This article explores the quintessential “person–environment” relationship that forms the core of the subdiscipline of social geography within the context of a national accountability shift from state to society in England. Two Audit Commission datasets are mined to establish homogeneous clusters of residential socioeconomic status and quality of life status before being cross-tabulated to detect genuine issues that affect each characteristic locality. In three of the four cross-tabulations, significant differences on economic well-being, life-long learning, and health distinguish correspondences, whereas in the other, less tangible, case, such factors as the use of cultural facilities, community cohesion, and people’s access to work seem to matter. The implications for research, policy, and practice are duly considered.
AndersonE.1999. What is the point of equality?Ethics109 (2): 287-337.
2.
Audit Commission. 2005. Local quality of life indicators: Supporting local communities to become sustainable. London: Audit Commission.
3.
Audit Commission, Care Quality Commission, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Inspectorate of Probation and OFSTED. 2009. Comprehensive area assessment framework document. London: Audit Commission.
4.
Cabinet Office. 2010. Full policy programme statement. London: Cabinet Office.
5.
CooteA.2010. Cutting it: The big society and the new austerity. London: New Economics Foundation.
6.
CostanzaR. B.FisherS.AliC.BeerL.BondR.BoumansN.DanigelisJ.. 2007. An integrative approach to quality of life measurement, research, and policy. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society1 (1): 11-5.
7.
Department of Communities and Local Government. 2010. A plain English guide to the local government finance settlement 2011-12. London: DCLG.
8.
Environmental Systems Research Institute. 2008. ArcGIS version 9.3. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute
9.
FraserJ.LepofskyJ.KickE.WilliamsJ. P.2003. The construction of the local and the limits of contemporary community building in the United States. Urban Affairs Review38 (3): 417-45.
10.
GerberB. J.CohenD. B.CannonB.PattersonD.StewartK.2005. On the front line: American cities and the challenge of homeland security preparedness. Urban Affairs Review41 (2): 182-210.
11.
HigginsP.CampaneraJ. M.2011. (Sustainable) quality of life in English city locations. Cities28 (4): 290-99.
JosephM. L.ChaskinR. J.WebberH.2007. The theoretical basis for addressing poverty through mixed-income development. Urban Affairs Review42 (3): 369-409.
14.
KladivoP.2011. Socio-demographic structure of Olomouc from the point of quality of life. Geographica42 (2): 79-90.
15.
LeitmannJ.1999. Can city QOL indicators be objective and relevant? Towards a participatory tool for sustaining urban development. Local environment4 (2): 169-80.
16.
LeydenM.GoldbergA.MichelbachP.2011. Understanding the pursuit of happiness in ten major cities. Urban Affairs Review47 (6): 861-88.
17.
LoopmansM.2010. Threatened or empowered? The impact of neighborhood context on community involvement in Antwerp, Belgium. Urban Affairs Review45 (6): 797-820.
18.
MegoneC.1990. The quality of life starting from Aristotle. In Quality of life: Perspectives and policies, edited by BaldwinS.GodfreyC.PopperC., 28-41. London: Routledge.
19.
Office for National Statistics. 2010. National well-being: The debate. London: Office for National Statistics.
20.
OsypukT. L.GaleaS.McArdleN.Acevedo-GarciaD.2009. Quantifying separate and unequal: Racial-ethnic distributions of neighborhood poverty in metropolitan America. Urban Affairs Review45:25-65.
21.
PacioneM.2003. Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—A social geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning65 (1-2): 19-30.
22.
PunjG.StewartD. W.1983. Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research20 (2): 134-48.
23.
R Development Core Team. 2007. R package version 2.6.0. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
24.
SeccoG.ZulianG.2008. Modeling the social benefits of urban parks for users. In Ecology planning and management of urban forests, edited by CarreirioM. M.SongY-C.WuJ., 312-35. New York: Springer.
25.
StiglizJ.SenA.FitoussiJ.-P.2009. Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris, France: Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.
26.
StokerG.2011. Was local governance such a good idea? A global comparative perspective. Public Administration89 (1): 15-31.
27.
ThomsonI.2007. Mapping the terrain of sustainability accounting. In Sustainability accounting and accountability, edited by UnermanJ.BebbingtonJ.O’DwyerB., 19-36. London: Routledge.
28.
United Nations Development Programme. 2010. Human development report 2010. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
29.
van KampI.LeidelmeijerK.MarsmanG.de HollanderA.2003. Urban environmental quality and human well-being. Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts. Landscape and Urban Planning65 (1-2): 5-18.
30.
VineD.BuysL.2010. The lived world of older urban Australians: Relating everyday living to GPS tracking data. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction, Queensland University of Technology, 176-79. Brisbane, Australia: ACM Digital Library.
31.
WalkerD.2002. In praise of localism. London: Catalyst Trust.
32.
WellsP.2011. Prospects for a big society?People, Place & Policy Online5 (2): 50-4.
33.
WilkinsonR.PickettK.2010. The impact of income inequalities on sustainable development in London. London: Greater London Authority.
34.
WintherL.2001. The economic geographies of manufacturing in greater Copenhagen: Space, evolution and process variety. Urban Studies38 (9): 1423-43.
