decline due to
improvements in the national healthcare system, better education and
greater reproductive health services. Life expectancy increased for
both male and female.
Access to adequate, affordable and quality housing improved, as
indicated by the increase in the household to house ratio from 1:1.14 in
1991 to 1:1.18 in 2005. The number of houses rose from 4.1 million in
1991 to 6.4 million in 2005.
National water supply coverage increased from 80% of the total
population in 1990 to 95% in 2005. Urban coverage remained high
while rural coverage rose significantly from 67% in 1990 to 92% in
2005. Measures were undertaken to reduce the proportion on non-
26
Quality of Life
revenue water from 43% in 1990to 38% in 20%. However, there is room
to improve water delivery efficiency further.
National electricity coverage expanded from 80% in 1990 to 93% in
2005. Rural electricity coverage rose significantly from 67% in 1990 to
92% in 2005. Although the situation has improved greatly especially for
Sabah and Sarawak, coverage in these states needs to be improving
further. As for telecommunications, market liberalisation of the industry
since the 1990s has led to more competitive pricing and consumer
choice, which in turn increased the cellular phone penetration
significantly from 0.7% per 100 populations in 1990 to 74.1 in 2005.
To ease traffic congestion, a multi-modal public transport systems was
implemented in the Klang Valley, which included the construction of the
light rail transit (LRT) system, rail commuter service, monorail and
feeder bus system. The highway and road network also grew from
53,985 kilometres in 1990 to 77,673 kilometres in 2005, which
facilitated the establishment of new growth areas as well as reduced
travel time and cost. To handle the increase in air passenger traffic,
upgrading of airport was undertaken and new airports were built, the
largest being the KL International Airport (KLIA) as the main gateway
to the country. In addition, access by air to remote areas was improved.
The National Environment Policy provided as impetus to efforts to
address environmental issue in an integrated manner. Among others,
these efforts resulted in air quality remaining at good to moderate
levels in most part of the country; Malaysia continues to take measures
to protect its rich natural heritage. Over half of the country’s land area
27
Quality of Life
remains forested and there is a comprehensive network of national and
Marine Park, wildlife reserves and sanctuaries as well as permanent
forest reserves in place.
5.0 Case Study: The Planning of Putrajaya; Creating the
Essence City
The creation of a new Federal Government Administrative Centre at Putrajaya
marks a new chapter in the development history of modern Malaysia. The
development of this new administrative centre was prompted by the need to
balance and disperse development to areas outside of Klang Valley. It is a
decision motivated by the government’s desire to improve the urban
environment and quality of life, and to ease the pressure on the infrastructure
in Kuala Lumpur and the Klang Valley in general.
In city planning terms, it provides a golden opportunity and a challenge to
embark on something new and innovative representing Malaysian values and
culture. Putrajaya the new Federal Government Administrative Centre, is to
be equipped with the latest facilities and technologies for improved
effectiveness and productivity, as well as, amenities that shall contribute to
quality living and working environment. But the challenge also lies in
fostering the spirit, sense of purpose and identity for the new city.
6.0 Planning Background
On 2nd June 1993 the Federal Government decided on an area in
Perang Besar, Sepang, Selangor Darul Ehsan to be the site for the new
Federal Government Administrative Centre. Thereafter, the planning
process for Putrajaya went into full swing with the setting up of
28
Quality of Life
Putrajaya Development Committee and the Putrajaya Development
Unit within the Prime Minister’s Department.
In 1994, five alternative concept schemes by local consultants and a
group of government agencies led by the Federal Department of Town
and Country Planning and the Public Works Department were
presented to the Cabinet. Of the five schemes, the Government
selected the “Garden City” concept as the guiding theme for the new
city. A master plan was subsequently developed based on this theme.
The Putrajaya Master Plan was given Government approval in February
1995. It later underwent a review upon which a final approval was
obtained in April 1997. To implement the plan, Perbadanan Putrajaya
was established 1996 with the main role of developing, managing and
administration of the city area. Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd, a
government-owned company, was also formed to act as the master
developer responsible for construction of government offices,
commercial areas, residential premises and the main infrastructure.
7.0 Putrajaya Master Plan
The Putrajaya Master Plan covers an area of approximately 4,600
hectares. The Garden City concept is clearly evident in the amount of
land area dedicated to open space within the city, which is 1,721
29
Quality of Life
hectares (37.6 %). In brief, the major features of the Master Plan are as
follows:
A large proportion of the city area is designated as green open
space;
A large water body (man-made lake) and wetlands was formed
by utilizing the small rivers which run through the area;
The lake created a 38 kilometers long waterfront area;
The city is divided into 20 precincts with the ‘core employment
and commercial precincts’ (Core Area) located on an island
within the man-made lake;
‘Peripheral’ (residential) precincts planned based on the
neighbourhood planning concept to accommodate a mix of
residential, local level commercial, and public amenities areas;
A 4.2 km long boulevard forms the central spine of the city;
Projected residential population of 330,000; with 67,000 housing
units;
The Master Plan is supplemented with urban design guidelines,
policy documents, and
Local plans prepared to meet statutory requirements.
