Next Article in Journal
Using Social Media to Monitor Conflict-Related Migration: A Review of Implications for A.I. Forecasting
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of COVID-19 on Health and Well-Being: Foreign Medical Students in Eastern Europe
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/socsci11090394
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perception of Community Environment, Satisfaction with Local Government, and Quality of Life: The Case of Gyeonggi, Korea

by
Kyung-Young Lee
1 and
Kwantae Park
2,*
1
SOE Research Center, Korea Institute of Public Finance (KIPF), Sejong 30121, Korea
2
Graduate School of Governance, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul 03063, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11(9), 394; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090394
Submission received: 27 June 2022 / Revised: 29 August 2022 / Accepted: 30 August 2022 / Published: 1 September 2022
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examined the relationship between the perception of community environment, local government, and quality of life (QoL). Previous studies on QoL have not comprehensively analyzed factors related to community environments or local governments. Consequently, this study examined the influence of the perception of community environment on QoL and simultaneously analyzed the mediating effect of satisfaction with local government. Furthermore, this study divided the community environment into facility, safety, medical, and social environments, which enables comparisons to be made between the influences of each factor. This study analyzed the “2020 Residents’ Quality of Life Survey in Gyeonggi, Korea”. The survey included all 31 districts in Gyeonggi Province, and the total number of samples was 16,000. Moreover, a multilevel stratified sampling method was applied on the basis of the 31 districts and the number of households. Thus, the survey properly reflects the regional characteristics of Gyeonggi Province. The analysis results were as follow: First, perception of community environment had a positive influence on QoL. In particular, the safety environment had the greatest effect on QoL. Therefore, it is necessary to focus more on improving the safety environment in the community. Second, satisfaction with local government had a mediating effect between facility environment, medical environment, social environment, and QoL. This means that satisfaction with local government is an important factor in increasing residents’ QoL. Presently, developing countries such as China, the Philippines, and Myanmar are still pursuing “rapid urbanization” while focusing only on quantitative development. However, this can generate various problems regarding social sustainability. Thus, this study provides important implications for these developing countries.

1. Introduction

The paradigm of urban management has been changing gradually. Previously, economic indicators, such as the employment rate and gross regional domestic product, were important. Nevertheless, currently, qualitative indicators, such as residents’ quality of life (QoL) and community revitalization, are attracting attention (Song and Yim 2015). Major cities in Korea have achieved remarkable results in terms of quantity; however, many problems have arisen in terms of quality, such as residents’ indifference to local issues and poor QoL. In particular, QoL is a representative indicator of qualitative urban development (K.-Y. Lee 2020). Nonetheless, it has been reported that QoL for Koreans is low. For example, according to the “Better Life Index 2020” released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Koreans’ QoL ranks 29th out of the 35 countries surveyed (OECD 2020). Specifically, Australia, which has the highest score among the surveyed countries, scored 8.4 points (on a 10-point scale), and the overall average of OECD countries was 6.02 points. However, Korea scored 4.69 points. Recently, as daily life has been transformed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, subjective measures of QoL have been lowered further. Thus, local governments need to engage in policy efforts to improve residents’ QoL.
QoL measures are widely used on a daily basis, but no clear conceptual agreement has been reached. The majority of the studies on QoL have been conducted for practical purposes without strict concept definition (Song and Kwen 2008). Conversely, various factors can affect QoL, but the majority of the previous studies have focused on examining its causal relationship with economic factors, such as monthly income (Stevenson and Wolfers 2013). This occurs because one’s economic level has long been recognized as an indicator of QoL. On the other hand, residents primarily want to meet their needs within their residential areas (Lee et al. 2004; K.-Y. Lee 2021). Thus, the community environment can significantly influence QoL. Therefore, empirical verification is necessary to determine the causal relationship between the community environment and QoL. The community environment refers to the surrounding environmental conditions of the residential area, and it is an important factor which is encountered daily (Özkan and Yilmaz 2019). Currently, the community environment can be viewed as being composed of several components. According to previous studies, it can be largely divided into its spatial and relational aspects (Bae and Park 2016; Özkan and Yilmaz 2019). The former may include facility environments, safety environments, and medical environments as physical features in the community, and the latter may consider a social environment on the basis of neighborhood relations. Moreover, the present study measured the community environment through subjective perceptions because the satisfaction level of residents with individual environmental factors is relative.
Community living conditions that influence the lives of residents depend on the efforts of local governments (Abdullah and Kalianan 2008; Hansen 2015; Suk 2012). For example, residents’ QoL may vary depending upon where local governments invest their budgets and manpower. This suggests that it is essential to include local governmental factors in relation to QoL. Nevertheless, previous studies dealing with local governmental factors are relatively insufficient. Hence, the present study included satisfaction with local government. Meanwhile, residents’ evaluations of local governments can be divided into administrative and political aspects (Cho and Lee 2021; Kang 2018). The administrative aspect refers to satisfaction with public services provided by the local government, and the political aspect corresponds to the emotional trust of residents in the local government. Therefore, in the present study, both aspects have been considered when measuring levels of satisfaction with local government. Additionally, as shown by previous studies, satisfaction with local government has a direct effect on QoL; simultaneously, it is used as a dependent variable that is affected by the perception of the community environment (Choi 2016; Ko 2018; Ott 2011; Sirgy et al. 2008; Swindell and Kelly 2000). This means that satisfaction with local government can be used as a mediator between the perception of the community environment and QoL.
To fill the gap left by previous studies, the following research questions were raised in the present study. First, how does the perception of community environment affect residents’ QoL? Second, does satisfaction with local government have a significant mediating effect between the perception of community environment and QoL? Specifically, this study divided each community environment into facility environment, safety environment, medical environment, and social environment. Additionally, hypothesis verification was conducted through the mediating effect analysis recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). Ultimately, the purpose of this study is to provide policy implications for improving residents’ QoL by comprehensively verifying the relationships between perception of community environment, satisfaction with local government, and QoL.
Meanwhile, Korea has achieved remarkable economic growth through rapid urbanization (Kim and Han 2012). Nevertheless, the economic situation in Korea has continued to slow since the mid-1980s. Consequently, Korea, similar to other developed countries, has entered a “low-growth” era (Cho 2011; Song and Yim 2015). Since the 2000s, interest in the qualitative growth of cities for social sustainability has increased in Western academia (Friedmann 2000; Kelly et al. 2012). Korea is also attempting to change by suggesting the improvement of residents’ QoL as the ultimate purpose of recent urban policy. However, developing countries, such as China, the Philippines, and Myanmar, are still pursuing “rapid urbanization” while focusing only on quantitative development, as Korea did in the past (Aung et al. 2022; Kumar et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2021). Nevertheless, this can cause many problems regarding qualitative growth, and it does not facilitate social sustainability. Thus, the present study provides important policy implications for these countries by analyzing Korea, which is focused on qualitative growth, as an example.
Based on the above discussion, this study first reviewed the theoretical framework of the relationship between variables, such as QoL, perception of community environment, and satisfaction with local government. Next, data from the “2020 Residents’ Quality of Life Survey in Gyeonggi Province” were analyzed so as to test the hypotheses. This study confirmed the effect of the community environment on residents’ QoL and the mediating effect of satisfaction with local government through this analysis. Finally, this study suggests policy implications for improving residents’ QoL based on these discussions.

2. Theoretical Framework

This study considered the perception of community environment as a primary factor influencing QoL. Specifically, the effect of the perception of community environment on QoL was examined, and we determined whether satisfaction with local government had a significant mediating effect between the two variables.

2.1. Effect of Perception of Community Environment on QoL

The OECD explained that both the physical environment and the social environment based on neighborhood relations are essential in evaluating the community environment (OECD 2013). Additionally, the World Health Organization (WHO) has presented convenience, health, and safety as important criteria for evaluating the quality of the community environment (WHO 1961). Hence, this study consisted of subelements, such as facility environment, safety environment, medical environment, and social environment. Furthermore, previous studies have shown that these factors have a positive effect on QoL.
First, it was found that residents’ QoL increased when various convenience facilities were located in their community. For example, De Vos and Witlox (2017) verified that satisfaction with commercial facilities, such as marts and department stores, affected QoL positively. Next, safety encompasses the possibility of accidents caused by fire and traffic accidents, facility risks, and natural disasters. Moreover, related studies have highlighted the relationship between safer communities and higher QoL in residents (Sirgy et al. 2008; Martínez et al. 2015). Additionally, sufficient medical systems in the community have been found to be positive influencing factors in improving residents’ QoL. Grigorieva and Sukhoveeva (2020) explained that the medical environment has a high correlation with residents’ QoL. Finally, the social environment is based on relationships between neighbors, and in several studies, neighborhood satisfaction has been identified as an important factor influencing QoL (Boessen et al. 2017).
In addition, Korean studies have also verified that the perception of community environment has a positive effect on improving QoL. For example, Lee and Yoo (2014) highlighted the relationship between higher accessibility to green parks in the community and a higher QoL of residents. Additionally, Kang and Cha (2018) explained that satisfaction with medical services has a positive effect on QoL. Finally, Kim (2020) emphasized that social capital based on neighborhood relations can positively affect subjective QoL. Thus, this study suggested the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Perception of community environmental factors of (a) facility environment, (b) safety environment, (c) medical environment, and (d) social environment has a positive effect on residents’ QoL.

