qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw

ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
TRP 513: SOCIAL ASPECT OF
PLANNING
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
Quality of Life
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
By;
Ai'da Fazihrah Nazri
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
2007275618

mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
xcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
 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
2
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.

 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.

3
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.

 Quality of Life

1.2 Approaches to Determining 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
4
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.

 Quality of Life

1.3 Concept of 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).

5
 Quality of Life

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 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.

6
1.1 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

 Quality of Life

problems of measuring QoL in a quantitative way. It has also been criticized

because there is considerable overlap between infant mortality and life

expectancy.

2.1.1 Steps 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
7

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
 Quality of Life

1.2 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 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

8
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.

 Quality of Life

1.3 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 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.

9
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

 Quality of Life

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.

2.1.1 ‘Objectives’ Approaches

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 10

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

 Quality of Life

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 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

11
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.
 Quality of Life

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 indicators are aggregate level measures,

using the country as the unit of analysis.

2.1.2 Alternatives
12
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.

 Quality of Life

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 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
13
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.

 Quality of Life

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 insurmountable difficulties in assigning monetary values to 14

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.
 Quality of Life

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?”
15

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.

 Quality of Life

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
16
local population than to responses in their motherland. Answers to questions on

satisfaction in bilingual countries do not reveal 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.
 Quality of Life

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

17
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.

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
 Quality of Life

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
18
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 forecast an index, thus making it up-to-date and facilitating

comparison over time.

 Quality of Life

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.

1.4 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 19

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 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.
 Quality of Life

Table 1 : Components of Malaysian Quality of Life Index

Area Indicator
• Real per Capita GNP
Income and
• Gini Coefficient
Distribution
• Incidence of Poverty
• Unemployment Rate
• Trade Disputes
Working Life
• Man-Days Lost Due to Industrial Actions
• Industrial Accident Rate
• Private Motorcars and Motorcycles
• Commercial Vehicles
Transport and
• Road Development
Communications
• Telephones
• Average Daily Newspaper Circulation
• Life Expectancy at Birth (Male)
• Life Expectancy at Birth (Female)
Health • Infant Mortality Rate
• Doctor-Population Ratio
• Hospital Bed-Population Ratio
• Pre-School Participation Rate
• Secondary School Participation Rate
• University Participation Rate
Education 20
• Literacy Rate
• Primary School Teacher-Student Ratio
• Secondary School Teacher-Student Ratio
• Average Housing Price
• Low-Cost Housing Unit
Housing
• Housing Units with Piped Water
• Housing Units with Electricity
• Air Quality
Environment • Clean Rivers
• Forested Land
• Divorces
• Crude Birth Rate
Family Life
• Household Size
• Juvenile Crimes
Social • Registered Voters
Participation • Membership in Selected Voluntary Organizations
• Crimes
Public Safety
• Road Accidents
 Quality of Life

Table 2 : The Rationale for the Selection of Areas

Area Rationale
Gross income or per capita income reflects welfare or
standard of living. Incomes provide the condition that
Income and
allows individuals to sustain themselves and their families,
Distribution
while the distribution of income reflects equity and
distribution of economic resources.
Working life is important because being employed provides
Working Life a source of income that contributes to the standard of living
and QoL
Transport and communications are vital factors for progress
an development since they relate to the mobility of and
Transport and
accessibility to resources as well as opportunity for
Communications
employment, education and movement of goods and
services.
Health, which includes physical and mental well being,
Health enables people to work productively and participate
actively in the social and economic life of the community.
The education systems are the principal instruments for
transmitting knowledge and culture from one generation to
Education the next. It provides the foundation from which the 21
technology to sustain and improve the QoL is developed
and enhanced.
Housing is a basic social need that is necessary for decent
Housing
living, security and shelter for the family.
Environment has a direct effect on the well-being of the
Environment population. Air and water pollution and forested land are
some indicator of the quality of environment.
The family unit represents the core institutions within the
Family Life societal structure and its functioning fulfills the social
economic and psychological needs of individuals.
Social participations is the reflection of the people’s
Social
commitment and willingness to be involved in social,
Participation
political, religious and community activities.
Public safety is essential as it ensures social peace and
Public Safety
stability
 Quality of Life

Table 3: The Index for the 10 Areas of MQLI 1980-1998

YEAR/INDEX
Area
1990 = 100
1980 = 77.39
Income and Distribution
1998 = 105.82
1980 = 106.13
Working Life
1998 = 118.94
1980 = 87.36
Transport and Communications
1998 = 112.78
1980 = 83.24
Health
1998 = 109.58
1980 = 85.97
Education
1998 = 117.31
1980 = 90.52
Housing
1998 = 107.72
1980 = n.a
Environment
1998 = 100.94
1980 = 85.46
Family Life 22
1998 = 113.86
1980 = 81.55
Social Participation
1998 = 97.98
1980 = 78.40
Public Safety
1998 = 72.11
1980 = 86.22
Composites Index
1998 = 105.71
1980 = (-) 13.78
Change for Base Year (1990)
1998 = (+) 5.71

1.5 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

 Quality of Life

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.