8.0 Creating the Essence of the City
The main function of town planning as argued by Foley is to provide a
good physical environment, essential for the promotion of a healthy
and civilized life. Given that improvement in quality of life is the
30
Quality of Life
Government’s underlying aim for developing Putrajaya, the city
planners have been quick to take the cue by making “quality urban
living” as the basic objective for planning Putrajaya. This explains the
adoption of the Garden City concept for guiding its physical
development. The intention is not only to create a city where social
activities take place within an ideal landscape where nature permeates
into all aspects of life, but also one which would display a combination
of the following features:
Accessibility to facilities, services and place of work
Neighbourliness and community atmosphere
Close to nature
Amenities for recreation
Dynamic and lively
A city with identity and character
Through careful planning – supported by good urban management and
governance – these concepts are translated physically, and in the
process create the essence of the city that is Putrajaya.
8.1.1 Quality Urban Living Through Neighbourhood
Living
Quality urban living involves more than just providing places of
work and residence. If we cast our views on other cities with
reputation for high urban quality of life, essential ingredients
31
Quality of Life
would include facilities and amenities for individual fulfilment
and community life, i.e. for cultural, recreation, social interaction
and other activities. In Putrajaya, the planners have been ever
mindful of the fact that we are not just building an administrative
centre. But rather, we are also trying to build a new community.
Meeting the various socio-cultural needs of the inhabitants is
therefore a top priority. Foremost in priority is of course
adequate and suitable housing. A broad mix of residential
development type is planned for the city including luxury
bungalows, semi-D and terrace-type housing, apartments and
affordable housing for the lower income group.
This is supported by a variety of urban amenities such as health,
libraries, sports and recreational. Within residential
neighbourhoods, community facilities such as schools,
convenience shops, multi-purpose halls, surau and local parks are
provided. In line with the Garden City theme, a large proportion
of the city area is designated as parks and open space ranging
from metropolitan parks to local neighbourhood playgrounds.
Reinforcing these facilities are urban features such as landmarks,
squares, plazas and bridges that form part of the cityscape,
providing a wide range of spatial experiences that further
enhance the spatial quality of the city.
What is significant in Putrajaya is that all these amenities and
facilities are found in close proximity to the residents which is
achieved through the adoption of the neighbourhood concept in
the planning of its residential precincts. The size of the
32
Quality of Life
neighbourhood is such that a majority of the population is within
a five-minute walking distance of its centre (1/4 mile) and where
the needs of daily life are mostly available within this area.
9.0 Sources and References
Chris Lucas 2002, Quality of Life
Dato’ Jebasingam Issace John, The Planning
of Putrajaya: Creating the Essence of
City
Dr Dasimah Omar, Quality of Life, Lecture’s
Notes of TR513, University
Technology MARA
Dr Dasimah Omar, Town and Country
Planning and Quality of Life in
Malaysia, Lecture’s Notes of TRP513,
University Technology MARA
Gene Shackman, Ya-Lin Liu and Xun Wang,
Measuring quality of life using free
and public domain data, retrieved on
November 2, 2008
Malaysia Urban Quality of Life
New Straits Times, Four Cities Record
Better Quality of Life, April 2002
Quest for a Better Quality of Life, Malaysia
Quality of Life 1999
Wikepedia free Encylopedia , Quality of Life
Index, retrieved on October 14, 2008
Wikepedia free Encylopedia , Quality of
Life, retrieved on November 2, 2008
Wikepedia free Encylopedia, Physical
Quality of Life Index, retrieved on
November 2, 2008
Contents
1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................1
1.1 Definition of Quality of Life.............................................................1
1.2 Approaches to Determining Quality of Life.....................................3
1.3 Concept of Quality of Life...............................................................4
2.0 Measuring Quality of Life..........................................................................5
2.1 Physical Quality of Life Index.........................................................5
2.1.1 Steps to Calculate Physical Quality of Life.........................6
2.2 Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL)..........................................7
2.3 Using free and Public Domain Data................................................8
2.3.1 ‘Objectives’ Approaches....................................................9
2.3.2 Alternatives.....................................................................11
3.0 The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality of Life Index..........................13
3.1 Quality of Life Indices...................................................................13
3.2 Life Satisfaction Surveys..............................................................14
3.3 The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index.......................................16
4.0 The Malaysia Quality of Life....................................................................18
4.1 The Malaysia Quality of Life Index (MQLI)....................................18
4.2 Malaysia Urban Quality of Life......................................................22
4.2.1 Concept...........................................................................22
4.2.2 Overview.........................................................................24
4.3 Malaysia Quality of Life in Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010..........26
Quality of Life
Contents
5.0 Case Study: The Planning of Putrajaya; Creating the Essence City........28
5.1 Planning Background...................................................................29
5.2 Putrajaya Master Plan..................................................................30
5.3 Creating the Essence of the City..................................................31
5.3.1 Quality Urban Living Through Neighbourhood Living......32
6.0 Sources and References.........................................................................33