This map shows the quality of the social environment:
the environment in which people engage in social activities, within
their community, that contribute to quality of life.
Indicators of the Social Environment
The following twelve indicators were used to assess the important
aspects of the quality of the social environment.
Leisure and Recreation
- Number of leisure-related commercial
activities per thousand people (direct)
- Number of libraries per thousand people (direct)
Social Opportunity and Mobility
Participation in Democratic Processes
- Percentage of the population that participated in the 1997 federal elections
(direct)
Social Stability
Education
- Ratio of percentage of population with trade/college or university
education to percentage of population less than Grade 9 education
(direct)
Access to Health Resources
- Number of physician specialists per thousand people (direct)
- Number of family physicians per thousand people (direct)
Health Status
- Incidence of low birth weight per thousand people (inverse)
- Incidence of breast cancer per thousand people (inverse)
The national coverage for the health status indicators is less
than that for the other indicators of the social environment. Consequently,
a separate social environment index thematic map layer, called the
social environment index (with health status), includes these data
for a reduced number of communities in the index.
Methodology
Five classes have been used to map the quality of the social environment:
low, fair, moderate, good and high. ‘Moderate’ quality
of life can be seen as the average, whereas ‘low’ is
well below the average and ‘high’ is well above
average. A ‘low’ classification for a community
implies that it scored low on all indicators of the social
environment; conversely, a community with a ‘high’ classification
more than likely scored above average on all indicators. The
score for each community (or census
subdivision) was calculated using a methodology called
the
standard score additive method. In this method,
the data are standardized.
The resulting values, called z-scores,
were then added or subtracted, according to the direction of
the indicator. The indicator direction is either inverse (–)
or direct (+), where inverse indicates that a high value implies
a lower quality of life; conversely, a high value for a direct
relationship implies a higher quality of life.
Refer to the Data
and Mapping Notes section for further details on the methodology
and the rationale for choosing the indicators listed above to map
the social environment.
Geographic Description
The map shows the variations in the quality of social environment
in Canada, except for some areas in the Yukon Territory and Northwest
Territories. Only communities with data for all the social environment
indicators have been mapped. In the northern parts of most provinces,
the quality of the social environment varies from fair to low. In
the southern part of western Canada, communities generally score
high to moderate, with more areas in British Columbia showing a
wider variation than in the other three western provinces. Eastern
Canada shows a more varied distribution, ranging from low to high,
with the areas around the larger urban areas, such as Halifax and
St. John’s, doing better than the more rural areas.
The pattern of the quality of the social environment of urban areas
in the southern parts of Ontario and Quebec (Figure 1), particularly
the areas from Windsor to Québec, clearly shows a good to
high variation in the larger cities in the region as compared to
the communities to the north in these two provinces.
[D] Click for larger version, 307 KB Figure 1. Distribution of the Quality of the Social Environment in the Area between Toronto and Québec
Use the various zoom mapping tools, found at the top of the map,
to zoom into locations across Canada to compare the quality of the
social environment from region to region, city to city or town to
town. Use the Get Statistics tool to view the data used to derive
the index value for each community. Alternatively, turn on one of
the indicator thematic map layers to view the distribution of each
indicator of the social environment. Each indicator is divided into
five classes, with the average value falling in the middle and two
classes occurring above and below. Table 1 is a comparison of the
quality of the social environment among larger urban centres, with
populations of greater than 150 000 in Canada.
Table 1. Quality of the Social Environment of Canada’s Most
Populated Cities
Quality of the Social Environment of Canada’s Most Populated
Cities
Montréal |
Quebec |
1
016 376 |
High |
Calgary |
Alberta |
768 082 |
Good |
Toronto |
Ontario |
653
734 |
High |
Winnipeg |
Manitoba |
618
477 |
Good |
Edmonton |
Alberta |
616
306 |
Good |
North York |
Ontario |
589
653 |
Good |
Scarborough |
Ontario |
558
960 |
Moderate |
Mississauga |
Ontario |
544
382 |
Moderate |
Vancouver |
British
Columbia |
514
008 |
High |
Laval |
Quebec |
330
393 |
Good |
Etobicoke |
Ontario |
328
718 |
Moderate |
London |
Ontario |
325
646 |
Good |
Ottawa |
Ontario |
323
340 |
High |
Hamilton |
Ontario |
322
352 |
Good |
Surrey |
British
Columbia |
304
477 |
Moderate |
Brampton |
Ontario |
268
251 |
Moderate |
Windsor |
Ontario |
197
694 |
Fair |
Saskatoon |
Saskatchewan |
193
647 |
Good |
Regina |
Saskatchewan |
180
400 |
Good |
Burnaby |
British
Columbia |
179
209 |
Fair |
Kitchener |
Ontario |
178
420 |
Moderate |
Markham |
Ontario |
173
383 |
Good |
Québec |
Quebec |
167
264 |
High |
|
Source: Natural Resources Canada. 2003. Quality of Life: Social
Environment Index [Map]. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada.
For another perspective on the quality of the social environment,
please request the following .xls file socc_e.xls from
Contact
Us to view the results of the metropolitan influence zone
classification, used to classify municipalities (census subdivisions)
that lie outside census metropolitan areas (CMAs) and census agglomerations
(CAs), according to the degree of influence that CMA/CAs
have on them. This classification precedes standardization of the
data, prior to the addition of the z-scores. In this table, only
communities (census subdivisions) with the same classification are
compared to one another. Refer to the Data
and Mapping Notes section for more information on the classification
methodology. |