4.1.1 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
23
(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.

Table 4: Components of Malaysian Quality of Life Index

Area Indicator
• Real per Capita GNP
Income and
• Gini Coefficient
Distribution
• Incidence of Poverty
 Quality of Life

• Trade Disputes
Working Life
• Industrial Accidents
• Private Motorcars and Motorcycles
Transport and
• Public Transports
Communications
• Telephones
• Infant Mortality Rate
Health
• Doctor-Population Ratio
• Primary School Teacher-Student Ratio
• Secondary School Teacher-Student Ratio
Education
• Primary School Average Class Size
• Secondary School Average Class Size
• Average Rental to Household Income Ratio
Housing
• Average Prices of Houses to Household Income Ratio
• River Quality Index
Environment
• Solid Waste per Kapita
• Divorces
Family Life
• Household Size
• Crimes
Public Safety
• Road Accidents
• Registered Voluntary Organizations
Community
• Rukun Tetangga Members
Participation 24
• Registered Voters
Culture and • Library Membership
Leisure • Sports and Recreation Club
• Expenditure on Social Services
Urban Services
• Expenditure on Landscaping

4.1.2 Overview

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
 Quality of Life

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

Population (2000 Main Economic
State Status Land Area
census) Activities
Ipoh Capital of Perak 451,558 peoples 136.9 sq.km Trade, Commercial
and Industrial
activities
Kuantan Capital of 344,706 peoples 324 sq.km Trade and
Pahang commercial
activities and port
services
Kota Capital of Sabah 305,382 people 344 sq.km Trade and
Kinabalu Commercial
activities and
tourism
Kuala Capital of 1,297,526 243 sq.km Trade and
Lumpur Malaysia Commercial 25
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 163,846 369 sq. km Trade, Commercial
Sarawak activities and
tourism

Table 6 : MUQLI: Composite Index and Indices by Area, 1990-2000

 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 26

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.

 Quality of Life

1.6 Malaysia Quality of Life in Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010

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
27
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
 Quality of Life

significantly from 67% in 1990 to 92% in 2005. Measures were undertaken to

reduce the proportion on non-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.

28
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

 Quality of Life

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 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

29
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.

2.0 Planning Background

 Quality of Life

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 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
30
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.

3.0 Putrajaya Master Plan

 Quality of Life

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 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;
31
• ‘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.

4.0 Creating the Essence of the City

 Quality of Life

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 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

32
• 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.

5.1.1 Quality Urban Living Through Neighbourhood Living

 Quality of Life

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 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.

33

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.

 Quality of Life

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 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.

6.0 Sources and References

Chris Lucas 2002, Quality of Life Malaysia Urban Quality of Life

Dato’ Jebasingam Issace John, The Planning of New Straits Times, Four Cities Record Better

Putrajaya: Creating the Essence of City Quality of Life, April 2002

34

Dr Dasimah Omar, Quality of Life, Lecture’s Notes Quest for a Better Quality of Life, Malaysia

of TR513, University Technology MARA Quality of Life 1999

Dr Dasimah Omar, Town and Country Planning Wikepedia free Encylopedia , Quality of Life

and Quality of Life in Malaysia, Lecture’s Index, retrieved on October 14, 2008

Notes of TRP513, University Technology

MARA Wikepedia free Encylopedia , Quality of Life,

Gene Shackman, Ya-Lin Liu and Xun Wang, retrieved on November 2, 2008

Measuring quality of life using free and

public domain data, retrieved on Wikepedia free Encylopedia, Physical Quality of

November 2, 2008 Life Index, retrieved on November 2, 2008

Contents

1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................2

2.0 Measuring Quality of Life..............................................................................6

2.1.1 ‘Objectives’ Approaches......................................................10

2.1.2 Alternatives.........................................................................12

3.0 The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality of Life Index..............................14

4.0 The Malaysia Quality of Life........................................................................19

4.1.1 Concept...............................................................................23

4.1.2 Overview.............................................................................24

5.0 Case Study: The Planning of Putrajaya; Creating the Essence City.............29

5.1.1 Quality Urban Living Through Neighbourhood Living..........32

6.0 Sources and References..............................................................................34