Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Developing a Measure of Community Well-Being Based on Perceptions of Impact in Various Life Domains

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A new measure of community well-being is developed based on the notion that community residents perceive the quality-of-life (QOL) impact of community services and conditions in various life domains (e.g., family, social, leisure, health, financial, cultural, consumer, work, spiritual, and environmental domains). These perceptions influence residents’ overall perception of community well-being, their commitment to the community, and their overall life satisfaction. Survey data were collected in the Flint area (Michigan, USA) in four waves (1978, 1990, 2001, and 2006). The data supported the nomological validity of the measure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York and London: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruin, M. J., & Cook, C. C. (1997). Understanding constraints and residential satisfaction among low-income single-parent families. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 532–553. doi:10.1177/001391659702900405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. J. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfaction. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakopoulou, S., Dawson, J., & Gari, A. (2001). The community well-being questionnaire: Theoretical context and initial assessment of its reliability and validity. Social Indicators Research, 56(3), 321–345. doi:10.1023/A:1012478207457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gary Linn, J., Husaini, B. A., Whitten-Stovall, R., & Rudy Broomes, L. (1989). Community satisfaction, life stress, social support, and mental health in rural and urban southern Black communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 17(1), 78–88. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(198901)17:1<78::AID-JCOP2290170108>3.0.CO;2-C.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzeskowiak, S., Sirgy, M. J., & Widgery, R. (2003). Residents’ satisfaction with community services: Predictors and outcomes. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 33(2), 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimweli, D. M. S., & Stilwell, W. E. (2002). Community subjective well-being, personality traits and quality of life therapy. Social Indicators Research, 60(1–3), 193–215. doi:10.1023/A:1021265115608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lansing, J., Marans, R., & Zehner, R. (1970). Planned residential environments. Michigan: Ann Arbor. MI: Institute for Survey Research, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marans, R. W., & Rodgers, W. (1975). Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In A. Hawley & V. Rock (Eds.), Metropolitan America in contemporary perspective (pp. 299–354). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, E. W., & Winter, M. (1975). A theory of family housing adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37(February), 79–88. doi:10.2307/351032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puddifoot, J. E. (1995). Dimensions of community identity. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 5(5), 357–370. doi:10.1002/casp.2450050507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, L., Filson, G. C., Paine, C., Pfeiffer, W. C., & Taylor, J. R. (2000). Non-farm rural Ontario residents’ perceived quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 50(2), 159–186. doi:10.1023/A:1007043530451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojo Perez, F., Fernandez-Mayoralos Fernandez, G., Pozo Rivera, E., & Rojo Abuin, J. M. (2001). Ageing in place: Predictors of residential satisfaction of elderly. Social Indicators Research, 54(2), 173–208. doi:10.1023/A:1010852607362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2001). Further validation of the Sirgy et al.’s measure of community quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 56(12), 5–143. doi:10.1023/A:1012254826324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2002). How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 59(1), 79–102. doi:10.1023/A:1016021108513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., Gao, T., & Young, R. F. (2008). How residents’ satisfaction with community services influence quality of life (QOL) outcomes? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 3(2), 81–106. doi:10.1007/s11482-008-9048-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., Rahtz, D., Cicic, M., & Underwood, R. (2000). A method for assessing residents’ satisfaction with community-based services: A quality-of-life perspective. Social Indicators Research, 49, 279–316. doi:10.1023/A:1006990718673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility. Demography, 11, 173–188. doi:10.2307/2060556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • St John, C., Austin, D. M., & Baba, T. (1986). The question of community attachment revisited. Sociological Spectrum, 6, 411–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrbka, S. J., & Combs, E. R. (1993). Predictors of neighborhood and community satisfactions in rural communities. Housing and Society, 20(1), 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whorton, J. W., & Moore, A. B. (1984). Summative scales for measuring community satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 15, 297–307. doi:10.1007/BF00668676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zumbo, B. D., & Michalos, A. C. (2000). Quality of life in Jasper, Alberta. Social Indicators Research, 49(2), 121–140. doi:10.1023/A:1006941329541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061-0236, USA

    M. Joseph Sirgy

  2. Social Systems Research Institute, Flint, MI, USA

    Robin N. Widgery

  3. Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

    Dong-Jin Lee & Grace B. Yu

Authors
  1. M. Joseph Sirgy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robin N. Widgery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dong-Jin Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Grace B. Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Joseph Sirgy.

