Small Cities Imprint, Volume 3 (2011), No. 1, pp. 52 - 58

e Small City Quality of Place Reporting System
Project: Guiding Principles and Implementation
Guidelines
GILLES VIAUD PH. D.
ompson Rivers University

Urban Canada is overwhelmingly understood – by the media, by much of the public, and by
policy makers – as comprised of a tier of large cities. As a result, the instruments for
measuring quality of life in urban areas are calibrated to assess metropolitan factors, not those
arising in cities with populations of fewer than 100,000. e objective of this paper is to
propose the first generation of a quality of life indicator system and toolkit responding to the
distinctive needs, limitations, and varied realities of small towns and small cities.

INTRODUCTION
e purpose of this brief article is to introduce readers to the key justifications for the creation of
a standardized indicator system intended to assist small Canadian municipalities with less than
100,000 in population in the evaluation of the state of the quality of place they offer to their
residents. uality of place indicators are designed to provide aggregate, objective measures of the
factors in a location that either play a part in the preservation and the enhancement of the quality
of life in a population, or that may contribute to its deterioration. While such a system already
exists in Canada for larger urban centered regions (see the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
(FCM) uality of Life Reporting System (QOLRS; FCM 1999, 2009a), none has so far been
conceived to monitor the demographic, social, economic and cultural trends and conditions
unique to small towns and cities. e main objective of this research project is to create the first
generation of a standardized quality of place reporting system and toolkit specifically adapted to
the needs and to the reality of smaller communities.
e article begins with a general overview of the concepts of quality of life and of
quality of place in the context of small city studies. Following a brief review of the FCM QOLRS,
the many reasons why this system cannot be used to study small cities are enumerated. is
discussion leads to the introduction of the purpose and objectives that are at the core of this
research project. e article concludes with a review of the guiding principles and

© Copyright 2011. e author, Gilles Viaud, assigns to the Small Cities Imprint the right of first publication and
educational and non-profit institutions a non-exclusive license to use this document for personal use and in courses of
instruction proided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. Any other usage is prohibited
without the express permission of the author.

53

Small Cities Imprint

implementation guidelines that will guide the development phase of the Small City uality of
Place Reporting System (SC-QOPRS).

UALITY OF LIFE, UALITY OF PLACE AND SMALL CITIES
uality of life indicators are “measurements [that are meant] to summarize important
characteristics of life conditions.” ( Janzen 2003, p.3). ey are designed to simplify complex
phenomena into easily understandable indices. Wish (1986) defines quality of life “as an
individual’s happiness or satisfaction with life and environment including needs and desires,
aspirations, lifestyle preferences, and other tangible and intangible factors which determine
overall well-being” (p.1). e concept of quality of life is thus comprised of two main attributes: a
subjective or perceptual component and an objective or environmental element. One evaluates
the subjective or perceptual dimension of quality of life by using qualitative methodologies such
as attitudinal surveys or personal interviews with residents. Indicators that are derived using this
approach are said to address specific aspects of the well-being of individuals in a location. An
example of this type of research is the study conducted by Michalos and Kahlke (2007) on the
impact of arts-related activities on the perceived quality of life of residents in the small cities of
Kamloops, Nanaimo, Port Moody, Prince George, and the Comox Valley of British Columbia.
A second way to assess quality of life is to gauge the objective quality of the physical
and human characteristics a place has to offer. Instead than asking residents what they think or
how they feel, census data or other types secondary data are used to assess the objective quality of
a place. Andrews (2001) defines quality of place “as an aggregate measure of the factors in the
external environment that contribute to quality-of-life” (p.201). e assumption made is that the
quality of life of residents is generally enhanced and reinforced in locations which, for instance,
provide access to well paying jobs, to a wide variety of educational opportunities, and to good
quality health care and social services. e research conducted by the FCM on the quality of life
of Canadians fall into this second category. is is also this type of objective, quality of place
indicators that will be generated in the development of the SC-QOPRS.
Over the last 20 to 30 years, the development and use of quality of life indicator
systems has gained much popularity. Results derived from such research have played an
increasingly influential role in the planning of our urban and rural communities. Good sets of
indicators help towns and cities track the evolution of key demographic, economic, social,
cultural and environmental trends which are understood to affect the well being of residents.
Results from such studies oen inspire city planners to dra more socially minded plans and
policies, or help in the review of existing ones (Dissart and Deller 2000). ey may also facilitate
the assessment of the quality of the services and infrastructures supported by a municipality. A
city that has a reputation for its great quality of life “might find it easier to promote its economic
development” (p.136). In a spirit of competitiveness where jobs, public and private investments
and, in the case of small towns and cities, new residents are in short supply, quality of life
indicators are also oen used to help cities and regional municipalities rank their performance
against that of others, help attract public and private investments, and foster intergovernmental
co-operation.

Viaud

An abundance of quality of life indicator systems already exist: some are very focused
and target only a limited number of factors while others are very comprehensive. However, the
majority of the reporting systems currently available seems to be suffering from the same fatal flaw.
In an article published in 2003, Pacione observes that due to the considerable challenges posed by
the significant economic, social, and ethnic polarization generally found in large urban centered
regions, special attention has traditionally been afforded to large cities in quality of life research
(p.20). is certainly has been the case in Canada. Considering the apparent influence of results
from the FCM QOLRS on the draing of national urban priorities in the recent past, it seems
that large and medium city concerns have taken hold of the country’s quality of life agenda. e
invisibility of small cities in quality of life research has le them on the outside looking in during
urban policy debates of national importance. ey are not really part of the debate; they have
little or no influence on the national stage and on setting national urban policies.

THE CURRENT STANDARD: THE FCM QOLRS
e FCM is the national voice of municipal government in Canada. e organization represents
the interests of over 1,600 municipalities, whether they be northern, rural or urban communities
(FCM 2007). Its mandate is to lobby the federal government to make sure that municipal
governments remain vital partners in public-policy debates in the country. In the mid 1990s, the
FCM developed a highly sophisticated QOLRS which is now widely recognized as the standard
for the evaluation of urban quality of life in the country. is initiative “was born out of a desire
to bring a community based perspective to the development of public policy and to monitor the
consequences of changing demographics, as well as shiing responsibilities and fiscal
arrangements” (FCM 1999, p.i).
e set of objective, quantitative measures which the FCM produced follows trends
on 11 key quality of life domains, which are indexed by 72 constructs and altogether includes
hundreds of variables (FCM 2009a, p.45). What must be acknowledged is the great importance
results from this research has in supplying the FCM with the factual background necessary for the
organization to lobby the federal government in its attempt to influence urban policy. But as
indicated earlier, the FCM QOLRS was designed with Canada’s largest cities in mind. Indeed,
the smallest city included in the five quality of life research so far conducted by the FCM is
Kingston with a population 114,000 (FCM 2005). e use of the organization’s QOLRS is now
officially limited to cities and regional municipalities of 200,000 or more (FCM 2009b). In light
of this, the relevance of the urban agenda and of the urban priorities promoted by FCM for
smaller towns and cities must be questioned.

THE FCM QOLRS AND SMALL CITIES
e current project’s original goal was simply to reproduce the FCM set of indicators for small
cities and test how results from a small city analysis would compare to those already known about
larger urban-centered regions. However, aer much effort and time trying to generate a
comparable set of indicators for small cities, the task had to be abandoned due to insurmountable
theoretical and empirical challenges. First, it became evident that a large number of key variables

54

55

Small Cities Imprint

used by the FCM are simply not available for municipalities with population less than 10,000 (in
many cases they are not even available for cities up to 100,000). e system is also found to be
impractical and too complex for most potential small city users to administer. In addition,
because of its heavy reliance on specially ordered, costly custom tabulations from Statistics
Canada, the QOLRS is too expensive for most small municipalities to reproduce. Finally, it is
evident that the interpretation derived from the analysis of indicators is scale specific, and that all
the indicators tracked by the FCM are not necessary relevant in a small city, small town context.
ese and other problems of a more technical nature certainly helped to strengthen our
perception and our resolve around the need to create for small cities a tool specifically adapted
and designed around their particular needs, context and unique set of information availability
constraints.

SC-QOLRS PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
is research project proposes to address these issues by creating the first generation of a quality
of life indicator system entirely designed and adapted to respond to the distinctive but generally
overlooked needs, limitations and diverse range of experiences distinguishing small cities and
small towns from larger types of communities.
e system proposed takes the form of a toolkit. e principal objective of this
toolkit is to provide researchers and community leaders with a scale dependent, context specific,
extensive and harmonized set of benchmark indicators. It is believed that the use of a common set
of indicators designed from a standardized methodology and data gathering strategy will lead to
two significant outcomes: first, it will help guide and structure the assessment of the state of the
quality of life in individual communities; and second, when conducted at the system wide level
(using a large sample of small cities), the analysis may allow for the identification of common
challenges and common priorities which in turn may lead to the draing of relevant small city
policies. At this moment, no standardized tool exists that permits for such system wide analyses to
be performed.
In the planning of the toolkit, 9 guiding principles and 6 implementation guidelines
are followed. ese have been draed prior to the development of the reporting system and
constitute the core values of this research project. Many are inspired from informal conversations
with municipal employees from various small cities (see Stacey et al, 2009).

GUIDING PRINCIPLES: THE SC-QOPRS HAS TO...
• Broadly follow the structure and methodology used in the QOLRS, and developed and
repeatedly tested by the FCM.
• Be flexible enough to meet the dual outcomes sought by the project, that is: to allow for
single-city as well as system-wide analyses to be performed.
• Be sensitive and relevant to the particular contexts and wide range of conditions in which
small cities and towns exist.
• Be theoretically and empirically sound.

Viaud

• Seek simplicity of use over complexity.
• Provide an extensive coverage of all factors (demographic, economic, social, political, cultural,
and environmental) that affect the quality of life of the residents in a community.
• Identify small city (scale-specific) indicators.
• Follow key trends over time.
• Provide a clear pathway to policy and the establishment of community priorities.
• Implementation Guidelines: e SC-QOPRS has to…
• Use quality of place variables as proxy to the analysis of quality of life as the FCM QOLRS
does.
• Solely rely on publically available data and, when necessary, on additional information
collected from a city administrator survey, thus making the oen expensive data-gathering
phase of such projects cost-neutral for municipalities. (Few small towns and small cities have
vast amount of disposable revenues to spend on quality of life research. By eliminating the cost
associated with the purchase of the information necessary to run the studies, it takes away one
major objection elected officials oen raise for not getting their communities involved in
quality of life research.)
• Develop guides on how to access relevant statistical information and on how to analyse and
transform variables.
• Develop a sample questionnaire for city administrators.
• Provide suggestions on how to expand the list of proposed indicators to better adapt to local
conditions.
• Be accessible to professionals and non-professionals alike.

CONCLUSION
Just as the FCM QOLRS research serves to establish national standards for the study of quality of
place in large and medium sized Canadian cities, there is a real need for a similar tool to be
developed to study small cities. Failure to do so may not only deprive more than a quarter of the
Canadian population and the large majority of Canadian towns and cities from having a voice on
the national stage, but it may also prevent small-city problems from finding small-city solutions.
If broadly embraced as a suitable standard, the SC-QOPRS could play a role similar for small
cities to what the FCM’s QOLRS does in helping large and medium cities and regional
municipalities impact urban and social policies of national magnitude. e potential emergence
of a unified small-city national agenda may possibly hinge on the development of such countrywide indicator standard.

56

57

Small Cities Imprint

Works Cited
Andrews, C.J. “Analyzing quality-of-place.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28
(2001): 201-217. Print.
Dissart, J.C. and Deller, S.C. “uality of life in the planning literature.” Journal of Planning Literature,
15.1 (2000): 135-161. Print.
FCM (1999) uality of Life in Canadian Communities. e FCM uality of Life Reporting System,
Ottawa, Ontario.
FCM (2005) Dynamic Societies and Social Change. eme Report #2. e FCM uality of Life
Reporting System, Ottawa, Ontario.
FCM (2007) Working Together For Change: Federation of Canadian Municipalities Annual Report
2006-2007. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Ottawa, Ontario.
FCM (2009a) uality of Life in Canadian Communities: Immigration and Diversity in Canadian
Cities and Communities – eme Report #5. e FCM uality of Life Reporting System,
Ottawa, Ontario.
FCM (2009b) QOLRS – Frequently asked questions. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Ottawa,
Ontario. www.fcm.ca/english/View.asp?mp=477&x=1046 (accessed March 23, 2009).
Janzen, B. “An Evaluation of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities uality of Life Reporting
System.” Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskatchewan:
Saskatoon. (2003). Print.
Michalos, A.C., and Kahlke, P.M. “Impact of Arts Related Activities on the Perceived uality of Life.”
Institute for Social Research and Evaluation. University of Northern British Columbia: Prince
George. (2007). Print.
Pacione, M. “Urban environmental quality of human wellbeing – a social geographical perspective.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 65 (2003): 19-30. Print.
Stacey, P., G. Viaud, D. Worts, A. Michalos, N. Duxbury, R. McColl, A. Tucker, and M. Seasons.
"Roundtable on Defining uality of Life & Cultural Indicators For Small Cities.” In Anne
Gagnon, WF Garrett-Petts, James Hoffman, Henry Hubert, Terry Kading, Kelly-Anne Maddox
and Ginny Ratsoy (eds): e Last Best West": An Exploration of Myth, Identity, and uality of
Life in Western Canada. Vancouver: New Star Books (2009): 127-159. Print.
Wish, N.B. “Are we really measuring quality of life? Well-being has subjective dimensions, as well as
objective ones.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 45.1 (1986): 93-99. Print.

Viaud

Acknowledgements
is research is funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada
through a Community-University Research Alliance grant (CURA) awarded to a research team
based at ompson Rivers University (TRU), Kamloops, Canada. e theme of TRU’s CURA is
“Mapping the uality of Life and the Culture of Small Cities” (www.smallcities.ca). e main
partners involved in the SC-QOPRS are the FCM and urban and social planners from a number
of municipalities in British Colombia and Alberta.

About the Author
Dr. Gilles Viaud is Chair of the Department of Geography at ompson Rivers University,
British Columbia, Canada. Dr. Viaud specializes in urban and social geography, and is currently
working at the development of a quality of life reporting system and toolkit for small cities.

58