Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structure of Well-Being: An Exploratory Study of the Distinction Between Individual Well-Being and Community Well-Being and the Importance of Intersubjective Community Well-Being

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Social Factors and Community Well-Being

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research ((BRIEFSWELLBEING))

Abstract

Despite the popularity of well-being in public policy discourses, the meaning of well-being and how to use it in a public policy context is still unclear. In this chapter, we present a comprehensive framework of well-being that clarifies its meaning by distinguishing different types and aspects of well-being. First, we distinguish individual well-being and community well-being. Since public policy concerns public resources, we further explore the aspects of community well-being. Previous works only identified objective and subjective aspects of community well-being, leading to confusion in the measurement process regarding aggregation from individuals to the community. To address this issue, we identify a third aspect called intersubjective community well-being measured by evaluative questions. Using survey data from six districts in Seoul, South Korea, we show that individual well-being and community well-being can be distinguished empirically and that the relationship between intersubjective and objective community well-being is stronger than the relationship between subjective and objective community well-being. This suggests that policymakers can gain better insight for policymaking by paying more attention to intersubjective community well-being, which effectively bridges relevant objective measures to collective evaluation of citizens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    All population figures are based on the national resident registry data.

  2. 2.

    Subtracted from total objective CWB score.

References

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Money, sex and happiness: An empirical study. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 393–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, P. (Ed.). (2012). … and the pursuit of happiness-well-being and the role of government. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R., & Bollen, K. A. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1975). What is a quality of life indicator? Social Indicators Research, 2(1), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, C., & Rixford, C. (2005). Historical background of community indicators. In R. Phillips (Ed.), Community indicators measuring systems (pp. 33–62). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, R. J., & Oswald, A. J. (2003). The macroeconomics of happiness. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 809–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duranti, A. (2010). Husserl, intersubjectivity and anthropology. Anthropological Theory, 10(1–2), 16–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E., & Lukes, S. (2014). The rules of sociological method: And selected texts on sociology and its method. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flora, C. B., & Flora, J. L. (2013). Rural communities: legacy and change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2000). The organizational learning of safety in communities of practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(1), 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, G. P., & Haines, A. (2007). Asset building and community development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, R. A., Ferriss, A. L., Land, K., Michalos, A. C., Peterson, M., & Vogel, J. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and agenda for research. Social Indicators Research, 55(1), 1–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kee, Y., Kim, S., Kim, N. (2013). Analysis of the community well-being paradigm model Sungmisan village: using grounded theory method of Strauss and Corbin. Korean Public Administration Review, 47(1), 295–320. (Korean).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Lee, S. (2013). The Development and Application of a Community Well-being Index in Korean Metropolitan Cities. Social Indicators Research, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • KOSIS. (2013). Seoul survey [data]. Retrieved from http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsList_02List.jsp?vwcd=MT_ATITLE01&parmTabId=M_02_01_01

  • Land, K. C., Michalos, A. C., & Sirgy, J. M. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Kim, Y. (2015). Searching for the meaning of community well-being. In S. J. Lee, Y. Kim, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Community well-being and community development: Conceptions and applications. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., & Stimson, R. (2006). What is the strength of the link between objective and subjective indicators of urban quality of life? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1(1), 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, S. (2002). The development of quality of life indicators—A case study from the City of Bristol. UK. Ecological Indicators, 2(1), 177–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, D. L. & Chiang, Y. P. (2000). Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II14–II25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., & Bridges, S. (2005). Integrating community indicators with economic development planning. In R. Phillips (Ed.), Community indicators measuring systems (pp. 115–138). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quincey, C. (1999). Intersubjectivity: Exploring consciousness from the second-person perspective. In S. R. Hameroff, A. W. Kaszniak, & D. J. Chalmers (Eds.), Toward a science of consciousness III: The third Tucson discussions and debates. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawicki, D. S. (2002). Improving community indicator systems: Injecting more social science into the folk movement. Planning Theory & Practice, 3(1), 13–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M. (1975). The quality of life in large American cities: Objective and subjective social indicators. Social Indicators Research, 1(4), 495–509. doi:10.1007/BF00353066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, K. (2012). Measuring well-being: Towards sustainability?. New York, NY: Earthscan from Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., Widgery, R. N., Lee, D.-J., & Grace, B. Y. (2010). Developing a measure of community well-being based on perceptions of impact in various life domains. Social Indicators Research, 96(2), 295–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smolko, R. (2006). The community indicators handbook: measuring progress toward healthy sustainable communities (2nd ed.). Oakland, CA: Redefining Progress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A. L., & Ware, J. E. (Eds.). (1992). Measuring functioning and well-being: The medical outcomes study approach. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, D., & Hollar, D. (2003). Measuring progress: Community indicators and the quality of life. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(7), 789–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevarthen, C., & Hubley, P. (1978). Secondary intersubjectivity: Confidence, confiding and acts of meaning in the first year. In A. Lock (Ed.), Action, gesture and symbol: The emergence of language (pp. 183–229). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared intentionality. Developmental science, 10(1), 121–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenhoven, R. (2002). Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 58(1–3), 33–46. doi:10.1023/A:1015723614574.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, S. C. (2010). Analysing well-being: A framework for development practice. Development in Practice, 20(2), 158–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (1948). Constitution of the World Health Organization. Basic documents. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This chapter was presented at the 3rd International Forum on Community Well-being on June 23rd, 2015 at Hoam Faculty House, Seoul, South Korea and was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2013S1A3A2054622).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

    Seung Jong Lee

  2. Cornell University, Ithaca, USA

    Yunji Kim

Authors
  1. Seung Jong Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yunji Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

    Youngwha Kee

  2. Grad Sch of Public Admin, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

    Seung Jong Lee

  3. Honors College, Duhme Rm 134, Purdue Univ, Windsor Halls, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

    Rhonda Phillips

Appendices

Appendix 1

Questionnaire Items Used for CWB Indicators

 

Intersubjective CWB (question format: how would you evaluate…)

Subjective CWB (question format: how satisfied are you with…)

Public works/infrastructure

Medical service

Waste collection

Public transportation

Internet service

Roads

Medical service

Waste collection

Public transportation

Internet service

Roads

Environment

Air quality

Green space

Air quality

Green space

Social

Culture and art activity level

Culture and art activity support Public library

Lifelong education

Learning environment

Services for elderly

Services for disabled

Childcare services

General social services

Community activity

Volunteer

Culture and art activity level Culture and art activity support Public library

Lifelong education

Learning environment

Services for elderly

Services for disabled

Childcare services

General social services

Local public administration

Local government employee fairness

Local government employee attitude/service

Overall local government services

Local government employee fairness

Local government employee attitude/service

Overall local government services

Safety

Natural disaster preparedness

Public safety

Police

Natural disaster preparedness

Public safety

Police

Economy

Local government budget size

Local government budget management

Local taxes

Overall economic environment

Cost of living

Local government budget size

Local government budget management

Local taxes

Overall economic environment

Cost of living

Appendix 2

Indicators Used for Objective Community Well-being Score

Number of medical buildings per capita; number of waste collection trucks per ton of daily waste; number of sanitation worker per ton of daily waste; fine dust (μg/m3); nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfurous acid gas emission total (ppm); green space availability per capita; percent household with personal computer; percent households with high-speed internet connection; number of arts and cultural center per capita; number of library per capita; number of lifelong education facilities per capita; lifelong education programs per capita; number of hagwon (private tutoring centers) per capita; college entrance rate; education budget per school age population; number of centers for the elderly per population over 65; number of centers for disabled persons, number of childcare centers, index of public employee honest; number of civil petitions processed; population per 911 fire/emergency centerFootnote 2; percent of population with training experience in fire situations; percent of population with CPR/First Aid training; percent population registered as community volunteer; local revenue per capita; local financial autonomy rate.

Appendix 3

Covariance Matrix Used for Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

Health SIWB

3.094

                   

Culture SIWB

1.107

3.998

                  

Social SIWB

0.951

1.845

2.943

                 

Volunteer SIWB

1.007

1.677

2.375

3.161

                

Job SIWB

1.050

1.546

1.355

1.307

3.562

               

Household income

0.242

0.164

0.056

0.006

0.308

0.631

              

Education

0.857

0.606

0.199

0.138

1.240

0.887

12.010

             

Employment-marital status

1.239

1.879

1.441

1.394

1.278

0.122

0.620

2.244

            

Public works SCWB

1.139

1.502

1.483

1.419

1.221

0.030

0.390

1.650

3.463

           

Environment SCWB

1.009

2.209

1.772

1.729

1.575

0.114

0.518

1.700

1.670

2.306

          

Social SCWB

1.098

1.588

1.650

1.579

1.543

0.085

0.485

1.565

1.580

1.805

2.956

         

Public administration SCWB

1.097

1.851

1.878

1.745

1.633

0.171

0.606

1.712

1.639

1.895

1.991

2.731

        

Safety SCWB

1.062

1.765

1.500

1.499

1.441

0.171

0.714

1.922

1.459

1.697

1.629

1.789

2.365

       

Economy SCWB

1.045

1.666

1.536

1.570

1.441

0.106

0.620

1.607

2.649

1.728

1.635

1.733

1.864

3.410

      

Public works ISCWB

1.054

1.906

1.747

1.774

1.599

0.155

0.609

1.628

1.598

1.972

1.725

1.877

1.974

1.939

2.296

     

Environment ISCWB

1.138

1.663

1.700

1.695

1.597

0.107

0.327

1.603

1.534

1.761

2.494

1.933

1.887

1.829

2.034

2.946

    

Social ISCWB

1.143

1.822

1.706

1.721

1.612

0.149

0.649

1.704

1.621

1.797

1.871

2.255

2.018

1.893

2.143

2.254

2.832

   

Public administration ISCWB

1.085

1.452

1.516

1.480

1.693

0.226

0.897

1.411

1.412

1.566

1.653

1.661

1.580

1.621

1.697

1.742

1.697

2.172

  

Safety ISCWB

1.012

1.415

1.336

1.314

1.455

0.226

0.903

1.320

1.344

1.478

1.489

1.563

1.641

1.691

1.775

1.778

1.843

1.766

2.263

 

Economy ISCWB

0.016

0.013

0.071

0.032

0.199

0.089

0.313

-.001

0.106

0.052

0.051

0.087

-.008

0.077

0.040

0.039

0.075

0.109

0.091

0.435

  1. Note: SIWB = subjective IWB, SCWB = subjective CWB, ISCWB = intersubjective CWB

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lee, S.J., Kim, Y. (2016). Structure of Well-Being: An Exploratory Study of the Distinction Between Individual Well-Being and Community Well-Being and the Importance of Intersubjective Community Well-Being. In: Kee, Y., Lee, S., Phillips, R. (eds) Social Factors and Community Well-Being. SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29942-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29942-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29940-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29942-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation