Urban Quality of Life and Its Spatial Distribution in Addis Ababa: Kirkos Sub-City
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Urban Quality of Life and Its Spatial Distribution in Addis Ababa: Kirkos sub-city Elsa Sereke Tesfazghi March, 2009 Urban Quality of Life and Its Spatial Distribution In Addis Ababa: Kirkos sub-city By Elsa Sereke Tesfazghi Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, Specialisation: (Urban Planning and Management) Thesis Assessment Board Prof.Dr.Ir. M.F.A.M. van Maarseveen (Chairman) Dr. Karin Pfeffer (External Examiner) Dr. J.A. Martinez (First Supervisor) Drs J.J. Verplanke (Second Supervisor) INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION ENSCHEDE, THE NETHERLANDS Disclaimer This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation. All views and opinions expressed therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the institute. Dedicated to my late mother Tekea Gebru and my late sister Zufan Sereke Abstract Urban quality of life (QoL) is becoming the subject of urban research mainly in western and Asian countries. Such attention is due to an increasing awareness of the contribution of QoL studies in identifying problem areas and in monitoring urban planning policies. However, most studies are carried out at city or country level that commonly average out details at small scales. The result is that the variability of QoL at small scales is not well known. In addition, the relationship between subjective and objective QoL is not well known. In this study, the urban QoL in Kirkos sub-city of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, is measured and its spatial distribution is evaluated at the smallest administrative level (Kebele level) using subjective and objective measures. One of the motivations for this study is the presence of only very few QoL studies for cities of African countries. The study is based on a household survey in the sub-city and some secondary data. Statistical methods such as factor analysis and ANOVA are applied to establish and evaluate relations between some variables of QoL while coefficient of variation is applied to evaluate spatial variability. Geographic information system (GIS) is also applied to extract proximity information and visualize the spatial distribution of QoL. The results of this study reveal that the subjective quality of life (QoL) scores show large variation in the sub-city. Using a six-point Likert scale, about 4% of the respondents in the sub-city are ‘completely satisfied’ and 15% are ‘completely dissatisfied’. The remaining 81 % of the respondents expressed a feeling that ranges between the two extremes. In terms of the mean QoL score, most of the respondents in the sub-city expressed dissatisfaction. The QoL scores also show large variation from Kebele to Kebele and even within a specific Kebele indicating dissatisfaction in eight Kebeles and satisfaction in three Kebeles. The results reveal that the lower the QoL in the Kebele, the larger the variability of QoL within the Kebele. This indicates how aggregation at large scale can average out the variation of QoL at small scales. The comparison between the subjective and the objective QoL at Kebele level indicated a state of dissonance, adaptation, deprivation or well-being. Such results suggest that the two measures do not always indicate the same level of QoL. In general, the findings of this study indicate the presence of QoL variability at small scales and the importance of studying both the subjective and the objective QoL instead of any one of these separately. The findings and approaches of this study can be used in designing future urban QoL studies in the region. Keywords: Quality of life, Subjective quality of life, Objective quality of life, Addis Ababa, Kirkos sub-city i Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank the Almighty God for giving me the opportunity to study at ITC and to complete the thesis work. This thesis would not have been possible without God’s will and permission. I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisors, Dr. J.A. Martinez (first supervisor) and Drs J.J. Verplanke (second supervisor) for their critical comments and guidance from the inception till the finalization of the thesis. I must thank our programme directors Drs. E.J.M. Dopheide and Ms. M. Kuffer for their assistance during my study in UPM, ITC. I am very much grateful to Kirkos sub-city administrators for stirring all the administrators of the Kebeles to cooperate during data collection and for providing me with the necessary information. I also thank the Kebele administrators for their kind and fast cooperation in selecting data collectors and supervisors during the field work. My acknowledgement also goes to all the data collectors and data supervisors of this research. I especially thanks to Samuel, Biniam, Sara and Wegayehu for their hard work and cooperation during the field work. My acknowledgment also goes to all participants of the interview. I would also like to thank Ato Gebeyehu (Addis Ababa census office) and staffs of municipality for their kind help to provided me with archived data. To my boss, Markus Ischer, and all colleagues in Helvetas Ethiopia, for all your help and encouragement to make my dream real, I want to express my gratitude for all of you. I would like to thank all UPM (2007-2009) classmates for their friendship and encouragement. My acknowledgement goes particularly to Regina Muchai, your encouragement, friendship and fun was of great value in my stay in ITC. All my academic success is based on prayer, encouragement and support of my family. I am very much grateful to my father Ato Sereke and my sisters and brothers; Paulos, Azemera, Sara, Bethlehem and Gideon. Last but not least, I would like to give my special thanks to my beloved Alemseged for encouraging, commenting my work, loving and sharing all the difficulties with me. Enschede, March 2009 Elsa Sereke ii Table of contents 1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 1.1. Research Problem.....................................................................................................................2 1.2. Objectives of the Research.......................................................................................................2 1.3. Research Questions ..................................................................................................................3 1.4. Justification of the Study..........................................................................................................3 1.5. Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................4 2. Study Area Description and Domains of Life .....................................................................7 2.1. Study Area Description ............................................................................................................7 2.2. Domains of Life and Attributes................................................................................................9 2.3. Scope of the Research ............................................................................................................10 3. Review of Urban Quality of Life Studies..........................................................................11 3.1. Definition and Conceptual Models of Urban QoL.................................................................11 3.2. Measurement of Quality of Life.............................................................................................12 3.3. Domains of Life that Affect QoL...........................................................................................16 3.4. Quality of Life for Urban Planning........................................................................................16 3.5. Geo-information and Urban Quality of Life ..........................................................................17 3.6. Summary ................................................................................................................................17 4. Research Methods.............................................................................................................19 4.1. Research Design.....................................................................................................................19 4.2. Field Work Preparation..........................................................................................................19 4.3. Field Work..............................................................................................................................21 4.4. Post Field Work Data Preparation..........................................................................................23 4.5. Data Analysis .........................................................................................................................23 5. Results ...............................................................................................................................29 5.1. Household Characterstics.......................................................................................................29 5.2. Subjective Quality of Life......................................................................................................31