2.2. Mediating Effect of Satisfaction with Local Government

Residents’ evaluations of local governments can be divided into administrative and political aspects. More specifically, in terms of administration, the evaluation of local governments is closely related to the public services provided by local governments (Brown 2007). For example, evaluations of a local government may vary based on the satisfaction level of residents with police services, transportation facilities, and convenience facilities. On the other hand, “trust in local governments” refers to residents’ emotional evaluations of local governments (Miller 1974). Because this is normative, the evaluation of a local government can be positive if a resident believes that the local government is operating well and in the direction that a resident expects. Several studies have included both of these aspects of local government evaluation (Kang 2018; K.-Y. Lee 2021). The current study measured satisfaction with local government in consideration of both administrative and political aspects.
Meanwhile, based on previous studies, it can be expected that satisfaction with local government can act as a mediator between the perception of community environment and QoL. For example, the higher the level of satisfaction with the community environment, the higher the level of satisfaction with local government, which further positively affects residents’ QoL.
This is based on the bottom-up spillover theory, which states that various subcomponents in the community affect the evaluation of local governments and can ultimately improve residents’ QoL (Sirgy et al. 2008).
More specifically, local governments provide public services that reflect residents’ needs and are closely related to residents’ daily lives. Therefore, the satisfaction level with environmental factors in the community can be inferred to have a significant influence on the level of satisfaction with local government. Likewise, considering that local government activities are aimed at meeting the needs of residents, satisfaction with local government will be highly related to residents’ QoL.
In empirical studies, satisfaction with local government was found to be a dependent variable influenced by the perception of the community environment and an independent variable that affects QoL (Choi 2016; Ko 2018; Ott 2011; Sirgy et al. 2008; Swindell and Kelly 2000). If each of these relationships is statistically significant, satisfaction with local government will have a mediating effect between the perception of community environment and QoL. A detailed discussion of these relationship follows.
First, we are addressing the relationship between the perception of the community environment and satisfaction with local government. In several studies, residents’ evaluations of various factors of the community environment have been verified as having a positive effect on local government activities. For example, Swindell and Kelly (2000) verified that various factors in the community (i.e., the police environment and the emergency medical system) have a high correlation with satisfaction with local government. Additionally, Choi (2016) has explained that the better the neighborhood relationship, the better social capital is established, and this can have a positive effect on satisfaction with local government.
Second, several studies have shown a causal relationship between satisfaction with local government and QoL (Ko 2018; Ott 2011; Sirgy et al. 2008). That is, satisfaction with local government is considered an important factor in QoL. Specifically, it has been found that residents’ perceptions of public values, such as the effectiveness of government activities and government reliability, were closely related to life satisfaction and happiness (Ott 2011). Similarly, Ko (2018) has explained that satisfaction with the public services provided by the local government positively affects subjective QoL. Consequently, the following hypothesis was formulated, and the research model of the present study is shown in Figure 1.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Satisfaction with local government will mediate the relationship between perception of community environment in terms of (a) facility environment, (b) safety environment, (c) medical environment, and (d) social environment and QoL.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area and Data

This study targeted Gyeonggi Province, Korea. Gyeonggi Province is included in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, along with Seoul and Incheon. Moreover, Gyeonggi Province consists of 31 autonomous districts. As of 2021, the population in Gyeonggi Province was 13,925,862, and it is therefore the largest province in Korea (Gyeonggi Province Website 2021). Consequently, Gyeonggi Province is the most suitable area for understanding the Korean situation. Additionally, Gyeonggi Province suggests a “good area to live through improvement of community environment” as one of its major policy tasks (Jungbu-Ilbo 2022).
The present study analyzed data from the “2020 Residents’ Quality of Life Survey in Gyeonggi Province”. The survey was conducted from 22 September to 15 November 2020 by the Gyeonggi Research Institute. Its purpose was to understand the lifestyle of the residents. Additionally, when designing samples, a multilevel stratified sampling method was applied on the basis of the 31 districts and the number of households (Ryu 2021). Thus, the representativeness of the sample is appropriate. Meanwhile, the survey is largely divided into a household survey and a personal survey. There are several differences in the survey questions between the two surveys. The present study analyzed the perception of community environment and QoL as major variables; thus, the satisfaction with facilities and monthly household income included in the household survey are important (Ryu 2021). Therefore, this study analyzed 16,000 household survey respondents.
Table 1 shows the specific sample characteristics. Respondents included 6595 males (41.2%) and 9405 females (58.8%), and the age group of 60+ years was the most sampled with 6099 (38.1%) respondents. The average monthly household income was 5498 (34.4%), with the greatest number of households falling within the KRW 2 million–KRW 4 million range. Finally, 11,477 (71.7%) of the total respondents were homeowners.

3.2. Measures

A detailed analysis of the variables of this study follows. First, regarding QoL, various terms, such as “life satisfaction”, “happiness”, and “subjective well-being” have been used (K.-Y. Lee 2020). Among them, life satisfaction is the representative measurement tool most commonly utilized by many studies (OECD 2020; Sirgy et al. 2008; Veenhoven 2012). Similarly, the “2020 Residents’ Quality of Life Survey in Gyeonggi Province” measured QoL using “overall life satisfaction” on a 10-point Likert scale.
Next, the present study is based on the residents’ subjective perceptions on the community environment. Of course, it may be more accurate to analyze this using objective data, such as the number of commercial facilities or green parks in the community. However, perceptions of community environment are relative. For example, some residents evaluate the accessibility as “good” if a green park in the community is located within a 10-minute walk, but others consider that a 10-minute walk is too far. Thus, subjective perception is important (K.-Y. Lee 2021). Specifically, this study consisted of subcomponents, such as facility environment, safety environment, medical environment, and social environment, based on OECD (2013) and WHO (1961) standards, all of which were measured on a four-point Likert scale of very dissatisfied (1), dissatisfied (2), satisfied (3), and very satisfied (4). First, the facility environment was measured by a single question of whether one was satisfied with the community facilities, such as commercial facilities, public institutions, cultural facilities, welfare facilities, and green parks. Second, the safety environment, medical environment, and social environment were measured using multiple questions. The safety environment incorporated the safety level related to violent crimes, fire accidents, infectious diseases, industrial accidents, traffic accidents, and natural disasters. Additionally, the medical environment was measured by the sufficiency of medical services, emergency medical services, and infectious-disease management services. The social environment consisted of receiving assistance from neighbors, helping neighbors, and trusting in neighbors. Additionally, previous studies utilized the degree of interaction and trust between neighbors when measuring neighbor satisfaction (Kamalipour et al. 2012; Özkan and Yilmaz 2019).
Finally, satisfaction with local government was measured at the level of administrative satisfaction with local government and trust in local government based on previous studies (Kang 2018; K.-Y. Lee 2021).