Additional information

This research has been partially supported by the Social Systems Research Institute and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation of Flint, Michigan, USA.

Appendices

Appendix

The Measures

Overall community well-being is a composite index of the following items: (α = 0.723)

  • Overall how satisfied are you with the quality of life in the Flint area? (CQOL1)

    (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

  • To what extent do you enjoy living in the Flint area? (Cmt1)

    (1) Not at all–(4) To a great extent

  • When thinking about conditions in the Flint area, are conditions getting worse/about the same/getting better? (Dyn1)

    (1) Getting worse–(3) Getting better

  • In the years to come do you believe that conditions in the Flint area will be worse than today/about the same as today/better than today? (Dyn 2)

    (1) Worse than today–(5) Better than today

  • How would you rate flint area as a desirable place to live? (Dyn 3)

    (1) Not very desirable–(5) One of the best communities in America

    Overall life satisfaction is a measure made up of the following item: (α = N/A)

  • Overall how satisfied are you with life in general? (QOL)

    The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

    Community commitment is a measure made up of the following item: (α = N/A)

  • If you could would you move away from the Flint area? (Cmt 2)

    (1) Yes–(2) No

    Social ties in the community is a composite index of the following items: (α = 0.141)

  • To what extent have you made good friends with other Flint area residents? (Cmt 3)

    (1) Not at all–(4) To a great extent

  • Do you have other family members (brothers, sisters, aunts, etc.) living within the Flint area who do not live in your household? (Cmt 4)

    (1) No–(2) Yes

    Community well-being index

  • Community systems affecting safety well-being

  • Community systems affecting social well-being

  • Community systems affecting leisure well-being

  • Community systems affecting family and home well-being

  • Community systems affecting political well-being

  • Community systems affecting spiritual well-being

  • Community systems affecting neighborhood well-being

  • Community systems affecting environmental well-being

  • Community systems affecting transportation well-being

  • Community systems affecting education well-being

  • Community systems affecting health well-being

  • Community systems affecting work well-being

  • Community systems affecting financial well-being

  • Community systems affecting consumer well-being

    Simple average of the individual measurements above

    Community systems affecting safety well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.723)

  • Race relations in the Flint area (Social 1)

  • Your personal safety in your neighborhood (Social 5)

  • Your personal safety in public places (Social 7)

  • Security against break-ins to your home (Social 8)

  • Fire protection for your neighborhood (Gov 7)

  • Police protection for your neighborhood (Gov 8)

  • Crime prevention efforts in the Flint area (Gov 9)

  • Small animal control (Gov 12)

    The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

Community systems affecting social well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.584)

  • Your neighbors (Social 2)

  • The racial mix in your neighborhood (Social 6)

  • Your friends and acquaintances in the Flint area (Social 15)

  • Church-related activities (Social 16)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

Community systems affecting leisure well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.900)

  • Entertainment facilities (Social 10)

  • Entertainment activities (Social 11)

  • Recreational facilities (Social 12)

  • Recreational activities (Social 13)

  • Parks available in and near Flint (Envir 13)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

Community systems affecting family and home well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.635)

  • The number of children in your neighborhood (Social 3)

  • Behavior of children in your neighborhood (Social 4)

  • Your own family life (Social 14)

  • The interior of your home (Envir 7)

  • The exterior of your home (Envir 8)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area.

(1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

  • How much power do you feel that you have to influence the decisions made by your community school system (Power 1)

(1) No influence at all–(4) Great influence.

Community systems affecting political well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.829)

  • Community leaders (Social 9)

  • Your local township or city government (Gov 5)

  • Local government services generally (Gov 6)

  • Property taxes in the Flint area (Envir 6)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

  • How much confidence or trust do you have in (your local city or township government) (Trust 4)

  • How much confidence or trust do you have in (the county government) (Trust 6)

(1) Not any–(4) A great amount

  • How much power do you feel that you have to influence the decisions made by your local government (Power 2) (1) No influence at all–(4) Great influence.

