Abstract
Despite the popularity of well-being in public policy discourses, the meaning of well-being and how to use it in a public policy context is still unclear. In this chapter, we present a comprehensive framework of well-being that clarifies its meaning by distinguishing different types and aspects of well-being. First, we distinguish individual well-being and community well-being. Since public policy concerns public resources, we further explore the aspects of community well-being. Previous works only identified objective and subjective aspects of community well-being, leading to confusion in the measurement process regarding aggregation from individuals to the community. To address this issue, we identify a third aspect called intersubjective community well-being measured by evaluative questions. Using survey data from six districts in Seoul, South Korea, we show that individual well-being and community well-being can be distinguished empirically and that the relationship between intersubjective and objective community well-being is stronger than the relationship between subjective and objective community well-being. This suggests that policymakers can gain better insight for policymaking by paying more attention to intersubjective community well-being, which effectively bridges relevant objective measures to collective evaluation of citizens.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
All population figures are based on the national resident registry data.
- 2.
Subtracted from total objective CWB score.
References
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Money, sex and happiness: An empirical study. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 393–415.
Booth, P. (Ed.). (2012). … and the pursuit of happiness-well-being and the role of government. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.
Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R., & Bollen, K. A. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136.
Bunge, M. (1975). What is a quality of life indicator? Social Indicators Research, 2(1), 65–79.
Cobb, C., & Rixford, C. (2005). Historical background of community indicators. In R. Phillips (Ed.), Community indicators measuring systems (pp. 33–62). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, R. J., & Oswald, A. J. (2003). The macroeconomics of happiness. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 809–827.
Duranti, A. (2010). Husserl, intersubjectivity and anthropology. Anthropological Theory, 10(1–2), 16–35.
Durkheim, E., & Lukes, S. (2014). The rules of sociological method: And selected texts on sociology and its method. New York, NY: Free Press.
Flora, C. B., & Flora, J. L. (2013). Rural communities: legacy and change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2000). The organizational learning of safety in communities of practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(1), 7–18.
Green, G. P., & Haines, A. (2007). Asset building and community development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, R. A., Ferriss, A. L., Land, K., Michalos, A. C., Peterson, M., & Vogel, J. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and agenda for research. Social Indicators Research, 55(1), 1–96.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kee, Y., Kim, S., Kim, N. (2013). Analysis of the community well-being paradigm model Sungmisan village: using grounded theory method of Strauss and Corbin. Korean Public Administration Review, 47(1), 295–320. (Korean).
Kim, Y., & Lee, S. (2013). The Development and Application of a Community Well-being Index in Korean Metropolitan Cities. Social Indicators Research, 1–26.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
KOSIS. (2013). Seoul survey [data]. Retrieved from http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsList_02List.jsp?vwcd=MT_ATITLE01&parmTabId=M_02_01_01
Land, K. C., Michalos, A. C., & Sirgy, J. M. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lee, S., & Kim, Y. (2015). Searching for the meaning of community well-being. In S. J. Lee, Y. Kim, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Community well-being and community development: Conceptions and applications. Dordrecht: Springer.
McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., & Stimson, R. (2006). What is the strength of the link between objective and subjective indicators of urban quality of life? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1(1), 79–96.
McMahon, S. (2002). The development of quality of life indicators—A case study from the City of Bristol. UK. Ecological Indicators, 2(1), 177–185.
Patrick, D. L. & Chiang, Y. P. (2000). Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II14–II25.
Phillips, R., & Bridges, S. (2005). Integrating community indicators with economic development planning. In R. Phillips (Ed.), Community indicators measuring systems (pp. 115–138). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Quincey, C. (1999). Intersubjectivity: Exploring consciousness from the second-person perspective. In S. R. Hameroff, A. W. Kaszniak, & D. J. Chalmers (Eds.), Toward a science of consciousness III: The third Tucson discussions and debates. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.
Sawicki, D. S. (2002). Improving community indicator systems: Injecting more social science into the folk movement. Planning Theory & Practice, 3(1), 13–32.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
Schneider, M. (1975). The quality of life in large American cities: Objective and subjective social indicators. Social Indicators Research, 1(4), 495–509. doi:10.1007/BF00353066.
Scott, K. (2012). Measuring well-being: Towards sustainability?. New York, NY: Earthscan from Routledge.
Sirgy, M. J., Widgery, R. N., Lee, D.-J., & Grace, B. Y. (2010). Develo** a measure of community well-being based on perceptions of impact in various life domains. Social Indicators Research, 96(2), 295–311.
Smolko, R. (2006). The community indicators handbook: measuring progress toward healthy sustainable communities (2nd ed.). Oakland, CA: Redefining Progress.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.
Stewart, A. L., & Ware, J. E. (Eds.). (1992). Measuring functioning and well-being: The medical outcomes study approach. Durham: Duke University Press.
Swain, D., & Hollar, D. (2003). Measuring progress: Community indicators and the quality of life. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(7), 789–814.
Trevarthen, C., & Hubley, P. (1978). Secondary intersubjectivity: Confidence, confiding and acts of meaning in the first year. In A. Lock (Ed.), Action, gesture and symbol: The emergence of language (pp. 183–229). London: Academic Press.
Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared intentionality. Developmental science, 10(1), 121–125.
Veenhoven, R. (2002). Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 58(1–3), 33–46. doi:10.1023/A:1015723614574.
White, S. C. (2010). Analysing well-being: A framework for development practice. Development in Practice, 20(2), 158–172.
WHO. (1948). Constitution of the World Health Organization. Basic documents. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Acknowledgments
This chapter was presented at the 3rd International Forum on Community Well-being on June 23rd, 2015 at Hoam Faculty House, Seoul, South Korea and was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2013S1A3A2054622).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1
Questionnaire Items Used for CWB Indicators
 | Intersubjective CWB (question format: how would you evaluate…) | Subjective CWB (question format: how satisfied are you with…) |
---|---|---|
Public works/infrastructure | Medical service Waste collection Public transportation Internet service Roads | Medical service Waste collection Public transportation Internet service Roads |
Environment | Air quality Green space | Air quality Green space |
Social | Culture and art activity level Culture and art activity support Public library Lifelong education Learning environment Services for elderly Services for disabled Childcare services General social services Community activity Volunteer | Culture and art activity level Culture and art activity support Public library Lifelong education Learning environment Services for elderly Services for disabled Childcare services General social services |
Local public administration | Local government employee fairness Local government employee attitude/service Overall local government services | Local government employee fairness Local government employee attitude/service Overall local government services |
Safety | Natural disaster preparedness Public safety Police | Natural disaster preparedness Public safety Police |
Economy | Local government budget size Local government budget management Local taxes Overall economic environment Cost of living | Local government budget size Local government budget management Local taxes Overall economic environment Cost of living |
Appendix 2
Indicators Used for Objective Community Well-being Score
Number of medical buildings per capita; number of waste collection trucks per ton of daily waste; number of sanitation worker per ton of daily waste; fine dust (μg/m3); nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfurous acid gas emission total (ppm); green space availability per capita; percent household with personal computer; percent households with high-speed internet connection; number of arts and cultural center per capita; number of library per capita; number of lifelong education facilities per capita; lifelong education programs per capita; number of hagwon (private tutoring centers) per capita; college entrance rate; education budget per school age population; number of centers for the elderly per population over 65; number of centers for disabled persons, number of childcare centers, index of public employee honest; number of civil petitions processed; population per 911 fire/emergency centerFootnote 2; percent of population with training experience in fire situations; percent of population with CPR/First Aid training; percent population registered as community volunteer; local revenue per capita; local financial autonomy rate.
Appendix 3
Covariance Matrix Used for Structural Equation Modeling Analysis
Health SIWB | 3.094 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Culture SIWB | 1.107 | 3.998 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Social SIWB | 0.951 | 1.845 | 2.943 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Volunteer SIWB | 1.007 | 1.677 | 2.375 | 3.161 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Job SIWB | 1.050 | 1.546 | 1.355 | 1.307 | 3.562 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Household income | 0.242 | 0.164 | 0.056 | 0.006 | 0.308 | 0.631 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Education | 0.857 | 0.606 | 0.199 | 0.138 | 1.240 | 0.887 | 12.010 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Employment-marital status | 1.239 | 1.879 | 1.441 | 1.394 | 1.278 | 0.122 | 0.620 | 2.244 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Public works SCWB | 1.139 | 1.502 | 1.483 | 1.419 | 1.221 | 0.030 | 0.390 | 1.650 | 3.463 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Environment SCWB | 1.009 | 2.209 | 1.772 | 1.729 | 1.575 | 0.114 | 0.518 | 1.700 | 1.670 | 2.306 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Social SCWB | 1.098 | 1.588 | 1.650 | 1.579 | 1.543 | 0.085 | 0.485 | 1.565 | 1.580 | 1.805 | 2.956 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Public administration SCWB | 1.097 | 1.851 | 1.878 | 1.745 | 1.633 | 0.171 | 0.606 | 1.712 | 1.639 | 1.895 | 1.991 | 2.731 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Safety SCWB | 1.062 | 1.765 | 1.500 | 1.499 | 1.441 | 0.171 | 0.714 | 1.922 | 1.459 | 1.697 | 1.629 | 1.789 | 2.365 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Economy SCWB | 1.045 | 1.666 | 1.536 | 1.570 | 1.441 | 0.106 | 0.620 | 1.607 | 2.649 | 1.728 | 1.635 | 1.733 | 1.864 | 3.410 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Public works ISCWB | 1.054 | 1.906 | 1.747 | 1.774 | 1.599 | 0.155 | 0.609 | 1.628 | 1.598 | 1.972 | 1.725 | 1.877 | 1.974 | 1.939 | 2.296 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Environment ISCWB | 1.138 | 1.663 | 1.700 | 1.695 | 1.597 | 0.107 | 0.327 | 1.603 | 1.534 | 1.761 | 2.494 | 1.933 | 1.887 | 1.829 | 2.034 | 2.946 | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Social ISCWB | 1.143 | 1.822 | 1.706 | 1.721 | 1.612 | 0.149 | 0.649 | 1.704 | 1.621 | 1.797 | 1.871 | 2.255 | 2.018 | 1.893 | 2.143 | 2.254 | 2.832 | Â | Â | Â |
Public administration ISCWB | 1.085 | 1.452 | 1.516 | 1.480 | 1.693 | 0.226 | 0.897 | 1.411 | 1.412 | 1.566 | 1.653 | 1.661 | 1.580 | 1.621 | 1.697 | 1.742 | 1.697 | 2.172 | Â | Â |
Safety ISCWB | 1.012 | 1.415 | 1.336 | 1.314 | 1.455 | 0.226 | 0.903 | 1.320 | 1.344 | 1.478 | 1.489 | 1.563 | 1.641 | 1.691 | 1.775 | 1.778 | 1.843 | 1.766 | 2.263 | Â |
Economy ISCWB | 0.016 | 0.013 | 0.071 | 0.032 | 0.199 | 0.089 | 0.313 | -.001 | 0.106 | 0.052 | 0.051 | 0.087 | -.008 | 0.077 | 0.040 | 0.039 | 0.075 | 0.109 | 0.091 | 0.435 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lee, S.J., Kim, Y. (2016). Structure of Well-Being: An Exploratory Study of the Distinction Between Individual Well-Being and Community Well-Being and the Importance of Intersubjective Community Well-Being. In: Kee, Y., Lee, S., Phillips, R. (eds) Social Factors and Community Well-Being. SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29942-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29942-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29940-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29942-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)