Abstract

The concept of quality of life encompasses various dimensions (including economic, social, cultural and biophysical). It is partly objective, often expressed through indicators, and partly subjective, expressed through citizens' opinions on their well-being. Research into the measurement and evaluation of quality of life emphasizes the wide range of definitions, the constant need to adapt the process to fit the objectives of the study, the need for model development, and the variability and limits of measuring quality of life using indicators. This research systematically reiterates the importance of combining objective and subjective components of the quality of life.

In this report, we have developed a conceptual and methodological approach to integrating quality of life as a specific issue within environmental impact assessment reports on linear projects. We concentrated on environmental quality of life - the component of quality of life affected by infrastructure projects. We focussed on people living near rights of way, because the quality of life of people directly affected, and not grouped into organizations, differs from the quality of life regionally or nationally.

By reviewing existing documents and conducting interviews, we found that quality of life is given greater importance by the populations affected by projects than by the proponents, consultants and technical experts. Only public board reports address quality of life specifically; it is considered implicitly elsewhere through the analysis of components such as noise, dust and landscape. The integrative and subjective dimensions of quality of life are nowhere to be found.

The proposed model is based on an analysis of the environmental components (biophysical, structural, activities and general community components) and of affective- sensory and functional-instrumental relationships. It is also based on an evaluation of quality of life based on the experiences, attitudes and expectations of the affected communities within specific cultural and biogeographic contexts.

The proposed methodology combines the current, more positivist practice of dividing quality of life into sectors with a more constructivist practice of decoding the social construct relating to local quality of life. Under the co-ordination of a research office, the experts, advisory committee and affected community will exchange information regularly, and the project's impacts on quality of life will emerge. The similarities and differences among the stakeholders will also become evident, mitigation or compensatory measures will be discussed, and locally relevant components for the monitoring and follow-up program will be identified.

This process will succeed only if the infrastructure plans have been justified and publicly debated.