Learn More

The Community Quality-of-Life Survey is a standardized survey that have been administered in many communities in the U.S. and other countries to assess the level of community well-being.

The Theoretical Model Underlying the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey

Description of the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey

Conducting the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey

The Community-Quality-of-Life Survey Report

Project Fee

The Theoretical Model Underlying the Survey

The conceptual model underlying the Community Quality of Life (CQOL) survey is shown in Figure 1 below (Sirgy et al., 2000; Sirgy & Cornwell, 2001). The CQOL measure is essentially based on bottom-up theory of life satisfaction, a theory widely accepted in quality-of-life studies (e.g., Andrews and Withey, 1976; Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976). The basic premise of bottom-up theory is that life satisfaction of community residents is influenced by satisfaction they experience about their life domains and sub-domains. Specifically, life satisfaction is construed to be on top of a satisfaction hierarchy and is mostly determined by satisfaction with life domains (e.g., satisfaction with community, family, work, social life, health, and so on). Satisfaction with a particular life domain (e.g., satisfaction with community life), in turn, is influenced by lower levels of life concerns within that domain (e.g., satisfaction with services provided in the local community). Hence, residents who feel highly satisfied with their various life domains (i.e., high satisfaction with community life, health life, work life, family life, neighborhood life, and leisure life) are likely to express high levels of life satisfaction in general. The affect within those life domains spills over vertically to the most super-ordinate domain (life in general), thus determining life satisfaction. Similarly, satisfaction with community life is mostly determined by satisfaction with the life conditions/concerns associated with community life domain such as services and conditions in the community.

As such the Community Quality of Life (CQOL) model, shown in Figure 1, is based on bottom-up theory of life satisfaction. As shown in the figure, residents’ satisfaction with specific local businesses (e.g., banking services, insurance services, taxi services, restaurants and night clubs, supermarkets, healthcare services, telecommunications, electricity services) influences their overall satisfaction with local business. Similarly, residents’ satisfaction with specific local government services (e.g., fire department, rescue squad, library, sanitation/refuse services, water services, postal services, police, voter registration, motor registration, public health services) influences their overall satisfaction with local government. Furthermore, residents’ satisfaction with specific local non-profit services (e.g., alcohol/drug abuse services, crisis intervention, religious services, support groups, chamber of commerce, legal aid, mental health services , senior citizen services, adult education, food and shelter for the homeless, youth services) influences their overall satisfaction with local nonprofit services.

Residents’ overall satisfaction with local business, local government, and local nonprofit services, in turn, influence their overall satisfaction with community quality of life. Their overall satisfaction with community quality of life is additionally influenced by residents’ satisfaction with other local conditions (e.g., quality of the physical environment, neighborhood, and housing). Residents’ overall satisfaction with community quality of life influences their overall life satisfaction conjoined with the influence of their overall satisfaction with other life domains (e.g., work life, financial situation, health, education, friends, leisure life, spiritual life, cultural life, and social status). See exact survey items of the models’ constructs in the section titled Statistical Norms Associated with the Survey Items and the actual online survey questionnaire in The Survey.

The core of the CQOL survey comprise satisfaction with specific local businesses, government services, and nonprofit services as well as satisfaction with local conditions. These constructs and measures have been administered in a variety of communities in the United States and other countries to capture the well-being of community residents in towns, cities, and other geo-political units (e.g., Forjaz et al., 2011; Gullion et al., 2015; Potapov, Shafranskaya, & Bozhya-Volya, 2016; Rezvani & Mansourian, 2013; Rezvani, Mansourian, & Sattari, 2013; Sirgy et al. 2000; Sirgy & Cornwell, 2001; Stephenson & Yerger, 2013; 2014) and validated in terms of its prediction of constructs such as overall satisfaction with community quality of life, and overall life satisfaction.

References

Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2001). Further validation of the Sirgy et al.’s measure of community quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 56, 125-143.

Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2002). How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 59, 79-114. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016021108513

Sirgy, M. J., Rahtz, D., Cicic, M., & Underwood, R. (2000). A method for assessing residents’ satisfaction with community-based services: A quality-of-life perspective. Social Indicators Research, 49, 279-316.

