SYSTEM OF INDICATORS FOR LIVING CONDITIONS OF THE POPULATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL: PRINCIPLES OF ORGANIZATION AND USE

Abstract

The relevance of the article stems from the need to collect and systemize reliable objective information about living conditions of the population at the local level. A necessary condition for managerial decision-making in economy and social policy is reliable estimation of the population’s living conditions united territorial communities (UTC). The article aims to cover the principles of organization and use of a system of indicators for living conditions of the population at the local level. To achieve this aim, general scientifi c methods are used, namely the method of generalization and the system method. The novelty of the article is the formulation of the principles of systematization of information on living conditions at the local level in the form of a system of indicators and the defi nition the tasks of such a system, as well as data sources for implementation these tasks. Based on Ukrainian approaches, “living conditions” are defi ned as a component of quality of life, which includes three groups of indicators: housing availability, quality characteristics of housing and the level of development and accessibility of social infrastructure. Also, to take into account the European experience of studying the living conditions of the population at the local level, for subjective assessments of satisfaction with life of the local population in the settlement, a particular section is introduced in the system of indicators. The focus of this article is on the subjective component, namely the ability to measure life satisfaction in the community and ways to use such subjective assessments within the system of indicators of living conditions at the local level. Satisfaction with life in the settlement is defi ned as an individual’s assessment of quality of own life according to a criterion chosen in a certain way. Several approaches to measuring life satisfaction in the settlement are introduced: approaches in which satisfaction with life is measured on the basis of one indicator, and approaches in which several indicators are used. If satisfaction with life is measured by one direct question, it is one indicator, but in the case of several statements that the respondent evaluates on a certain scale, each statement is a separate indicator. In the further analysis of the collected data such indicators can be analyzed separately or simultaneously by building a general index. Based on the interpretation of the concept of “living conditions”, this article identifi es three objectives for a system of indicators of living conditions of united territorial communities (UTC): monitoring of living conditions, identifying key problems for UTC and comparing diff erent UTCs on the basis of living conditions of the local population. For the fi rst and third objectives, among the possible sources of information, data from registers are offered, and for the second purpose we off er expert surveys, focus group discussions, open group discussions. The problems of data representation are also discussed in this article. Despite the data being quite fragmented, the format of their presentation should be easy for users (both local authorities and community activists and the media). One possible way to present such data is the format used within methodology of citizen report cards.

References:

1. Cherenko, L. М. (Eds.) (2006). Riven zhyttia naselennia Ukrainy [The standard of living of the population of Ukraine]. NAN Ukraine. Ptoukha Institute for Demography and Social Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. Kyiv: Konsultant. Retrieved from https://idss.org.ua/monografi i/riven_juttya_ naselennya%20krainu.pdf [in Ukrainian].
2. Sotsialni indykatory rivnia zhyttia naselennia Ukrainy. Statystychnyi zbirnyk [Social indicators of living standards of the population of Ukraine. Statistical collection]. (2018). Kyiv: State Statistics Committee of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].
3. Libanova, Е. М., Gladun, О. М. … & Lisohor, L. S. (2013). Vymiriuvannia yakosti zhyttia v Ukraini. Analitychna dopovid [Measuring the quality of life in Ukraine. Analytical report]. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
4. Quality of life in cities. Perception survey in 79 European cities. (2013). Luxembourg: Publications offi ce of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2776/79403
5. Urban Europe Statistics On Cities, Towns And Suburbs. (2016). Luxembourg: Publications offi ce of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2785/91120
6. The State Of Canada’s Cities And Communities. (2012). Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Retrieved from https://suma.org/img/uploads/documents/FCM%202012%20 State% 20of%20Cities%20and%20Communities.pdf
7. Urban Audit. Methodological Handbook. (2004). Luxembourg: Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/ statmanuals/fi les/KS-BD-04-002-EN.pdf
8. Regions at a Glance. (2013). OECD. retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/ reg_glance-2013-en.pdf?expires=1604570142&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=EA9 1910A605F108551E8EA4E726DE283
9. Regional Well-being: a user’s guide. (2018). OECD. Retrieved from https://www. oecdregionalwellbeing.org/assets/downloads/Regional-Well-Being-User-Guide.pdf
10. Andreoli, F., & Michelangeli, A. (2015). Welfare measures to assessurban quality of life. Retrieved from http://www.ecineq.org/ecineq_lux15/FILESx2015/CR2/p150.pdf
11. Local quality of life counts. A handbook for a menu of local indicators of sustainable devel opment. (2000). Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. London. Retrieved from http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Measuring_Progress_and_Eco_ Footprinting/ Local%20Quality%20of%20Life%20Counts.pdf
12. Diener, E. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assesment, 49, 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
13. Khutka, S. V. (2007). Problema vymiriuvannia rivnia sotsialnoi adaptovanosti osobystosti: vyznachennia kliuchovoho indykatora [The problem of measuring the level of social adaptability of the individual: the defi nition of a key indicator]. Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. Sotsiolohichni nauky — Scientifi c notes of NaUKMA. Sociological sciences, 70, 27-33 [in Ukrainian].
14. Levinson, А. (2007). Otkrytye gruppovye diskussii kak metod prikladnyh sociologicheskih issledovanij [Open group discussions as a method of applied sociological research]. Vestnik obshhestvennogo mnenija. Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii — Bulletin of public opinion. Data. Analysis. Discussions, 6, 45-54. Retrieved from http://ecsocman.hse.ru/ data/2011/01/14/1214868123/6.PDF [in Russian].
15. Methodological manual on city statistics. (2017). Luxembourg: Publications Offi ce of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2785/708009
16. Citizen report card surveys - A note on the concept and methodology (2004). Social Development Notes. Participation and Civil Engagement, 91. The World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/11277/286010CRC0SD0 note 09101public1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
17. Lakshmisha, A. (2018). Citizen Report Card - A powerful social audit tool. Retrieved from https://www.civilsocietyacademy.org/single-post/citizen-report-card
18. Ogay, М. Yu. (2010). Metodolohiia kartok hromadskoho zvituvannia yak instrument otsiniuvannia yakosti munitsypalnykh posluh [Methodology of public reporting cards as a tool for assessing the quality of municipal services]. Statystyka Ukrainy - Statistics of Ukraine, 2, 14-18. Retrieved from http://194.44.12.92:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/ 685/1/14-18_2%272010%2849%29_Ogay.pdf [in Ukrainian].