Wellbeing in Kings CountyResults from the GPI Community

SurveyMike Pennock

Martha Pennock

Ron Colman

Majority of residents are satisfied with their lives…

37.07

41.4139.45

53.5251.37 52.33

9.427.23 8.21

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

Male Female Total

Very satisf ied

Somew hat satisf ied

Somew hat satisf ied

% who are very satisfied

35.29

29.83 30.91

36.80

50.5453.59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Life-satisfaction…….

• Increases with income (probably levels off in upper income)

• Highest among retirees and homemakers

• Mid-range for employed persons and students

• Lowest among unemployed

What would increase life-satisfaction

Spend more time with family/friends 72 %

Less stress 71%

More financially secure 68%

More money 53%

Doing more for community 49%

More possessions 16%

Core Values

Values and Life-Satisfaction

• Positive social values associated with life-satisfaction

• Materialistic values were not

• Consistent with literature

Alienation?

Spirituality

• 60%- spiritual values played an important role

• Higher in females (65%) than males (55%)

• Increases with age from 37% among youngest to 79% among over 65

Unemployment

• 12.7% higher than corresponding NS and can rates

• Highest among youngest (42%). Lowest among 35-44 (8.5%)

Strongly associated with education

37.5

15.2

8.887.66 7.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Less than 9 9 to 12 College University Other

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Unemployed

• 52% of unemployed were long-term (25 weeks+)

• 16% were pessimistic about finding work

• Both higher among males

Part-time

• 15% working part-time

• Higher in females (22%) than males (8%)

• 15% of part-timers are involuntary

• Higher among females (17%) than males (9%)

Benefits

Full-time Part-time

Pension 61 25

Health 69 23

Dental 58 17

Sick 66 26

Vacation 79 44

Education 23 5

Self-rated Health

• 52% excellent or very good

• 18% poor or fair

• No gender differences

• Health declined with age

• Increased with income

Substantial income effects

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Very Good to Excellent 30.24 41.42 51.80 60.35 66.84

Poor to Good 69.76 58.58 48.20 39.65 33.16

-20,00020,000 to 34,999

35,000 to 49,999

50,000 to 69,999

70,000+

Also in chronic disease prevalence

0

5

10

15

20

25

-20,000 20,000 to34,999

35,000 to49,999

50,000 to69,999

70,000+

HBP

Arthritis/Rheumatism

Back Problems

and activity restrictions

30.96

24.93

16.36

13.67

10.90

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-20,000 20,000 to 34,900 35,000 to 49,900 50,000 to 69,900 70,000+

Smoking

• 17% daily smokers- close to nat’l average and slightly lower than NS rate

• No gender differences• Highest among middle-aged (23%))• Lowest among 55+ (10%)• Mid-range among 35 and under (15%)• Income effect- from 23% to 12%

Obesity

• 23%- higher than NS (20%) and Canada (15%)

• No gender differences

• Highest in 25 to 34 and 45 to 64

• Lowest in 65+

• Highest in middle-income groups

Sedentary Lifestyle

• 19% with no gender differences

• No age effect

• U-shaped curve with age (highest in low income (21%) and highest income (22%)

Physical activities at least 5X per week

• 43%

• Males slightly higher (45%) than females (41%)

• U-shaped with age- lowest among middle-aged

• No income effect (positive)

Preventive practices past year

Mammogram 64% Much higher than NS and Canada rate

BP monitoring 74%

Pap smear 47% Lower than NS and Canada rate

Strong income effect

Breast exam by health professional

45% Strong income effect

Mental Health

Strong Age Effects

Difficulty in thinking clearly and solving problems

30.1428.88

18.3617.14

11.92

21.86

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

And emotional distress

38.51

28.42

23.08 22.12

12.0713.68

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Two or more symptoms

Depressed Mood

19.3318.09

14.8413.32

9.60

7.85

0

5

10

15

20

25

15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Also,

Strong income effects on all measures

Gender effect on depressed mood but not others

Childhood Risk FactorsTotal Males Females

Parental Unemployment

15 15 15

Parental Substance Abuse

21 19 22

Child abuse 8 5.5 11

Adult effects

10.17

17.04

23.08

0

5

10

15

20

25

None One Tw o or three

% r

epro

tin

g d

epre

ssed

mo

od

Life Stress

6.59

43.23

37.01

13.17

7.35

48.04

33.33

11.277.01

45.88

34.99

12.13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

very stressful somew hat stressful not very stressful not at all stressful

Male Female Total

Somewhat or very stressful

Peaks in middle-age

50.67

63.64

69.70

64.24

40.20

21.10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Some income effect

49.59 48.35

54.69 53.15

60.27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-20,000 20,000 to 34,900 35,000 to 49,900 50,000 to 69,900 70,000+

% o

f g

rou

p s

tres

sed

One and two-income families

% of Respondents In One and Two-Income Families Reporting

Somewhat or Very Stressful Lives

37.9

65.1

020406080

One-Income Two-Income

Stressed lives

• 43 % consider themselves workaholics

• Only 15% planned on cutting back next year

Stressed lives cont’d

53% Cutback on sleep

53% Don’t have fun anymore

43% Don’t accomplish what was planned

37% Not enough time with family and friends

31% Always trying to accomplish too much

29% Trapped in a daily routine

Most higher in females

Job StressesMale Female Total

Too many demands 39 38 38

Too many hours 21 18 19

Too few hours 8 11 10

Lack of autonomy/

control

14 13 14

Risk of injury 12 5 8

Threat of layoff 12 14 13

Gender differences less pronounced

Would trade pay increases for fewer hours

25.56

23.1424.34

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Male Female Total

Volunteering

• 51% gave unpaid help to group or organization

• Highest among 35+

• Positive relationship with income

• 51% very satisfied and 41% somewhat satisfied

Reasons for not volunteering

No time 41%

Not interested 17%

Not asked 16%

Health problem 14%

Not aware 6%

Informal Volunteering

• Provided by 59%

• Higher in females (62%) than males (56%)

Willing to do more if asked

• 49% would give more time if asked

• Males- 55%

• Young (15 to 24) 76%

• Low income (58%)

Unpaid Caregiving

5.6

1

4.6

5.6

1.5

8.1

5.6

1.2

6.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Adult In Home Child In Home Adult Outside Home

Male Female Total

Higher in low-income homes

87.1 6.8 7.2

4.5

10.1

6.96.2

3.7 3.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-20,000 20-34,999 35-49,999 50-69,999 70,000+

Outside home Inside home

Social Support

Male Female Total

Someone you can count on in times of crisis

93.7 94.9 94.4

Someone to give you advice when making important decisions

90.6 92.3 91.5

Someone who makes you feel loved and cared for

94.4 94.9 94.7

Social Support

• Strong income gradient across categories

• Lowest among unemployed

Crime and security

• 14% of both genders had been victimized during past five years

• Peaked among middle-aged and lowest among elderly

• Highest (20%) in high income

• Lowest (9%) in low income26% knoew someone else who had been victimized

Safety

• 97% were satisfied with their sense of safety from crime

• Males more likely to be “very satisfied”• 28% felt neighbourhood was very safe

(44% for males)• 45% felt it was reasonably safe• Females more likely to not walk alone at

night 22% vs 15%

Understanding the ecological footprint

Income Quintile

1st Quintile

2nd Quintile

3rd Quintile

4th Quintile

5th Quintile

Consumption expenditure

9,949 10,550 11,131 12,995 17,001

Ecological footprint 6.2 6.6 7.0 8.1 10.7

Source: GPI Atlantic, The Nova Scotia Ecological Footprint, March 2001

Vehicle Use

Vehicles per household

Kms/Vehicle per year

Household Kms

-20,000 1.0 17,777 13,772

20,000-34,999 1.4 19,268 22,629

35,000-49,999 1.5 20,861 27,530

50,000-69,999 1.8 20,966 34,665

70,000 2.0 22,600 40,384

Higher income households more likely to own minivans and SUV’s

Ecological AttitudesMale Female Total

The way we live produces too much waste 84.9 84.9 84.9

The way we live consumes too many resources 80.8 76.7 78.6

We focus too much on getting what we want now and not enough on conserving resources for future generations

83.1 83.0 83.0

Most of us buy and consume more than we need. 84.3 88.3 86.5

Today’s youth are too focussed on buying and consuming thin

73.8 81.3 77.9

I spend nearly all of my money on the basic necessities of life

40.4 55.5 48.6

If I wanted to, I could choose to buy and consume less than I do.

68.5 65.6 66.9

Out of Balance Lives

• Socially motivated persons who see themselves as living in a materialistic society

• Want less stress and more time with families• Highly stressed particularly in two-income

families (particularly females)• 25% would trade pay increase for reduced hours• Recognize that they over consume and the

ecological consequences

Continuing Inequities

• Lower income households have poorer mental and physical health, and disabilities

• Lowest levels of social support

• Higher levels of care-giving

Health Challenges

• Higher rates of obesity

• Don’t forget the young– Mental health issues

The Good

• High levels of health and wellbeing

• High levels of social support

• High levels of safety

• Strong volunteerism

• Strong ecological commitment