4.4 Article

Evaluation of Life Quality and its Spatial Mismatch with Local Economic Development in Large Chinese Cities

Journal

APPLIED RESEARCH IN QUALITY OF LIFE
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 239-258

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11482-018-9674-4

Keywords

Quality of life; Local economic development; Large Chinese cities; Spatial mismatch

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR201702170310]
  2. State Scholarship Fund of China Scholarship Council [201808370092, 201508510084]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation of Shandong University of Science and Technology for Recruited Talents [2016RCJJ003]
  4. Qingdao philosophy and social science planning project [QDSKL1601120]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Quality of life (QoL) is an important factor which influences local economic development (LED). The study aims to evaluate the quality of life in large Chinese cities and explore the relationship between life quality and local economic development. By constructing the index system of QoL of large cities, this study analyses the spatial pattern of QoL in 39 largest cities across China and then introduces the spatial mismatch method to analyse the relationship between QoL and LED. The results point to the significant differences in QoL among large Chinese cities and unlock the spatial mismatch between QoL and LED in these cities. The quality of life is generally better than local economic development in large cities across Western China and different cities display various spatial mismatch features. This study also shows that local economic development can promote quality of life, though they do not merely stand in a quantitative relation. Quality of life is related more to the economic structure. It is suggested that future urban development focus on high value-added and environmental-friendly industries, which can improve both local economic development and quality of life.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available