3.3. Analytic Method

The analysis was conducted according to the following procedure using SPSS v. 23.0. First, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability analysis were performed on the factors measured via multiple questions to verify the internal validity (Lee and Lim 2017). Second, the present study confirmed the mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficient through descriptive and correlation analysis. Finally, a mediating effect analysis, as recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986), was conducted to verify the hypotheses. Gender, age, monthly household income, and housing tenure, which were found to have an important effect on the QoL, were included in all of the steps as control variables (Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2017; Mouratidis 2020; Sirgy et al. 2008). Gender and housing tenure were input as nominal variables, while age and monthly household income were input as continuous variables.
Meanwhile, methods to verify the mediating effect included the Structural Equation Model (SEM) and mediating effect analysis as recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). However, SEM has limitations regarding the inclusion of nominal control variables in the model (Bae 2017; Woo 2015). Therefore, a mediating effect analysis was performed in this study. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), mediating effect analysis is carried out in three steps. First, the influence of the independent variables on the dependent variable in the first-stage regression analysis should be significant. Second, the influence of the independent variables on the mediator should be significant. Finally, at the step where the independent variables and the mediator are included simultaneously, the influence of the mediator on the dependent variable should be significant. In this case, the direct effect of Step 3 should be smaller than the total effect of Step 1 (I. H. Lee 2016).

4. Results

4.1. EFA and Reliability Analysis

The present study measured the safety environment, medical environment, social environment, and satisfaction with local government via multiple questions. Thus, the EFA and reliability analysis were conducted to verify the validity and the reliability. As a result, 3 factors for the perception of community environment were derived from a total of 12 items (Table 2), and 1 factor for satisfaction with local government was derived from 2 items (Table 3). Furthermore, the Cronbach α for all of the factors was found to be greater than 0.7, thus confirming the internal validity (Lee and Lim 2017).

4.2. Descriptive and Correlation Analyses

The present study conducted both descriptive and correlation analyses (Table 4). First, among the subcomponents of the community environment, the facility environment ranked the highest with 2.97 (on a 4-point scale). Conversely, the social environment ranked the lowest with 2.61. Second, satisfaction with local government ranked at 2.61 points, the same as satisfaction with the social environment, which ranked lowest among the community environmental factors. Finally, residents’ QoL ranked 6.35 (on a 10-point scale). We found a statistically significant, positive correlation between all factors with a confidence level of 99%.

4.3. Mediating Effect Analysis

The purpose of this study was to confirm the effect of the perception of the community environment on QoL and to verify the mediating effect of satisfaction with local government. This study applied a mediating effect analysis as recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986), and the results are shown in Table 5. First, Hypothesis 1 suggested that the perception of the community environment will have a positive effect on QoL. This was examined via Step 1. Consequently, it was verified that all subcomponents of the community environment had a positive effect on QoL. By making a comparison based on the standard coefficient, it was confirmed that the safety environment (β = 0.194) had the greatest influence.
Next, Hypothesis 2 suggested that satisfaction with local government will have a mediating effect between the perception of community environment and QoL. In the previous verification of Hypothesis 1, it was confirmed that all subcomponents had a significant effect on QoL. Then, while analyzing Step 2, it was found that the facility environment, medical environment, and social environment had a significant effect on satisfaction with local government. Conversely, the safety environment did not significantly affect satisfaction with local government. Finally, in Step 3, where the subcomponents of community environment and satisfaction with local government were simultaneously included, it was found that all factors had a significant effect on QoL.
Furthermore, this study used bootstrapping to assess the significance of an indirect effect by the mediator (Table 6). Bootstrapping is determined to be significant if the range of 95% CI does not include 0 (Preacher et al. 2007). Consequently, satisfaction with local government was found to be statistically significant. Additionally, in comparing the proportion of indirect effects among the total effects, the social environment was found to be the greatest at 31.6%. This suggests that the role of local governments in the relationship between the social environment and QoL can be relatively important.

4.4. Discussion

Our discussion of the main results is as follows: First, the perception of the community environment had a positive effect on QoL. For example, if convenience facilities, such as green parks, shops, and department stores, are located in a residential area, and this increases satisfaction with the community environment, residents’ QoL can be further improved. More specifically, we confirmed that the safety environment’s influence on QoL was relatively great among the subcomponents of the community environment, meaning that safety is a very important factor in residents’ QoL. In particular, safety is the primary index in evaluating the residential environment suggested by the WHO. Archibugi (2001) found that residents move to suburban cities when the safety environment of core cities is inadequate. Similarly, von Wirth et al. (2015) explained that residents’ dissatisfaction and stress can increase if the safety environment in their community is not well-established.
Second, satisfaction with local government had a significant mediating effect between the facility environment, medical environment, social environment, and QoL. This finding differs from those of previous studies in that it comprehensively analyzes the relationship between factors and partially determines that the path relationship of “perception of community environment → satisfaction with local government → QoL” is statistically significant. Based on these results, the influence of satisfaction with local government is potentially included in the effect of community environment perceptions on QoL. Hence, if the level of satisfaction with local government is high, the impact of the perception of community environment on QoL can be further increased. Additionally, when QoL is also low due to a low level of satisfaction with the community environment, satisfaction with local government can be treated as an alternative means. In particular, the mediating effect of satisfaction with local government between the social environment and QoL is greater.