Community systems affecting spiritual well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.790)

  • Church-related activities (Social 16)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

  • Are you a member of a local church (Relig 1)

  • Are you an active member of your church (Relig 2) (1) Yes–(2) No

  • How frequently do you attend church (Relig 3) (1) Never–(4) Almost every service

Community systems affecting neighborhood well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.842)

  • Your neighbors (Social 2)

  • The number of children in your neighborhood (Social 3)

  • Behavior of children in your neighborhood (Social 4)

  • Your personal safety in your neighborhood (Social 5)

  • The racial mix in your neighborhood (Social 6)

  • Security against break-ins to your home (Social 8)

  • The number of trees in your neighborhood (Envir 1)

  • The appearance of homes in your neighborhood (Envir 5)

  • The amount of traffic on your own street (Envir 10)

  • Fire protection for your neighborhood (Gov 7)

  • Police protection for your neighborhood (Gov 8)

  • Garbage collection in your neighborhood (Gov 10)

  • Grocery stores in your neighborhood (Envir 8)

  • Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of life in your neighborhood? (CQOL 2)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

Community systems affecting environmental well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.795)

  • The number of trees in your neighborhood (Envir 1)

  • The appearance of commercial and business area (Envir 2)

  • The appearance of public places generally (Envir 3)

  • The appearance of residential area (Envir 4)

  • The appearance of homes in your neighborhood (Envir 5)

  • The appearance of the Flint area generally (Envir 6)

  • The interior of your home (Envir 7)

  • The exterior of your home (Envir 8)

  • The conditions of the street in the Flint area (Envir 9)

  • The climate in the Flint area (Envir 12)

  • Parks available in and near Flint (Envir 13)

  • Garbage collection in your neighborhood (Gov 10)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

Community systems affecting transportation well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.570)

  • The conditions of the street in the Flint area (Envir 9)

  • The amount of traffic on your own street (Envir 10)

  • Traffic conditions generally in the Flint area (Envir 11)

  • Public transportation in the Flint area (Gov 11)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

Community systems affecting education well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.684)

  • Local colleges and universities (Gov 1)

  • Public schools serving your neighborhood (Gov 2)

  • Libraries in the Flint area (Gov 14)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

  • How much confidence or trust do you have in (the local schools) (Trust 1)

  • How much confidence or trust do you have in (the Flint Journal) (Trust 7)

  • How much confidence or trust do you have in (Flint television stations) (Trust 8)

  • How much confidence or trust do you have in (Flint’s radio stations) (Trust 9)

(1) Not any–(4) A great amount

  • How much power do you feel that you have to influence the decisions made by your community school system (Power 1) (1) No influence at all–(4) Great influence.

Community systems affecting health well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.729)

  • Medical doctor services available in the Flint area (Gov 3)

  • Dental services available in the Flint area (Gov 4)

  • Garbage collection in your neighborhood (Gov10)

  • Hospitals in the Flint area (Gov13)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

  • How much confidence or trust do you have in (Flint area hospitals) (Trust 11)

(1) Not any–(4) A great amount

Community systems affecting work well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.601)

  • Job opportunities in the Flint area (Econ 1)

  • Your own job (Econ 2)

  • Your husband’s (wife’s) job (Econ 3)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

  • How much confidence or trust do you have in (General Motors) (Trust 2)

  • How much confidence or trust do you have in (Flint area unions) (Trust 10)

(1) Not any–(4) A great amount

Community systems affecting financial well-being is a composite index made up of the following items: (α = 0.561)

  • Your family’s income (husband and wife) (Econ 4)

  • Property taxes in the Flint area (Econ 6)

  • The cost of living in the Flint area (Econ 7)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

  • How much confidence or trust do you have in (local banks) (Trust 5)

(1) Not at all–(5) To a great extent

Community systems affecting consumer well-being is a measure made up of the following item: (α = N/A)

  • Grocery stores in your neighborhood (Econ 8)

The degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various features of life in the Flint area. (1) Strongly dissatisfied–(6) Strongly satisfied

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sirgy, M.J., Widgery, R.N., Lee, DJ. et al. Developing a Measure of Community Well-Being Based on Perceptions of Impact in Various Life Domains. Soc Indic Res 96, 295–311 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9479-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9479-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation