Date post: | 29-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | oliver-dennis |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 1 times |
GPI Community Surveys 2002/2003 Glace Bay (1,708) Kings County (1,898) Wellbeing in two contrasting
communities in same political jurisdiction
Wide range of variables
Contrasting Communities
Glace Bay Older industrial
area Mining and
primary industries History of
economic instability
Kings County Diversified
economy Agriculture Manufacturing Government Economic Stability
Samples Glace Bay respondents had higher rate
of unemployment and lower incomes Kings had higher proportion married
Economic SecurityGlace-Bay Kings
Unemployment 26.4 12.7
Part-time 16.6 15.4
Discouraged 40.9 16.3
Long-term 62.3 52.5
Multiple Jobs 5.1 11.0
% Households <$20,000
28 14
Life-Satisfaction
GB Kings Chi-Square
Very Satisfied
40.3 39.4 2.24df=2P<.32Somewhat
Satisfied50.3 53.4
Dissatisfied 9.3 8.2
Potential for Improved Satisfaction
% who would be more satisfied if:
Glace Bay Kings p
More time with family and friends
29.1 23.2 P<.001
Less stress 39.0 31.2 P<.001
Make a difference to community
11.7 8.7 P<.001
More money 24.7 14.5 P<.001
More Possessions 8.7 3.3 P<.001
Financially secure 38.8 25.5 P<.001
Percent Reporting They Are Very Satisfied With Life
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Glace Bay Kings
Glace Bay 25.5 43 35.4 50.2 57.8
Kings 33.2 36.5 34.4 39.3 49.3
-20,00020-
34,99935-
49,99950-
69,99970,000
Importance of Own Values
% rating 8 to 10 GB Kings p
Family 95.2 94.4 NS
Responsibility 93.2 93.2 NS
Freedom 87.5 89.1 NS
Friendship 88.4 86.4 NS
Financial Security 80.6 72.4 P<.000
Generosity 78.4 73.4 P<.000
Pleasure 70.8 68.6 NS
Spiritual 67.2 52.5 P<.000
Career Success 68 58.3 P<.000
Material Wealth 32.4 22.8 P<.000
Importance of Core Values
% Rating 8-10 Self Others
Family 94.9 55.9
Responsibility 93.3 50.8
Freedom 88.4 80.6
Friendship 87.3 54.2
Financial Security 76.3 76.9
Generosity 75.8 36.6
Pleasure 69.6 76.1
Spiritual 59.5 29.4
Career Success 62.8 92.4
Material Wealth 27.4 67.8
Factor Analysis of Values Scales Social factor (family life, friendship,
generosity, spiritual) Materialistic factor (material wealth,
financial security, career, pleasure) Factor scores
Values and Life Satisfaction% Describing Self as Very Satisfied With Life
Quartile Value Score
Low on Value Factor
2 3 High on Value Factor
Social Values
30.1 36.2 45.4 46.5 P<.000
Material Values
38.6 37.4 38.7 43.4 ns
Stress by Activity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80Em
plo
yed
Unem
plo
yed
Stu
dents
Hom
em
akers
Reti
red
GBKings
Sources of Stress
Kings Too many
demands Too many hours Insufficient
autonomy Interpersonal
conflict
Glace Bay Too few hours Risk Fear of layoffs
Stress and Employment More two-income families in Kings Two-income families much more
highly stressed than one income families
Two income families on Kings more highly stressed than in Glace Bay
No differences between one-income families
Stress and Household Income
010203040506070
-20
20
-3
4,9
99
35
-4
9,9
99
50
-6
9,9
99
70
,00
0+
GBKings
Percentage of workers willing to trade all or part of a future pay increase for shorter work
hours
24.3
14.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Kings Glace Bay
Health Status No significant difference in self-
reported health status GB had higher rate of disabling pain May be attributable to higher rates
of arthritis/rheumatism and back problems
Strong relationship to income in both communities
Query If health status is income related
and Glace bay has a much higher proportion of low income respondents, why isn’t their overall health status lower than Kings?
Very good to excellent health
-20000 20-34999
35-49999
50-69999
70+
GB 33 46 55 58 73
Kings 30 41 52 60 67
Health Status and Income Higher rates across most income
groups in Glace Bay As a result, overall rates are
equivalent despite the higher rates of low-income in Glace Bay and relationship between health and income
Chronic Disease Glace Bay had higher rates on a number
of diseases after controlling for differences in age of the populations- high blood pressure (though not heart disease), bronchitis/emphysema, sinusitis, cancer, ulcers, diabetes and glaucoma.
Kings higher rate of allergies- food and non-food
Risk Factors No difference in obesity or sedentary
lifestyles although Kings more likely to be physically active in leisure
Glace Bay has significantly higher current smoke rate but lower ever-smoked rate
Quit rate much higher in Kings County
Preventive CareBlood Pressure
Paps Breast Exam
Mammogram
GB 76 45 35 40
Kings 74 47 45 64
Appear low Kings higher across all incomegrps
Kings very high
Benefits Part-time workers were less than
half as likely to have most benefits Very strong relationship with income Particularly strong in Glace Bay- less
than 5% of lowest income (-$20,000) have benefits (12% to 30%
in Kings)
Mental Health
Glace Bay Kings
2+ symptoms 22% 21%
Depressed feelings
16% 13%
Childhood risk factors
33% 33%
Higher in females, young and lower incomes
Depressed feelings associated with child risk factors
05
10152025303540
0 1 2+
# factors
% w
ith
dep
ressio
n
GBKings
Social Support
Glace Bay Kings Significant
Count on in crisis
95.5 94.4 No
Advice 94.6 91.6 Yes
Loved 96.8 94.7 Yes
Close relative 1/week
80.1 72.9 Yes
Neighbour 1/week
77.9 63.1 Yes
VoluntaryGlace Bay Kings Significance
Group or Organization
29.0 51.6 Yes
Not Group or Organization
52.1 59.3 Yes
Care-giving outside home
6.5 6.5 No
Strongly associated with life-satisfaction
Crime and Security
Glace Bay reported higher levels of fear and concerns about crime despite being half as likely to have been victimized or to know someone who has been victimized.
Understanding the ecological footprint
Nova Scotia Income Quintile
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Footprint 6.2 6.6 7.0 8.1 10.7
Household income$/year
Average Number
of Vehicles
per Househ
old
Average Kms./ Vehicle/
Year
Household Kms
Per Year
Average Individual Commuting
Distance to Work for all commuting members of the
household-20,000 1.0 17,777 13,772 14.4
20,000 to 34,999
1.4 19,268 22,629 12.9
35,000 to 49,999
1.5 20,861 27,530 16.4
50,000 to 69,999
1.8 20,966 34,665 14.4
70,000+ 2.0 22,600 40,384 15.9
Total 1.6 20,853 28,916 15.1
Ecological Attitudes Large majority (80%+) believe their
way of life produces too much waste and “most of us” consume more than we need
Two-thirds believed they could consume less if they chose
Stronger in Kings and among high income (81% could consume less)
Levels of wellbeing similar? No significant difference in life-
satisfaction between GB and Kings But GB more likely to believe that
their life-satisfaction could be improved by improved material circumstances
Therefore- more materialistic values
Great expectations? Already have rates of life-
satisfaction that are similar to Kings Yet they expect a greater increase
from improved determinants Does GB expect more from income
gains than can be delivered?
Example of “focusing illusion”?
“When people consider the impact of any single factor on their wellbeing- not only income- they are prone to exaggerate its importance. We refer to this tendency as the focusing illusion… Despite the weak relation between income and global life satisfaction or experienced happiness, many people are highly motivated to increase their income.”
Daniel Kahneman- Economist, Princeton University
Daniel Gilbert: Stumbling on Happiness (2006)
“Economies thrive when individuals strive, but because individuals will only strive for their own happiness, it is essential that they mistakenly believe that producing and consuming are routes to personal wellbeing”
Stresses reflect local realities
KingsHigher stress• Too much work• Two-income families
(more of them and more highly stressed than GB)
• 25% would trade increases for less time
• Unemployment more stressful
Glace Bay• Too little work• Job insecurity• 14% would trade
increases for less time• Both employment and
unemployment are less stressful
Value Alienation?
Large majority of respondents in both communities believe they are socially motivated individuals living in a materialistic society.
Wellbeing and Values Positive social values intrinsically
related positive wellbeing while materialistic values were not
Consistent with growing research literature
Health Status Similar in self-rated health GB has more self-reported health
problems Similar in risk factors except GB
higher smoking rates Due to lower quit rates
Health Status and Income Higher levels of self-rated health in
Glace Bay after controlling for income differences
Overall ratings are similar, despite differences in income distribution
Mental Health Similar rates in GB and Kings Highest rates of problems among
females, young people and low income
Social Capital GB higher rates of spirituality and
social support GB less likely to volunteer (formally
or informally) GB higher rate of fear of crime
despite lower victimization
Glace Bay High levels of wellbeing in GB,
despite economic insecurities, probably due to strengths on other determinants- particularly spirituality and social support- and lower levels of stress and higher decision control
But greater expectations from improved economic conditions
Kings County Higher income and economic
security partially due to higher rate of two-income families- at the cost of higher rates of stress
Values and alienation Both see themselves as socially
motivated but living in a materialistic society
Positive social values associated with higher life-satisfaction
Conflict between consumption and ecological attitudes