Residents' perception on quality of life in Selangor

Abstract

The term ‘quality of life’ is not used solely to describe physical features, but describes all types of relationships, including the dynamic and the reticular relationship that relates to physical and non-physical features. This research is set to provide a better understanding on how the quality of life will affect the development of a country or state. It also supports improvement in the following areas other than it helps to investigate the current level of quality of life in the study area. Other than that, as the quality of life involved many development sectors, it helps to improve the development of the state. It also offers knowledge of the quality of life to policymakers to improve their decisions. Plus, it adds to the existing knowledge about the subject and assists in further research on this topic. The research aim is to assess the perceptions on quality of life indicators in Selangor with the four (4) research objectives in total; (i) to identify the quality of life indicators that influence the well-being of local community, (ii) to assess perceptions of quality of life in Selangor, (iii) to analyse the relationship between socio-demographic and quality of life indicators, and (iv) to propose/ suggest strategies to improves the quality of life for local community. The research was carried out using the quantitative approach whereby the 500 questionnaires were distributed all over Selangor based on the number of distribution of respondents in each districts. The questionnaire focused on nine indicators of quality of life which derived from Malaysia Well-Being Index Report (2013). Additionally, the analysis of data used the method of Relatives Importance Index, descriptive analysis and Spearman’ Rho Coefficient. Thus, the highest five of RII rank were health and physical well-being, public safety, environment, social involvement and education. Meanwhile, the Spearman’Rho Coefficient resulted that most of the ordinal data does have significant relationship with the socio-demographic background of the respondents. Other than that, three (3) recommendations listed for the future studies.