Sirgy, M. J., Widgery, R. N., Lee, D. J., & Yu, G. B. (2010). Developing a measure of community well-being based on perceptions of impact in various life domains. Social Indicators Research, 96, 295-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4405-9_18

Sirgy, M. J. (2021). Residential wellbeing. In The Psychology of Quality of Life: Wellbeing and Positive Mental Health (pp. 411-435). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71888-6_18

Bibliography

Auh, S., & Cook, C. C. (2009). Quality of community life among rural residents: An integrated model. Social Indicators Research, 94, 377-389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9427-0

Baker, D. A., & Palmer, R. J. (2006). Examining the effects of perceptions of community and recreation participation on quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 75, 395-418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-5298-1

Ciorici, P., & Dantzler, P. (2019). Neighborhood satisfaction: A study of a low-income urban community. Urban Affairs Review, 55(6), 1702-1730. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087418755515

Dax, T., & Fischer, M. (2018). An alternative policy approach to rural development in regions facing population decline. European Planning Studies, 26(2), 297-315.

Forjaz, M. J., Prieto-Flores, M. E., Ayala, A., Rodriguez-Blazquez, C., Fernandez-Mayoralas, G., Rojo-Perez, F., & Martinez-Martin, P. (2011). Measurement properties of the Community Wellbeing Index in older adults. Quality of Life Research, 20, 733-743.

Gullion, C., Hji-Avgoustis, S., Fu, Y. Y., & Lee, S. (2015). Cultural tourism investment and resident quality of life: a case study of Indianapolis, Indiana. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 1(3), 184-199.

Kanwal, S., Rasheed, M. I., Pitafi, A. H., Pitafi, A., & Ren, M. (2020). Road and transport infrastructure development and community support for tourism: The role of perceived benefits, and community satisfaction. Tourism Management, 77, 104014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104014

Koç, B., & Küçükergin, K. G. (2021). Community development, frustration and overtourism. In Overtourism as Destination Risk: Impacts and Solutions (pp. 81-93). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83909-706-520211007

Matysiak, I., & Peters, D. J. (2023). Conditions facilitating aging in place in rural communities: The case of smart senior towns in Iowa. Journal of Rural Studies, 97, 507-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.01.005

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, 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-006-9002-2

McCrea, R., Walton, A., & Leonard, R. (2016). Developing a model of community wellbeing and resilience in response to change. Social Indicators Research, 129(1), 195-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1099-y

Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2011). Residents’ satisfaction with community attributes and support for tourism. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(2), 171-190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348010384600

Potapov, D., Shafranskaya, I., & Bozhya-Volya, A. (2016). Happiness and the city: An empirical study of the interaction between subjective well-being and city satisfaction. Journal of Place Management and Development, 9(3), 313-330.

Rezvani, M. R., & Mansourian, H. (2013). Developing small cities by promoting village to town and its effects on quality of life for the local residents. Social Indicators Research, 110, 147-170.

Rezvani, M. R., Mansourian, H., & Sattari, M. H. (2013). Evaluating quality of life in urban areas (case study: Noorabad City, Iran). Social Indicators Research, 112, 203-220.

Stephenson, A. L., & Yerger, D. B. (2014). Optimizing engagement: brand identification and alumni donation behaviors. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(6), 765-778.

Stephenson, A. L., & Yerger, D. B. (2014). Does brand identification transform alumni into university advocates?. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 11, 243-262.

Sung, H., & Phillips, R. (2016). Conceptualizing a community well-being and theory construct. Social Factors and Community Well-Being, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29942-6_1

Sung, H., & Phillips, R. G. (2018). Indicators and community well-being: Exploring a relational framework. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 1, 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-018-0006-0

Yu, C. P., Cole, S. T., & Chancellor, C. (2016). Assessing community quality of life in the context of tourism development. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 11, 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-014-9359-6

Zhang, Y., Yeager, V. A., & Hou, S. (2018). The impact of community-based supports and services on quality of life among the elderly in China: a longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 37(10), 1244-1269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464816661945

Description of the Survey

Residents of a particular locality (neighborhood, town, city, county, or province) are introduced to the survey questionnaire via a cover letter from a high-ranking public official (e.g., city mayor) describing the objectives of the survey as aiming to assess the community quality of life of residents of the designated locality. Participants are assured that their responses would remain confidential and anonymous.
The survey captures five major sets of community-quality-of-life constructs, plus demographics. These are:

1. Residents’ satisfaction of local conditions (survey items capturing satisfaction with the physical environment, neighborhood, housing, public safety, street lighting, cost of utilities, real estate taxes, etc.);
2. Residents’ satisfaction of specific local businesses (survey items capturing satisfaction with banking, insurance services, transportation services, restaurants and clubs, supermarkets, specialty stores, healthcare, telecommunications, electricity services, etc.), accompanied with residents’ satisfaction of overall local businesses (survey item capturing residents’ global evaluation of local business);
3. Residents’ satisfaction of specific local government services (survey items capturing satisfaction with fire department, rescue squad, library, sanitation services, water services, postal services, police, voter registration, motor registration, public health services, etc.), accompanied with residents’ satisfaction of overall local government services (survey item capturing residents’ global evaluation of local government services);
4. Residents’ satisfaction of specific local nonprofit services (survey items capturing satisfaction with alcohol and drug abuse programs, crisis intervention programs, adoption and foster care services, support groups, chamber of commerce, legal aid, mental health services, senior citizen programs, adult education, food and shelter for the homeless, youth services, etc.), accompanied with residents’ satisfaction of overall local nonprofit services (survey item capturing residents’ global evaluation of local nonprofit services);
5. Residents’ satisfaction with community quality of life overall, other life domains (work life, financial situation, health, education, friends, leisure life, spiritual life, cultural life, and social status), and satisfaction with life overall.
6. Residents’ demographics.

See the survey questionnaire on the example survey page.

Conducting the Survey

The Community-Quality-of-Life Survey is a web-based survey administered from our website (the website of the Management Institute for Quality-of-Life Studies or MIQOLS). A staff member at MIQOLS will communicate with your representative to adapt the survey questionnaire to reflect the specific reality of the city. Once the survey questionnaire is adapted to the exact specifications, the survey will then be posted on MIQOLS website. A link to the survey website will then be provided to the representative. The city representative will then send an e-mail letter to all the residents informing them about the availability of the Community-Quality-of-Life survey and encouraging them to participate by clicking on the link that would take them directly to the survey website. The staff member at MIQOLS will help the representative draft the e-mail message requesting participation in the survey. Residents should be assured that the survey will be conducted anonymously and confidentially. That is, residents will not be identified by name or any other form of identification, and the survey results will be reported at the aggregate level only. A time limit of 2-3 weeks will be set to conduct the survey. In the meantime, the representative will send several reminder e-messages to the population reminding them about the survey and request completion if they have not done so already. After the completion deadline, the survey site will be closed and the data will be analyzed and a report will be issued within 2-3 weeks thereafter.

The Community Quality-of-Life Survey Report

The report is structured as follows:

• • Cover page: A title page with applicant contact information and MIQOLS contact information
  • Executive Summary: The entire content of the report is summarized here.
  • Theory and Model: The theoretical model underlying the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey is described here and the theoretical constructs are clearly defined. The research supporting the Community-Quality-of-Life model is also discussed in this section.
  • Description of the Community Quality-of-Life Survey: This section contains a description of the constructs with corresponding survey items.
  • Sampling and Data Collection: This part of the report describes the call issued to employees to participate in the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey, the deadline imposed, any incentives used to encourage employee participation, the survey link, the number of employees who actually participated in the survey, the total number of employees contacted, and the response rate. The response rate of the client organization is compared to past response rates of other organizations.
  • Survey Results: This section of the report provides descriptive statistics related to each survey item with figures (e.g., bar charts) against the norm. The norm is calculated based on the average of all past surveys that have been administered through MIQOLS.
  • Discussion and Recommendations: The survey results are then summarized and interpreted in this section. As such, specific strengths and weaknesses are identified. The client organization is then encouraged to bolster their strengths and correct weaknesses.
  • References: Exact references of corresponding text citations are fleshed out in this section.
  • Appendices: Extra detailed information related to any aspect of the report is placed in this section.

• Click here to see an example of a report.

Project Fee

$500  for an Excel data file containing the survey data (with a coding sheet) plus statistical norms for every survey item. If you would like a full report with charts and recommendations, you can contact our office (office@miqols.org) to discuss in detail your requirements and the corresponding payment.

To request MIQOLS to conduct a Community-Quality-of-Life Survey, please send an e-mail message to the executive director of MIQOLS, Joe Sirgy, at office@miqols.org indicating interest. You can also contact MIQOLS by letter (address: 6020 Lyons Road, Dublin, Virginia 24084, USA) or by phone (540-674-5022; leave voicemail message). A staff member will contact you by e-mail to set up a telephone (or Skype or ZOOM) meeting. The staff member will answer whatever questions you may have and discuss the logistics of the entire project, the cost, survey specifications, time line, delivery of the survey report and other details

The Theoretical Model

Description

Conducting the Survey

The Survey Report

Project Fee

The Theoretical Model Underlying the Survey

The theoretical model that can be captured in terms of three major propositions: (1) residents’ perception of tourism impact affects their sense of well-being in various life domains (material, community, emotional, and health/safety well-being), (2) residents’ sense of well-being in those life domains affects their life satisfaction in general, and (3) the relationship between residents’ perception of tourism impact and their sense of well-being in those life domains is moderated by tourism development stages. See a graphic representation of the model below.

How does perceived impact of tourism in the community affect residents’ life satisfaction? To answer this question we will have to visit the concept of bottom-up spillover theory of subjective wellbeing (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976). The basic premise of bottom-up spillover theory is that life satisfaction is functionally related to satisfaction with all of life’s domains and sub-domains. Life satisfaction is thought to be on top of an attitude (or satisfaction) hierarchy and therefore is influenced by satisfaction with life domains (e.g., satisfaction with community, family, work, social life, health, and so on). Satisfaction with a particular life domain (e.g., social life), in turn, is influenced by lower levels of life concerns within that domain (e.g., perceived impact of tourism on social events in the community). That is, residents’ life satisfaction is mostly influenced indirectly by evaluations of tourism impact in specific life domains such as material life, community life, emotional life, and health and safety. The more positive the perception of tourism impact in community residents’ life domains, the greater the positive affect (and the less negative affect) these perceptions contribute to those life domains housing those events (psychologically speaking). In other words, these perceptions of tourism impact contribute to positive or negative effects in various life domains (e.g., social life, leisure life, family life). In turn, changes in the positive or negative effect in life domains contribute to changes in life satisfaction; that is, the greater the satisfaction with social life, family life, work life, spiritual life, etc., the greater the satisfaction with life overall.

Bottom-up spillover theory recognizes that satisfaction with one’s life is mostly determined by satisfaction with a variety of life domains. The theory postulates that effects within a specific life domain accumulate and vertically spill over to super-ordinate domains (e.g., life in general). From this discussion we can make a case for the effects of perceived tourism impact (i.e., economic, social, cultural, and environmental impact) on satisfaction of corresponding life domains (sense of well-being in relation to material life, community life, emotional life, and health/safety, respectively), which in turn influences satisfaction with life overall. For example, the more residents perceive economic opportunity from tourism; the result may be that they may feel better in terms of their material well-being. Likewise, the more residents perceive increased recreational facilities because of tourism, the more likely they feel satisfied with the sense of community well-being. If residents see the community better preserving their own cultural heritage such as local arts and crafts because of tourism, this may encourage residents to have more pride in their own cultural heritage, which may positively influence residents’ sense of emotional well-being. Finally, if residents feel that tourism bring it air or water pollution or may destroy coral reefs or coastal dunes, this perception may negatively influence their sense of health and safety. As such, our model of perceived tourism impact on residents’ life satisfaction guided by bottom-up spillover theory.

References

Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents?. Tourism management, 36, 527-540.

Bibliography

Abbas, J., Mamirkulova, G., Al-Sulaiti, I., Al-Sulaiti, K. I., & Dar, I. B. (2025). Mega-infrastructure development, tourism sustainability and quality of life assessment at world heritage sites: catering to COVID-19 challenges. Kybernetes, 54(4), 1993-2018.

Aleshinloye, K. D., Woosnam, K. M., Tasci, A. D., & Ramkissoon, H. (2022). Antecedents and outcomes of resident empowerment through tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 61(3), 656-673.

Bimonte, S., & Punzo, L. F. (2016). Tourist development and host–guest interaction: An economic exchange theory. Annals of tourism research, 58, 128-139.

Boley, B. B., McGehee, N. G., & Hammett, A. T. (2017). Importance-performance analysis (IPA) of sustainable tourism initiatives: The resident perspective. Tourism management, 58, 66-77.

Chen, Y., Cottam, E., & Lin, Z. (2020). The effect of resident-tourist value co-creation on residents’ well-being. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 44, 30-37.

Confente, I., & Scarpi, D. (2021). Achieving environmentally responsible behavior for tourists and residents: A norm activation theory perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 60(6), 1196-1212.

Dwyer, L. (2022). Destination competitiveness and resident well-being. Tourism Management Perspectives, 43, 100996.

Eslami, S., Khalifah, Z., Mardani, A., Streimikiene, D., & Han, H. (2019). Community attachment, tourism impacts, quality of life and residents’ support for sustainable tourism development. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(9), 1061-1079.

Gannon, M., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Taheri, B. (2021). Assessing the mediating role of residents’ perceptions toward tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 60(1), 149-171.

Gautam, V. (2023). Why local residents support sustainable tourism development?. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31(3), 877-893.

Gautam, V., & Bhalla, S. (2024). Exploring the relationships among tourism involvement, residents’ empowerment, quality of life and their support for sustainable tourism development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 434, 139770.

González-García, R. J., Mártínez-Rico, G., Bañuls-Lapuerta, F., & Calabuig, F. (2022). Residents’ perception of the impact of sports tourism on sustainable social development. Sustainability, 14(3), 1232.

Gursoy, D., Boğan, E., Dedeoğlu, B. B., & Çalışkan, C. (2019). Residents’ perceptions of hotels’ corporate social responsibility initiatives and its impact on residents’ sentiments to community and support for additional tourism development. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 39, 117-128.

Han, S., Ramkissoon, H., You, E., & Kim, M. J. (2023). Support of residents for sustainable tourism development in nature-based destinations: Applying theories of social exchange and bottom-up spillover. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 43, 100643.

Hartwell, H., Fyall, A., Willis, C., Page, S., Ladkin, A., & Hemingway, A. (2018). Progress in tourism and destination wellbeing research. Current issues in Tourism, 21(16), 1830-1892.

Jordan, E. J., Spencer, D. M., & Prayag, G. (2019). Tourism impacts, emotions and stress. Annals of Tourism Research, 75, 213-226.

Joseph Sirgy, M. (2019). Promoting quality-of-life and well-being research in hospitality and tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(1), 1-13.

Lee, S., Lee, N., Lee, T. J., & Hyun, S. S. (2024). The influence of social support from intermediary organizations on innovativeness and subjective happiness in community-based tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 32(4), 795-817.

Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2019). Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents’ perceptions of the sustainability. Tourism management, 70, 368-380.

Liang, Z. X., & Hui, T. K. (2016). Residents’ quality of life and attitudes toward tourism development in China. Tourism Management, 57, 56-67.

Lin, Z., Chen, Y., & Filieri, R. (2017). Resident-tourist value co-creation: The role of residents’ perceived tourism impacts and life satisfaction. Tourism Management, 61, 436-442.

López, M. F. B., Virto, N. R., Manzano, J. A., & Miranda, J. G. M. (2018). Residents’ attitude as determinant of tourism sustainability: The case of Trujillo. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 35, 36-45.

Mathew, P. V., & M, N. P. (2022). Sustainable tourism development: discerning the impact of responsible tourism on community well-being. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 5(5), 987-1001.

Mathew, P. V., & Sreejesh, S. (2017). Impact of responsible tourism on destination sustainability and quality of life of community in tourism destinations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism management, 31, 83-89.

Nugroho, P., & Numata, S. (2022). Resident support of community-based tourism development: Evidence from Gunung Ciremai National Park, Indonesia. Journal of sustainable tourism, 30(11), 2510-2525.
Nunkoo, R., & So, K. K. F. (2016). Residents’ support for tourism: Testing alternative structural models. Journal of travel research, 55(7), 847-861.

Pai, C. K., Chen, H., Lee, T. J., Hyun, S. S., Liu, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2024). The impacts of under-tourism and place attachment on residents’ life satisfaction. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 30(4), 694-712.

Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Kock, N., & Ramayah, T. (2015). A revised framework of social exchange theory to investigate the factors influencing residents’ perceptions. Tourism management perspectives, 16, 335-345.

Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Ringle, C. M., Jaafar, M., & Ramayah, T. (2017). Urban vs. rural destinations: Residents’ perceptions, community participation and support for tourism development. Tourism management, 60, 147-158.

Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Roldán, J. L., Jaafar, M., & Ramayah, T. (2017). Factors influencing residents’ perceptions toward tourism development: Differences across rural and urban world heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research, 56(6), 760-775.

Ribeiro, M. A., Pinto, P., Silva, J. A., & Woosnam, K. M. (2017). Residents’ attitudes and the adoption of pro-tourism behaviours: The case of developing island countries. Tourism Management, 61, 523-537.

Rivera, M., Croes, R., & Lee, S. H. (2016). Tourism development and happiness: A residents’ perspective. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(1), 5-15.

Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism management, 42, 37-49.

Su, L., Huang, S., & Huang, J. (2018). Effects of destination social responsibility and tourism impacts on residents’ support for tourism and perceived quality of life. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(7), 1039-1057.

Suess, C., Baloglu, S., & Busser, J. A. (2018). Perceived impacts of medical tourism development on community wellbeing. Tourism management, 69, 232-245.

Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., Woo, E., & Kim, H. L. (2016). Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism. Tourism management, 53, 244-261.

Wondirad, A., & Ewnetu, B. (2019). Community participation in tourism development as a tool to foster sustainable land and resource use practices in a national park milieu. Land use policy, 88, 104155.

Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism development. Annals of tourism research, 50, 84-97.

Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2018). Tourism impact and stakeholders’ quality of life. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(2), 260-286.

Yolal, M., Gursoy, D., Uysal, M., Kim, H. L., & Karacaoğlu, S. (2016). Impacts of festivals and events on residents’ well-being. Annals of tourism research, 61, 1-18.

Description of the Survey

Targets of the survey are introduced to the survey questionnaire via a cover letter from the client describing the objectives of the survey. Participants are assured that their responses would remain confidential and anonymous.

The questionnaire consists of three major sections. The first section involves the host community residents’ satisfaction with tourism development measure, which asks respondents to evaluate their satisfaction with tourism impact. Satisfaction is broken down into satisfaction with economic impact, social impact, cultural impact, environmental impact, material wellbeing, community wellbeing, emotional wellbeing, and health and safety. See exact items of this construct in the actual online survey questionnaire.

The second section focuses on measures of satisfaction with various life domains, including the work domain, and life overall. See exact items of these constructs in the actual online survey questionnaire.

The last (third) section of the questionnaire contains demographic questions related to gender, age, educational level, years of service in current type of work, and years of service.

Conducting the Survey

The Management Institute for Quality-of-Life Studies (MIQOLS) provides assistance in conducting the survey online. The survey is first adapted to the exact specification of the community in question. The adapted version of the survey is then posted on MIQOLS website for data collection. A client representative must then publicize a call to target responders to complete the online survey anonymously and confidentially. A link is provided with the call to complete the survey with a specific deadline.

After the deadline, the survey site is closed and a spreadsheet is issued to the client.

Conducting the Survey

The Management Institute for Quality-of-Life Studies (MIQOLS) provides assistance in conducting the survey online. The survey is first adapted to the exact specification of the community in question. The adapted version of the survey is then posted on MIQOLS website for data collection. A client representative must then publicize a call to target responders to complete the online survey anonymously and confidentially. A link is provided with the call to complete the survey with a specific deadline.

After the deadline, the survey site is closed and a spreadsheet is issued to the client.

---

The Survey Report

The Community Quality-of-Life Survey Report

The report is structured as follows:

• • Cover page: A title page with applicant contact information and MIQOLS contact information
  • Executive Summary: The entire content of the report is summarized here.
  • Theory and Model: The theoretical model underlying the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey is described here and the theoretical constructs are clearly defined. The research supporting the Community-Quality-of-Life model is also discussed in this section.
  • Description of the Community Quality-of-Life Survey: This section contains a description of the constructs with corresponding survey items.
  • Sampling and Data Collection: This part of the report describes the call issued to employees to participate in the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey, the deadline imposed, any incentives used to encourage employee participation, the survey link, the number of employees who actually participated in the survey, the total number of employees contacted, and the response rate. The response rate of the client organization is compared to past response rates of other organizations.
  • Survey Results: This section of the report provides descriptive statistics related to each survey item with figures (e.g., bar charts) against the norm. The norm is calculated based on the average of all past surveys that have been administered through MIQOLS.
  • Discussion and Recommendations: The survey results are then summarized and interpreted in this section. As such, specific strengths and weaknesses are identified. The client organization is then encouraged to bolster their strengths and correct weaknesses.
  • References: Exact references of corresponding text citations are fleshed out in this section.
  • Appendices: Extra detailed information related to any aspect of the report is placed in this section.

• Click here to see an example of a report.

Project Fee

$500  for an Excel data file containing the survey data (with a coding sheet) plus statistical norms for every survey item. If you would like a full report with charts and recommendations, you can contact our office (office@miqols.org) to discuss in detail your requirements and the corresponding payment.

To request MIQOLS to conduct a Leisure Life Survey, please send an e-mail message to the executive director of MIQOLS, Joe Sirgy, at office@miqols.org indicating interest. You can also contact MIQOLS by letter (address: 6020 Lyons Road, Dublin, Virginia 24084, USA) or by phone (540-674-5022; leave voicemail message). A staff member will contact you by e-mail to set up a telephone (or Skype or ZOOM) meeting. The staff member will answer whatever questions you may have and discuss the logistics of the entire project, the cost, survey specifications, time line, delivery of the survey report and other details.