Penilaian Makna Kualiti Hidup dan Aplikasinya dalam Bidang Pengurusan Persekitaran di Malaysia (Reassessing the Meaning of Quality of Life and Its Application in Environmental Management Discipline in Malaysia)
Abstract
Reassessing the meaning of urban quality of life in Malaysia is part of the contribution to the environmental management discipline. Most operational definitions for quality of life are based on number of facilities or infrastructures avalaible in urban areas. These assume that increasing the number of facilities will increase the quality of life. This article argues that quality of life do not have a static definition, even for the same environment. The meaning of quality of life is argued to be defined by experiences of the people and their environment. This resulted in a negotiated meaning for quality of life. An empirical study was conducted in Seremban to evaluate the quality of life of urban dwellers based on three main components; public readiness, urban environment and urban accessibility. A total of 550 respondents were, selected based on types of houses; high cost, medium cost and low cost residential, village houses and squatter areas that represent the diversity of social economic status in Seremban. From these quality of life aspects, the research shows that the strength of Seremban lies in its people based on the high score in the self- readiness component compared to the urban environment and urban accessibility components. Quality of life among urban dwellers is found to be homogeneous even for different socio-economic backgrounds. The negotiated meaning of urban quality of life in this research is then applied to environmental management needs for urban development in Malaysia.
ABSTRAK
Penilaian semula makna kualiti hidup penduduk bandar di Malaysia merupakan satu sumbangan terhadap bidang pengurusan persekitaran di Malaysia. Kebanyakan definisi kendalian kualiti hidup kini lebih kepada penjumlahan kemudahan infrastruktur dalam persekitaran bandar. Oleh yang demikian, jika diandaikan bahawa jika baik kemudahan yang disediakan, maka kualiti hidup juga turut baik walaupun hakikatnya perkara sedemikian merupakan satu andaian sahaja. Artikel ini cuba untuk menghujahkan bahawa kualiti hidup tidak mempunyai makna yang statik, walaupun dalam persekitaran yang sama. Makna kualiti hidup didefinisi oleh pengalaman penduduk disamping apa yang disediakan oleh persekitaran. Hal ini membentuk suatu ‘negotiated meaning’ untuk kualiti hidup. Kajian secara empirikal dilakukan di bandar Seremban bagi mendapatkan status kualiti hidup masyarakat berasaskan kepada tiga komponen utama iaitu kesediaan penduduk, persekitaran bandar dan akses bandar. Seramai 550 responden telah dikajiselidik berasaskan jenis rumah yang berbeza, iaitu rumah kos tinggi, kos sederhana, kos rendah, rumah kampung dan setinggan untuk mewakili kepelbagaian sosio ekonomi di kawasan kajian. Hasil kajian mendapati dalam aspek kualiti hidup, kekuatan bandar Seremban adalah pada penduduknya berasaskan kepada skor komponen kesediaan diri yang tinggi berbanding dengan komponen persekitaran dan akses bandar. Didapati juga status kualiti hidup masyarakat bandar bersifat seragam walaupun berasaskan kepada sosio ekonomi yang berbeza. Hasil yang diperolehi ini diinduksi secara lebih mendalam lagi bagi mendapatkan makna sebenar kualiti hidup masyarakat bandar untuk diaplikasikan ke dalam bidang pengurusan persekitaran di Malaysia.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Amir Hussin Baharuddin. 1989. Kaedah Kuantitatif: Suatu Pengenalan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Asmah Ahmad. 2005. Kualiti hidup dan pengurusan persekitaran di Malaysia. Prosiding Seminar Kebangsaan Pengurusan Persekitaran 2005. Program Pengurusan Persekitaran, Pusat Pengajian Siswazah, UKM. Hlm. 3-14.
Azahan Awang, Abdul Samad Hadi, Jamaluddin Md. Jahi, Asmah Ahmad & Abdul Hadi Harman Shah. 2006. Mendefinisi Semula Makna Kualiti Hidup dalam Konteks Ilmu Sosial. Malaysian Journal of Environmental Management. 7: 19-32.
Azahan Awang. 2006. Kualiti Hidup Masyarakat Bandar di Kawasan Majlis Perbandaran Seremban, Negeri Sembilan. Tesis Dr. Falsafah, Program Pengurusan Persekitaran, Pusat Pengajian Siswazah, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. (Tidak diterbitkan).
Azahan Awang. 2007. Kualiti Hidup dalam Konteks Persekitaran, Akses dan Kesediaan Diri Masyarakat Bandar di Malaysia. Bangi: Pusat Pengajian Siswazah.
Blair, P.J. 1998. Quality of Life and Economic Development Policy. Economic Development Review. 16(1): 50-54.
Brown, A.L. 2002. Increasing the Utility of Urban Environmental Quality Information. Landscape and Urban Planning. 992: 1-9.
Burc, U., Fusun, U. & Umit, G. 2001. A Multidimension Approach to Urban Quality of Life: The Case of Istanbul. European Journal of Operational Research. 130: 361- 374.
Busch, E.W. 1999. Stability and Change of Subjective Indicator of Urban Quality of Life in Switzerland. Dlm. Lim L.Y., Yuen B., Low C. (pnyt.). Urban Quality of Life: Critical Issues and Options. Hlm. 99-118. Singapore: NUS.
Carlsson, I., Frederiksen, S.O. & Gottfries, C.G. 2002. Quality of Life and Standard of Living in a Randomly Selected Group of Psychiatrically Disabled People in Sweden 2 Years After a Psychiatry Reform. Eur Psychiatry. 17: 179-187.
Cates, W.M. 1985. A Practical Guide to Educational Research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Cummins, R.J. 1999. A Psychometric Evaluation Of The Comprehensive Quality Of Life Scale. Dlm. Lim L.Y.,Yuen B., Low C. (pnyt.). Urban Quality of Life: Critical Issues and Options. Fifth edition. Hlm. 32-46. Singapore: NUS.
Dann, G. 1984. The Quality of Life in Barbados. London: Macmillan Publishers.
Foo Tuan Seik. 2000. Subjective Assessment of Urban Quality of Life in Singapura (1997-1998). Habitat International. 24: 31-49.
Henderson, V. 2002. Urban Primacy, External Costs, and Quality of Life. Resource and Energy Economic. 24: 95-106.
Hollander, A.E.M & Staatsen, B.A.M. 2002. Health, Environment and Quality of Life: An Epidemiological Perspective on Urban Development. Landscape and Urban Planning. 989: 1-10. IISD. 1997. City of Quality of Life Indicator. International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Inkeles, A & Diamond, L. 1980. Personal Development and National Development: A Cross-National Perspective. Dlm. Szalai, A. & Andrew, F.M. (ed.). The Quality of Life: Comparative Studies. Hlm. 73-110. London: Sage Studies in International Sociology.
Jamaluddin Md. Jahi. 1996. Impak Pembangunan Terhadap Alam Sekitar. Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (KPKT). 2001. Laporan Cadangan Dasar dan Strategi Pembasmian Setinggan di Malaysia. Pulau Pinang: Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Kuroda, T., Berk, R., Koizumi, A., Marans, R., Mizobashi, I., Ness, G., Niino, K., Rickwell, R. & Thomas, S. 1997. An International Symposium on Urban Metabolism: A Background Paper. Ann Arbor. Univesity of Michigan Global Change Projet.
Lauer, R.H. & Lauer, J.C. 2004. Social Problems and the Quality of Life. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Leitmann, J. 1999. Can City Quality of Life Indicator be Objective and Relevant? Toward a Tool for Sustaining Urban Development. Dlm. Lim L.Y., Yuen B., Low C. (ed.). Urban Quality of Life: Critical Issues and Options. Hlm. 47-62. Singapore: NUS.
Lim L.Y.,Yuen B., Low C. 1999. Quality of Life in City: Definition, Approaches and Research. Dlm. Lim L.Y.,Yuen B., Low C. (ed.). Urban Quality of Life: Critical Issues and Options. Hlm. 1-12. Singapura: NUS.
McMohan, S.K. 2002. The Development of Quality of Life Indicators: A Case Study from the City of Bristol, UK. Ecological Indicators. 2: 177-185.
Mellor, D.J., Cummins, R.A., Karlinski, E. & Storer, S. 2003. The Management of Subjective Quality of Life by Short-Stay Hospital Patients: An Exploratory Study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. Australia: BioMed Central Ltd.
Mendes, J.F.G. & Motizuki, W.S. 2001. Urban Quality of Life Evaluation Scenarios: The Case of Sao Carlos in Brazil. CTBUH Review, 1(2): 1-11.
MPS. 2001. Rancangan Struktur Majlis Perbandaran Seremban (pengubahan) 1998- 2020. Seremban: Majlis Perbandaran Seremban.
Murdie, R.A., Rhyne, D. & Bates, J. 1992. Modeling Quality of Life Indicator in Canada: A Feasibility Analysis. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Raphael, D., Renwick, R., Brown, I., Steinmentz, B., Sehdev, H. & Phillips, S. 2001. Making the Links between Community Structure and Individual Well-Being: Community Quality of Life in Riverdale, Toronto, Canada. Healthy and Place. 7: 179-196.
Rasmussen, O.E. 1999. Putting Quality of Life to the Test. Dlm. Lim L.Y.,Yuen B.,Low C. (ed. Urban Quality of Life: Critical Issues and Options. Hlm. 196-211. Singapore: NUS.
Seashore, S.E. 1978. Indicator of the Quality of Working Life. Dlm. Indicator of Environmental Quality and Quality of Life. Hlm. 9-31. Paris: UNESCO.
Solomon, E.S., Denosov, V., Hankiss, E., Mallmann, C.A. & Milbrath, L.W. 1980. UNESCO’s Policy-relevant Quality of Life Research Program. Dlm. Szalai, A. & Andrew, F.M. (ed). The Quality of Life: Comparative Studies. Hlm. 223-234. London: Sage Studies in International Sociology.
Thumboo, J., Kok, Y.F., Machin, D., Siew, P.C., Chang, H. S., Keng, H.L., Pao, H.F., Szu, T.T. & Mee, L.B. 2002. Quality of Life in an Urban Asian Population: The Impact of Ethnicity and Sosio-Economic Status. Social Science and Medicine. 11: 1-12.
Unit Perancang Ekonomi. 1999. Kualiti Hidup Malaysia 1999. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Perdana Menteri.
Unit Perancang Ekonomi. 2002. Kualiti Hidup Malaysia 2002. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Perdana Menteri.
Walmsley, D.J. 1988. Urban Living: The individual in the City. New York: Logman Scientitic & Technical.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
ISSN: 0126-5008
eISSN: 0126-8694