Design and Construction of the Asian Urban-Wellbeing Indicators Survey HKU-USC-IPPA Conference on Public Policy 9-10 June 2016
Civic Exchange Since 2000 An independent Hong Kong-based public policy think tank. With the mission to advance civic education and engage society to shape public policy, Civic Exchange undertakes research in air quality, nature conservation and urban environment in order to enhance our wellbeing.
Why measure wellbeing? Pushback against overemphasis on GDP in policy. GDP has well-known limitations and was never meant to be a measure of societal progress. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. - Robert Kennedy, 1968
Why focus on Asian cities? In 2007, the world passed the 50% threshold mark for population living in cities (UNDP, 2014) Asia is urbanizing very rapidly. 48% urban in 2014 -> 65% urban by 2050 Despite differences between countries, cities share policy challenges more than with rural areas planning, housing, vehicle congestion, pollution, sustainability, industrialization, de-industrialization, inequality Most data still collected at national level
Cities & Globalization 600 cities produce 60% of global GDP (McKinsey, 2011) 30-40 cities are global cities (Sassen, 2005) Post-industrial Advanced producer services finance, accounting, law, media Increasingly networked with each other, disconnected from regional economies Growing inequality both urban/rural and within cities What about others? E.g. the world s manufacturing centres How is wellbeing affected in cities that play different roles in the global economy?
Defining Wellbeing Liveability Place Livelihood, Environment, Sustainability, Evans (2002) Wellbeing Internal Genetics Coping Personality Adaptation Goals Quality of life External environment Material conditions Health Social connections Civic engagement Work-life balance Environmental quality Personal security (OECD, 2013) (Diener et al., 1999)
What do we mean by Urban-Wellbeing? Policy relevant Incorporates liveability and quality of life Urban-Wellbeing: Where people can thrive Human capabilities Bottom-up People, not policy inputs or outputs
Designing the Asian Urban Wellbeing Indicator Goals Investigate the distribution of wellbeing within cities Subjective perception as a complement to objective data A tool for civic engagement and discussion
The Asian Urban Wellbeing Indicator Compared to Other Major Measures of Wellbeing National Level City Level Objective Data Subjective Data Human Development Index OECD Better Life Initiative Gallup World Poll Asian Barometer Legatum Prosperity Index EIU s Global Liveability Rankings Mercer s Quality of Living Rankings ATKearney s Global Cities Index Asian Urban Wellbeing Indicators
Survey structure Core questions Medical care Education Environmental Protection Crime control and public safety Community and belonging Work and business opportunities Quality of government Recreation and personal time Housing Transport and utilities Demographic questions
Core questions If you had the freedom to live anywhere in the world, would you choose to stay in [city] or move away? Since you started living in [city], overall, has it become a better or a worse place to live? In your view, is [city] a good place for children to grow up or not? In your view, is [city] a good place for retirees to live, or not? How worried are you about poverty in [city]? How worried are you about being able to provide for you and your family s daily needs?
Life satisfaction Modified Cantril s Ladder On a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 representing the worst possible life for you and 10 representing the best possible life for you, what score would you give to your life as a whole? Using the same scale, how do you see your life 5 years from now?
Domain importance and satisfaction How much do you care about [name of domain]? How satisfied or dissatisfied with [name of domain]? Satisfaction vs. Care About Domains % Satisfied & V. Satisfied % Care & Care a lot Work and business opportunities Housing Public safety and crime control 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Education Quality of government Recreation and personal time Environmental protection Community and belonging Medical care Transport and utilities Hong Kong Oct-Nov 2015
Domain ranking Out of the issues you care about, what is the number 1 issue that the government should address? Ranking vs. rating gives clearer picture of public s priorities With repeated surveys, can track shift in priorities over time
Design Process In consultation with 5 NGOs from diverse Asian cities: Chengdu Hong Kong Delhi Manila Penang Focus groups with NGO representatives to obtain feedback on early draft Translation and reverse translation into 7 languages & dialects Pilot tests with 100 random respondents in each city
Cross-cultural compromise Workarounds for sociallydesirable responding Cultural context e.g. religious attendance Local sensibilities e.g. Is your job interesting? Easily translatable terminology Local situations: e.g. infrastructure in informal settlements
Methodology 1,500 respondents per city slightly larger than usual compensate for branching structure Best available method of obtaining a representative sample in each city. Mixed modes. Random land line, mobile phone, door-to-door, or street intercept based on feasibility and suitability for local situation Stratified sample based on age and gender according to census figures: 4 interlocking quotas for male, female, 18-39 and 40-65 Quotas used because standard within-household respondent selection methods not feasible in some places
Sampling migrants Special quota for migrant workers in relevant cities, e.g. Singapore, Shanghai, Penang where they make up 20%- 45% of population. (Too small in HK 4%) Migrant workers = immigrant workers without full residency rights, usually enjoying lesser legal protections and benefits Frequently left out of surveys due to supposed political or market irrelevance, limited telephone access, and dormitory living arrangements Street intercept used to reach this population (most feasible option but still some problems) Quota set based on census figures
Relevance to policy and civic engagement Tracking change in priorities and satisfaction levels over time Learning from other comparable cities (carefully) Targeting specific demographics for policy interventions, education, or outreach Identifying groups likely to be receptive to policies or programmes in particular areas Additional perspective on objective data
An evolving open/shared database This is the first round, the survey instrument will continue to evolve over time More cities invited to participate Will be an open/shared database and resource for researchers interested in wellbeing and urban governance