5. Conclusions

This study conducted an analysis of residents’ QoL in relation to qualitative growth for social sustainability. More specifically, Gyeonggi Province, Korea, was selected as the study area, and data from the “2020 Residents’ Quality of Life Survey in Gyeonggi Province” were analyzed.
This study contributes to the academic field in regard to the following points. First, the importance of community environmental factors in relation to the increase in residents’ QoL was confirmed. In this study, the perception of the community environment had a significant effect on QoL although variables that could infer the economic level, such as monthly household income and housing tenure, were controlled. This result aligns with those of previous studies that suggest that residents’ perceptions of the community environment can have an important influence on QoL (Boessen et al. 2017; De Vos and Witlox 2017; Grigorieva and Sukhoveeva 2020; Kang and Cha 2018; Kim 2020; Lee and Yoo 2014; Martínez et al. 2015). Additionally, this study derived priorities between subcomponents of the community environment. This provides an important theoretical rationale for the more efficient execution of a limited budget. Specifically, the impact of the safety environment on residents’ QoL was the greatest. Therefore, in order to improve residents’ QoL, it is necessary to focus more on improving the safety environment in the community. For example, it is necessary to regularize inspections of old facilities that can cause safety accidents in the community and strengthen police activities to prevent crimes. Moreover, recent outbreaks of new infectious diseases, such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and COVID-19, have increased anxiety among residents. Consequently, it will be essential to establish a community-centered quarantine system to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.
Second, this study further specified the relationship between factors by setting satisfaction with local government as a mediator. If satisfaction with local government is ignored, it seems as though community environmental factors alone affect QoL. Nevertheless, when the mediator is considered, the effect is divided into direct and indirect effects (Hayes 2022). In other words, satisfaction with local government has an important effect on QoL in both direct and indirect aspects. Based on these discussions, satisfaction with local government is essential in increasing residents’ QoL. Thus, efforts to improve residents’ satisfaction with local government are required. For example, previous studies have highlighted that the expansion of communication between local governments and residents and resident participation have a positive effect on satisfaction with local government (Park 2014; Scott and Vitartas 2008). Therefore, it is necessary to continuously communicate with residents through various channels in regard to activities conducted by local governments. Additionally, it is important to consider how residents can participate in the governmental decision-making process.
Major cities in Korea are currently promoting urban-regeneration projects. The ultimate goal of urban regeneration is to improve residents’ QoL by addressing issues such as improving the residential environment and neighborhood relations. Considering this Korean context, the present study has a significant meaning.
Meanwhile, it is difficult for the market system to function effectively in countries with low levels of development. In these countries, the role of the government is relatively more important than the market in relation to the lives of the residents (Aung et al. 2022; Kumar et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2021). This study highlighted that satisfaction with local government had a significant effect on the increase in residents’ QoL. So, local governments should pay attention to residents’ demands for a better community environment and actively incorporate these demands into their policies. Furthermore, transparency and fairness should be improved in the process of implementing local governments’ policies. Local governments should improve their overall level of satisfaction and residents’ QoL as a result of this. The role of local governments role will be especially important in developing countries.
Finally, this study had several limitations. First, this study used data from the “2020 Residents’ Quality of Life Survey in Gyeonggi Province” for analysis. However, the survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the importance of the safety environment may have been temporarily highlighted. Second, this study used subjective indicators based on residents’ perceptions of the community environment. In the future, more diverse implications could be provided if research is conducted that considers objective indicators together. For example, variables, such as the number of medical institutions in the community, the number of marts and department stores, and the area of urban parks, could be considered. Third, only socioeconomic status variables, such as gender, age, monthly household income, and housing tenure, were used in this study. However, education level and job-type could also influence QoL, so these variables should be included in the analytical model.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.-Y.L.; methodology, K.-Y.L. and K.P.; formal analysis, K.-Y.L. and K.P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.-Y.L. and K.P.; writing—review and editing, K.-Y.L. and K.P.; funding acquisition, K.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the SungKyunKwan University and the BK21 FOUR (Graduate School Innovation) funded by the Ministry of Education (MOE, Korea) and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Restrictions apply to the availability of these data. Data were obtained from the Gyeonggi Research Institute and are available from the author with the permission of the Gyeonggi Research Institute.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editors and the reviewers for their constructive comments, which helped to improve the current paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdullah, Hazman Shah, and Maniam Kalianan. 2008. From customer satisfaction to citizen satisfaction: Rethinking local government service delivery in Malaysia. Asian Social Science 4: 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Archibugi, Franco. 2001. City effect and urban overload as program indicators of the regional policy. Social Indicators Research 54: 209–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aung, Ther, Pamela Jagger, Kay The Hlaing, Khin Khin Han, and Wakako Kobayashi. 2022. City Living but Still Energy Poor: Household Energy Transitions under Rapid Urbanization in Myanmar. Energy Research & Social Science 85: 102432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bae, Byung-Ryul. 2017. Structural Equation Modeling with Amos 24. Seoul: Chung-Nam Publishing Co. (In Korean) [Google Scholar]
  5. Bae, Eun Suk, and Hae-Keung Park. 2016. The Effect of Sense of Community on the Degree of Community Participation in Urban-Rural Complex Areas. Journal of Community Welfare 58: 173–99. (In Korean). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny. 1986. The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Boessen, Adam, John R. Hipp, Carter T. Butts, Nicholas N. Nagle, and Emily J. Smith. 2017. The Built Environment, Spatial Scale, and Social Networks: Do Land Uses Matter for Personal Network Structure? Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 45: 400–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brown, Trevor. 2007. Coercion versus Choice: Citizen Evaluation of Public Service Quality across Methods of Consumption. Public Administration Review 67: 559–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cho, Myung-rae. 2011. New Urban Policies in the Low Growth Era: A Better City, Happier Citizens. Gyeonggi: Hanul Publishing. (In Korean) [Google Scholar]
  10. Cho, Younghyun, and Kyung-Young Lee. 2021. Does Local Government Affect Community Satisfaction of the Younger Generation in Rural Areas? The Case of Jeonbuk, South Korea. Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research 9: 214–39. [Google Scholar]
  11. Choi, Yena. 2016. The study on Relationship between Social Capital and Trust in Local Government: Focusing on Moderating Effect of Communication between Citizens and Elected Institutions. Korean Journal of Local Government & Administration Studies 20: 69–88. (In Korean). [Google Scholar]
  12. De Vos, Jonas, and Frank Witlox. 2017. Travel Satisfaction Revisited. On the Pivotal Role of Travel Satisfaction in Conceptualising a Travel Behaviour Process. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 106: 364–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Friedmann, John. 2000. The Good City: In Defense of Utopian Thinking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24: 460–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Grigorieva, Elena A., and Anna B. Sukhoveeva. 2020. Quality of life, reproductive health and social security: Medical and social environment at the russian far east. Geography, Environment, Sustainability 13: 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gyeonggi Province Website. 2021. 2021 Population Census in Gyeonggi Province. Available online: https://stat.gg.go.kr/statgg/main.html (accessed on 8 March 2022). (In Korean)
  16. Hansen, Sune Welling. 2015. The Democratic Costs of Size: How Increasing Size Affects Citizen Satisfaction with Local Government. Political Studies 63: 373–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hayes, Andrew F. 2022. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jungbu-Ilbo. 2022. Lee’s Local Government Entered the Second Half of the 7th Term of the Popular Election. Available online: http://www.joongboo.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=363430201 (accessed on 10 March 2022). (In Korean).
  19. Kamalipour, Hesam, Yeganeh Armin Jeddi, and Alalhesabi Mehran. 2012. Predictors of Place Attachment in Urban Residential Environments: A Residential Complex Case Study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 35: 459–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kang, Hyejin. 2018. The Relationship between the Expectancy Disconfirmation for the Local Government Service and Residents’ Satisfaction: Focusing on the Moderating Effect of Trust in Government. Korea Public Administration Review 52: 67–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kang, Hyejin, and Se Yeong Cha. 2018. The Relationship between Citizen’s Satisfaction on the Health Service and the Quality of Life in Local Government-Focusing on the Moderating Effect of Age. Korean Society and Public Administration 29: 83–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kelly, Jane-Frances, Breadon Peter, Davis Caitrin, Hunter Amelie, Mares Peter, Mullerworth Daniel, Quinn Tom, and Widmann Ben. 2012. Social Cities. Carlton: Grattan Institute. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kim, Hye Yeon. 2020. Study on the Effects of Social Capital on Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Korean Social Welfare Administration 22: 41–68. (In Korean). [Google Scholar]
  24. Kim, Hyung Min, and Sun Sheng Han. 2012. City profile: Seoul. Cities 29: 142–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ko, Myeong Chul. 2018. The Effects of Public Service Satisfaction on Subjective Well-being: Focusing on the Moderated Mediation Effect of Community QoL by Trust in Local Government. The Korean Journal of Local Government Studies 22: 119–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kumar, Pankaj, Yoshifumi Masago, Mishra Binaya Kumar, and Fukushi Kensuke. 2018. Evaluating Future Stress due to Combined Effect of Climate Change and Rapid Urbanization for Pasig-Marikina River, Manila. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 6: 227–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lee, Haksic, and Ji Hoon Lim. 2017. SPSS 24 Manual. Seoul: JypHyunJae Publishing Co. (In Korean) [Google Scholar]
  28. Lee, Hee Chang, Hee-Bong Park, and Woo Il Jung. 2004. An analysis on the factors to affect the settlement consciousness of in habitants. The Korean Association for Policy Studies 13: 147–67. (In Korean). [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, Il Hyun. 2016. Easyflow Regression Analysis. Seoul: Hannarae Publishing Co. (In Korean) [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee, Kyung-Young. 2020. The Effect of Residential Environmental Satisfaction on Quality of Life and the Moderating Effect of Housing Type: The Case of Gyeonggi, Korea. Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research 8: 3–21. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lee, Kyung-Young. 2021. Relationship between Physical Environment Satisfaction, Neighborhood Satisfaction, and Quality of Life in Gyeonggi, Korea. Land 10: 663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lee, Won Bun, and Yong Sang Yoo. 2014. The Relationship between Walking Trail Users’ Satisfaction, Community Attachment and Trust in Local Government: A Case Importance-Performance Analysis. Korean Society of Sport and Leisure Studies 56: 499–513. (In Korean). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Martínez, Lina, John Short, and Marianella Ortíz. 2015. Citizen satisfaction with public goods and government services in the global urban south: A case study of Cali, Colombia. Habitat International 49: 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Miller, Arthur. H. 1974. Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964–1970. Amerian Political Science Review 68: 951–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Moreno-Jiménez, M. Pilar, Macarena Vallejo, and M. Luisa Ríos. 2017. Improving Quality of Life via Social Work: Influence of Residential and Community Variables on Life Satisfaction. International Social Work 60: 1564–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mouratidis, Kostas. 2020. Commute satisfaction, neighborhood satisfaction, and housing satisfaction as predictors of subjective well-being and indicators of urban livability. Travel Behaviour and Society 21: 265–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. OECD. 2013. OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-Being. OECD Better Life Initiative. Paris: OECD. [Google Scholar]
  38. OECD. 2020. How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-Being. OECD Better Life Initiative. Paris: OECD. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ott, Jane C. 2011. Government and Happiness in 130 Nations: Good Governance Fosters Higher Level and More Equality of Happiness. Social Indicators Research 102: 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Özkan, Doruk Görkem, and Serap Yilmaz. 2019. The effects of physical and social attributes of place on place attachment: A case study on Trabzon urban squares. Archnet-IJAR 13: 133–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Park, Jung Ho. 2014. The Effects of Governments Information-Providing on Trust in Government and Service Satisfaction: Seoul Metropolitan Case. The Korean Journal of Local Government Studies 18: 291–313. (In Korean). [Google Scholar]
  42. Preacher, Kristopher J., Dereck D. Rucker, and Andrew F. Hayes. 2007. Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research 42: 185–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ryu, Jung Kyun. 2021. The 2020 Quality of Life Survey of the Residents of Gyeonggi Province. Gyeonggi: Gyeonggi Research Institute. (In Korean) [Google Scholar]
  44. Sirgy, M. Joseph, Tao Gao, and Robert F. Young. 2008. How does residents’ satisfaction with community services influence quality of life (QOL) outcomes? Applied Research in Quality of Life 3: 81–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Scott, Don, and Peter Vitartas. 2008. The Role of Involvement and Attachment in Satisfaction with Local Government Services. International Journal of Public Sector Management 21: 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Song, Keon Sup, and Yong-Hyun Kwen. 2008. A Study on Quality of Life’s Determinants of Metropolitan Areas. Journal of Local Government Studies 20: 87–107. (In Korean). [Google Scholar]
  47. Song, Ju Youn, and Seok Hoi Yim. 2015. Theoretical Exploration of Social Sustainability for the Qualitative Development of Cities. Journal of the Korean Geographical Society 50: 677–94. (In Korean). [Google Scholar]
  48. Stevenson, Betsey, and Justin Wolfers. 2013. Subjective Well-Being and Income: Is There any Evidence of Satiation? American Economic Review 103: 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Suk, Ho Won. 2012. Do the Elderly People Vote with Their Feet?: An Empirical Test of Tiebouts Mechanism. The Korea Local Administration Review 26: 273–311. (In Korean). [Google Scholar]
  50. Swindell, David, and Janet M. Kelly. 2000. Linking Citizen Satisfaction Data to Performance Measures: A Preliminary Evaluation. Public Performance & Management Review 24: 30–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Veenhoven, Ruut. 2012. Happiness: Also Known as “Life Satisfaction” and “Subjective Well-being”. In Handbook of Social Indicators and Quality of Life Research. Edited by Kenneth C. Land, Alex C. Michalos and M. Joseph Sirgy. New York: Springer Publishing, pp. 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. von Wirth, Timo, Adrienne Grêt-Regamey, and Michael Stauffacher. 2015. Mediating Effects between Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life: Testing Specific Models for Safety and Access. Social Indicators Research 122: 189–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. WHO. 1961. Expert Committee on the Public Health Aspects of Housing [Meeting Held in Geneva from 19 to 26 June 1961]: First Report. Geneva: World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  54. Woo, Jong-Pil. 2015. Concepts and Understanding of Structural Equation Model: Amos 4.0~20.0. Seoul: Hannarae Publishing Co. (In Korean) [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhang, Xiaoyue, Lei Chen, and Zhenyao Shen. 2021. Impacts of Rapid Urbanization on Characteristics, Sources and Variation of Fecal Coliform at Watershed Scale. Journal of Environmental Management 286: 112195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Socsci 11 00394 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Socsci 11 00394 g001
Table
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Totaln%
16,000100.0
Sex
Male659541.2
Female940558.8
Age
30s and below259216.2
40s301518.8
50s429426.8
60s and above609938.1
Monthly household income (KRW)
Less than KRW 2 million356622.3
KRW 2–4 million549834.4
KRW 4–6 million464429.0
More than KRW 6 million229214.3
Housing tenure
Homeowners11,47771.7
Renters452328.3
Table
Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis: Perceptions of community environment.
Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis: Perceptions of community environment.
CategoryMeasurementsFactor
Loading		Eigenvalue/
Cronbach α
Safety environmentSafety level of violent crimes0.7662.910/0.786
Safety level of fire accidents0.749
Safety level of infectious diseases (i.e., MERS and COVID-19)0.697
Safety level of industrial accidents0.694
Safety level of traffic accidents0.650
Safety level of natural disasters (i.e., floods and typhoons)0.556
Medical environmentSufficiency of medical services0.8202.017/0.702
Sufficiency of emergency medical services0.743
Sufficiency of infectious-disease management services0.782
Social environmentDegree of obtaining help from neighbors0.8701.925/0.749
Degree of helping neighbors0.864
Degree of trust in neighbors0.686
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin = 0.781; Bartlett’s sphericity test = 0.000.
Table
Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis: Satisfaction with local government.
Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis: Satisfaction with local government.
CategoryMeasurementsFactor
Loading		Eigenvalue/
Cronbach α
Satisfaction with local governmentLevel of trust in local government0.9241.708/0.829
Level of administrative satisfaction with local government0.924
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin = 0.500; Bartlett’s sphericity test = 0.000.
Table
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlations between factors.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlations between factors.
FactorsMeanStd. Dev.123456
1Facility environment2.97±0.5731
2Safety environment2.68±0.5470.064 **1
3Medical environment2.72±0.5620.284 **0.235 **1
4Social environment2.61±0.6030.043 **0.178 **0.148 **1
5Satisfaction with local government2.61±0.6490.096 **0.088 **0.184 **0.297 **1
6QoL6.35±1.2760.155 **0.250 **0.216 **0.160 **0.206 **1
** p < 0.01. QoL: 10-point scale; Others: 4-point scale.
Table
Table 5. Mediating effect analysis.
Table 5. Mediating effect analysis.
Step 1
(DV: QoL)		Step 2
(DV: Satisfaction with Local Government)		Step 3
(DV: QoL)
B (S.E.)ΒB (S.E.)βB (S.E.)β
(Constant)3.087 (0.087) 1.163 (0.046) 2.771 (0.088)
Sex (ref. male)0.096 (0.019)0.037 **0.050 (0.010)0.038 **0.082 (0.019)0.032 **
Age−0.009 (0.001)−0.095 **0.000 (0.000)0.009−0.009 (0.001)−0.096 **
Monthly household income0.049 (0.002)0.160 **0.001 (0.001)0.0080.048 (0.002)0.159 **
Housing tenure (ref. renters)0.226 (0.023)0.080 **0.021 (0.012)0.0150.220 (0.023)0.078 **
Facility environment0.184 (0.017)0.083 **0.053 (0.009)0.047 **0.169 (0.017)0.076 **
Safety environment0.451 (0.018)0.194 **0.004 (0.009)0.0030.450 (0.018)0.193 **
Medical environment0.238 (0.018)0.105 **0.146 (0.009)0.127 **0.198 (0.018)0.088 **
Social environment0.250 (0.016)0.118 **0.289 (0.008)0.269 **0.171 (0.017)0.081 **
Satisfaction with local government––––0.272 (0.015)0.138 **
n16,00016,00016,000
F362.043 **252.105 **364.628 **
R20.1530.1120.170
** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 6. Test of statistical significance for indirect effect.
Table 6. Test of statistical significance for indirect effect.
Bootstrap
PathTotal EffectDirect EffectIndirect Effect SizeS.E.LL 95% CIUL 95% CI
F.E. → (L.S.) → QoL0.1840.1690.0150.0030.0090.020Sig.
M.E. → (L.S.) → QoL0.2380.1980.0400.0040.0330.047Sig.
S.E. → (L.S.) → QoL0.2500.1710.0790.0050.0680.088Sig.
F.E.: facility environment; M.E.: medical environment; S.E.: social environment; L.S.: satisfaction with local government.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, K.-Y.; Park, K. Perception of Community Environment, Satisfaction with Local Government, and Quality of Life: The Case of Gyeonggi, Korea. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090394

AMA Style

Lee K-Y, Park K. Perception of Community Environment, Satisfaction with Local Government, and Quality of Life: The Case of Gyeonggi, Korea. Social Sciences. 2022; 11(9):394. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090394

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Kyung-Young, and Kwantae Park. 2022. "Perception of Community Environment, Satisfaction with Local Government, and Quality of Life: The Case of Gyeonggi, Korea" Social Sciences 11, no. 9: 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090394

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop