Abstract
The term “quality of life” was first used in the field of health care. Later, however, it has been used for different purposes in completely different situations. Conservatives in the United States, on the one hand, have used it in the context of so-called “quality of life crimes.” These are victimless “crimes”, allegedly committed by poor people which are criminalized for activities necessary for them to survive. On the other hand, there are those that see the quality of life concept in terms of good life and the practice of good living. Furthermore, they see it going beyond the standard of living approach, which only focuses on the physical or objective aspect of well being. This paper will try to see what the relations between quality of life in that sense and shelter are in the Indonesian context. The focus on housing in relation to quality of life was not an arbitrary decision. Housing or shelter is one of the domains of living (besides other domains such as family and friends, work, community, health, education, and spiritual) which contribute to a person’s overall assessment of his or her quality of life. More significantly, however, in Indonesia, unlike in other countries, housing is a key to access other quality of life factors, such as education and health care, to employment and income generating opportunities and to political participation. Housing is not just a factor, but is also a precondition for other quality of life factors.
The term “quality of life” has been used in many different situations. It was first known to be used in the field of health care (Ferrans & Powers, 1985). In the 1980s and 1990s political and social conservatives in the United States have used it in the context of so-called victimless crimes. Indeed, these types of “crimes” are often referred to as “quality of life crimes.”
In this context, US sociologist James Q. Wilson has proposed the ‘Broken Window Theory’, which claims that relatively minor problems left unattended send a message that disorder in general is being tolerated. As a result, more serious crimes will be committed. He gives the analogy of a broken window left un-repaired which exudes an image of general dilapidation. Many US city authorities have subscribed to this theory and instituted so-called zero tolerance policies, i.e. policies that do not tolerate even minor crimes (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2004).
These regulations, which mainly seek to improve the “quality of life” of higher-income groups have been criticised for being unfair to people who look poor and/or are homeless by criminalizing activities necessary for them to survive. Because poor people without homes often have no option but to perform necessary functions in public and often have to resort to begging for their living, they are vulnerable to judgment, harassment and arrest for committing “nuisance” violations in public. For these people, their poor economic or housing status effectively becomes the cause of being penalised under “quality of life” laws.
This paper will try to see what relations there are between quality of life and shelter in the Indonesian context. The focus on housing in relation to quality of life was not an arbitrary decision. Housing or shelter, as has been indicated previously, is one of the domains of living (besides other domains such as family and friends, work, community, health, education, and spiritual) which contribute to a person’s overall assessment of the quality of life. More significantly, however, in Indonesia, unlike in other countries, housing is a key to access other quality of life factors, such as education and health care, to employment and income generating opportunities and to political participation. In other words, housing is not just a factor, but is also a precondition for other quality of life factors.
But before that, this paper attempts to clarify what the term “quality of life” means for the specific purpose of this paper. This is important because as has been mentioned above the term “quality of life” has been used for different purposes in completely different situations. The discussions on housing in Indonesia that follow are based mainly upon information obtained from a study conducted in 2002 with additional updated information.
Quality of life, happiness and human development
We have bigger houses but smaller families
More conveniences, but less time
More knowledge but less judgment
More experts but more problems
More medicine, but less healthiness
We’ve been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble
crossing the street to meet a new neighbour
We build more computers to hold more information, to produce
more copies than ever, but have less communication.
We have become long on quantity but short on quality.
These are times of fast foods, but slow digestion.
Tall men but short character
Steep profits but shallow relationships
It is a time when there is much in the window, but nothing in the room
More conveniences, but less time
More knowledge but less judgment
More experts but more problems
More medicine, but less healthiness
We’ve been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble
crossing the street to meet a new neighbour
We build more computers to hold more information, to produce
more copies than ever, but have less communication.
We have become long on quantity but short on quality.
These are times of fast foods, but slow digestion.
Tall men but short character
Steep profits but shallow relationships
It is a time when there is much in the window, but nothing in the room
The Paradox of Our Age – The XIV Dalai Lama
In the many literature on the subject there is no generally accepted definition of “quality of life.” Moreover, other terms, such as social well-being, social welfare, and human development, are often used as equivalent or analogous terms. Generally, however, quality of life is seen as the product of the interaction of a number of different factors -- social, health, economic, and environmental conditions -- which cumulatively, and often in unknown ways, interact to affect both human and social development at the level of individuals and societies (TBS, 2000).
According to Veenhoven (1996) the term 'quality of life' denotes two meanings: 1) the presence of conditions deemed necessary for a good life, and 2) the practice of good living as such. Veenhoven further explains that when used at the societal level, only the first meaning applies. When the quality of life of the people in a country is said to be poor, it means that certain essential things, such as sufficient food, housing and health care, are missing. At the individual level, the term quality of life can mean both things. If a person does not have a good life, it can mean that he/she lacks things deemed indispensable and/or that this person does not thrive. These conditions may or may not coincide. A person can be rich, powerful and famous, but still does not enjoy a good life. On the other hand, someone who is poor, powerless and isolated, may nevertheless be thriving both mentally and physically.
The quality of life concept goes beyond the standard of living approach, which only focuses on the physical or objective aspect of well being. In fact, a growing number of people believe that quality of live has often been sacrificed for a higher standard of living (Worcester, 2004). Quality of life is concerned with the overall concept of well being, both the subjective as well as the objective aspects (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2003). The Foundation’s report on “The Quality of Life in Europe”, referring to Fahley, Nolan and Whelan (2003), points out that there are three major characteristics associated with the quality of life concept:
1. Quality of life refers to individuals’ life situations. The concept requires a micro perspective, where the conditions and perceptions of individuals play a key role. Macroscopic features relating to the economic and social situation of a society are important for putting the findings at individual level into their proper context, but they do not take centre stage.
2. Quality of life is a multi-dimensional concept. As noted above, the notion of quality and the consideration of several areas of life broaden the narrower focus on income and material conditions which prevails in other approaches. Multi-dimensionality not only requires the description of several life domains, but emphasizes the interplay between domains as this contributes to quality of life.
3. Quality of life is measured by objective as well as subjective indicators. Subjective and attitudinal perceptions are of particular relevance in identifying individual goals and orientations. Individual perceptions and evaluations are most valuable when these subjective evaluations are linked to objective living conditions. Applying both ways of measuring quality of life gives a more complete picture.
The International Society for Quality of Life Studies describes standard of living as a measure of the quantity and quality of goods and services available to people, such as GDP per capita, number of doctors per 1000 people, % GDP spent on health and education, and the number of televisions and telephones per household. It defines quality of life in very different terms: as the “product of the interplay of the social, health, economic, and environmental conditions which affect human and social development (TBS, 2000).
The Quality of Life Research Unit of the University of Toronto defines quality of life as: “The degree to which a person enjoys the important possibilities of his/her life. Possibilities result from the opportunities and limitations each person has in his/her life and reflect the interaction of personal and environmental factors.” The Research Unit has identified Being, Belonging and Becoming as the three major domains of quality of life (Rutus, 2005):
1. Being
Being relates to who one is. This category is divided into Physical, Psychological and Spiritual Being.
• Physical Being
Physical Being concerns such things as physical health, personal hygiene, nutrition, exercise, grooming and clothing, and general physical appearance.
• Psychological Being
Psychological Being concerns such things as psychological health and adjustment, cognition, feelings, self-esteem, self-concept and self-control.
• Spiritual Being
Spiritual Being concerns such things as personal values, personal standards of conduct, and spiritual beliefs.
2. Belonging
Belonging relates to connections with one's environments. This category is divided into Physical, Social and Community Belonging.
• Physical Belonging
Physical Belonging concerns such places as in the home, workplace, school, neighborhood and community.
• Social Belonging
Social Belonging concerns relationships with intimate others, family, friends, co-workers, neighborhood and community.
• Community Belonging
Community Belonging concerns having an adequate income, health and social services, employment, educational programs, recreational programs, community events and activities.
3. Becoming
Becoming relates to achieving personal goals, hopes and aspirations. This category is divided into Practical, Leisure and Growth areas.
• Practical Becoming
Practical Becoming concerns domestic activities, paid work, school or volunteer activities, seeing to health or social needs.
• Leisure Becoming
Leisure Becoming concerns activities that promote relaxation and stress reduction.
• Growth Becoming
Growth Becoming concerns activities that promote the maintenance or improvement of knowledge and skills, as well as adapting to change.
In response to criticism that his country’s economy was not doing well, Bhutan’s King Jigme Singye Wangchuck in 1972 proposed the concept of Gross National Happiness (GNH). GNH is an attempt to define quality of life in more holistic terms than Gross Domestic Produce (GDP), besides signaling the His Majesty’s commitment to building an economy that would serve Bhutan's unique culture which is based on Buddhist spiritual values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness, downloaded 14 July 2008).
GNH is critical of views that equate increased financial transactions with increasingly healthy and contented people, that is to say progress (Worcester, 2003). GNH argues for a change in direction from a development process that puts economic interests before human welfare to a measurement of progress that incorporates psychological, spiritual and environmental perspectives. GNH is built on four interlinked processes, the so called Four Pillars: the promotion of equitable and sustainable socio-economic development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment, and establishment of good governance.
Realising that using only economic indicators cannot encompass the multi-dimensionality of human development, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) introduced the Human Development Index (HDI), developed in 1990 by economist Mahbub ul Haq. The HDI is a composite index of socioeconomic indicators that reflect three major dimensions of human development: longevity, knowledge and standard of living. The HDI is an attempt to move the debate on the measurement of development beyond a purely economic perspective towards a broader scheme that incorporates different aspects of life. Each year, UN member states are listed and ranked according to the computed HDI. The HDI, however, is criticized for only supplementing rather than supplanting traditional quantitative models for assessing economic development (Hershock, 2003).
From the discussions above it is clear that quality of live covers not only the objective aspect of well being, but should include its subjective aspects as well, which is related to live satisfaction and overall happiness. Given that the quality of live concept refers to individuals’ life situation, and since the combination of attributes that makes one individual content is rarely the same for another individual, it is very hard, if not virtually impossible, to determine common indicators or criteria to measure the quality of life of individuals within a population. Nevertheless, it still can be reasonably assumed that the higher average level of diet, shelter, safety, as well as freedoms and rights a population has, the better the overall quality of life that particular population enjoys.
Adequate housing: what it is not
"When dwellers control the major decisions and are free to make their own contributions in the design, construction, or management of their housing, both this process and the environment produced stimulate individual and social well-being. When people have no control over, nor responsibility for, key decisions in the housing process, on the other hand, dwelling environments may instead become a barrier to personal fulfilment and a burden on the economy."
Housing By People - John F.C. Turner
It is now generally accepted that every person has the right to an adequate standard of housing, and this is recognised in a number of international legal instruments. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), states that:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” (UDHR, article 25[1]).
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Right (ICESCR) (1966), requires States to respect, protect and fulfil the contents of the following article:
“The States parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The State Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-cooperation based on free consent” (ICESCR, article 11(1)).
Other international human right instruments which enshrine and protect housing rights include the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1959), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the International Convention on All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979), The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990).
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has identified certain aspects that must be taken into account to determine housing adequacy. They include (a) legal security of tenure, (b) availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure, (c) affordability, (d) habitability, (e) accessibility, (f) location, and (g) cultural adequacy.
In Indonesia, Act 4/ 1992 on Housing and Settlement acknowledges the right of all citizens ‘to live in and/ or to have the use of and/ or to own an adequate house located in a healthy, safe, harmonious and orderly environment’. Furthermore, the Act defines adequate housing as ‘a house structure that, at least, meets building safety, minimum floor area and health requirements.’ A healthy, safe, harmonious and orderly environment is defined as an environment that ‘meets spatial planning, land-use, ownership and service provision requirements’. Thus, while the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognises at least seven aspects of housing adequacy, Act/4 1992 sees only two: physical and legal. The question is does housing that meet these adequacy criteria automatically have positive effects on the quality of life of their inhabitants? Before we answer that question let us first have a look at the following accounts of two Mexican families (Turner, 1977).
The first family is a young couple with two small children, the other a middle age man with his wife and teen age son. The first family was living near a waste disposal site. The husband used to be employed as a car painter but was laid off. Both the husband and wife at that time were working as recyclers for a woman who employed several other recyclers. This woman was also living near the waste dump.
The family lived in a makeshift hut made out of waste materials salvaged from the dump. Except for very rainy days, this kind of construction was not a problem in Mexico’s mild climate. There was a public tap nearby where they could get their water supply, and by means of a cable from the boss’ house they had electricity connection. They shopped for their daily supplies from a nearby market and their children’s school was not far away either.
All things considered, this family was reported to be pleased with their current situation. They spent virtually nothing for housing and transportation related costs and in fact were able to save a considerable portion of their income. Their plan was to start their own car painting business when they had saved enough money. After that they plan to build a proper house for themselves.
The second family had been relocated to their present home in a “model settlement’ after the slum they lived in was cleared. This was located at a distance from work opportunities for the husband, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. As he was also in rather poor health and thus was often not able to travel far, he was not able to get much work either. In their former home in the slum the wife could make some extra income by opening a small stall at home, but in their new settlement any kind of home-based enterprises were strictly forbidden.
To stay in their structurally sound and adequately serviced house, the family had to pay a monthly installment plus surcharge for water and electricity. With increased housing and transportation cost on the one hand, and decreased income on the other hand, the second family considered themselves worst off than when they were living in the slum, despite the fact that they were now living in a physically much better environment.
The above accounts can be found in the influential work by John FC Turner “Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building Environments” (1977). They illustrate Turner’s belief that governments should not resort to eradication of settlements; instead, it should view self-help housing as a possible solution to housing problems. Turner’s key ideas can be summarised as follows:
1. Housing is a process, not just shelter; housing is a verb
2. House should be assessed based on its human use value, not its material value; should not be seen as ‘what it is,’ but ‘what it does’
3. Housing needs change and vary depending on the individual/family; because these needs cannot be generalized, the state fails to adequately meet these diverse needs. Therefore, dwellers should make decisions about housing.
4. Without denying dweller autonomy, local governments must facilitate the housing process by providing infrastructure, proscriptive laws and access to building elements (land, materials, credit, etc.)
Available statistics usually describe the characteristics of households in terms of their size, standard of living, number of occupants, data on house building technology, and type of housing stock. However, to place housing conditions in a wider context of overall quality of life it is necessary to also focus on the social and personal aspects of housing. As people’s cultural tradition, social background, climatic condition and economic status differ, so do their perceptions and satisfaction with their housing condition.
The criteria of Act 4/1992 will definitely categorise the recycler family as not being adequately housed, as their dwelling does not meet both physical and legal standards, while the carpenter and his family are adequately housed. The CESCR would consider both families not adequately housed, albeit at different degrees, as both their dwelling do not meet all of its criteria of adequate housing. The subjective indicators, however, give a different picture.
The recycler’s shack, despite not being up to generally accepted housing standards, provided the family with opportunities and possibilities within the limitations they were facing. The family was thriving, and more importantly, they had hopes for a better future. The carpenter family’s model house, on the other hand, though fulfilling the objective physical requirements of an adequate dwelling, was actually not promoting the family’s wellbeing and happiness. It did not create conditions deemed necessary for a good life, and did not promote the practice of good living as such. These two cases also support the argument of Nientied and van der Linden (1988) that housing is not seen as the most important aspect for low-income groups. Instead, they tend to focus on economic conditions and services .
Home: Being, Becoming and Belonging
“The central importance of housing to everyone’s quality of life and health is often forgotten. Decent housing contributes much to personal health and well-being, confidence and security; the ways in which housing is produced and exchanged have an impact over developmental goals such as equity and poverty-eradication; house construction and location can influence environmental sustainability and the mitigation of natural disasters, and the design of dwellings both reflects and protects something important about culture and religious beliefs.”
- Global Report on Human Settlements
Though housing by itself may not be the main priority of the poor, it does not mean that not having a home is not a problem. This is especially true in the Indonesian context, where homelessness can mean both living in informal settlements as well as those actually living on the street, those who live under bridges, under the shade of large trees or overhangs of buildings.
Informal settlements are poor settlements that have grown on unattended plots of land (in most cases government owned land) in urban areas (Yudohusodo and Salam, 1991). Some are located on riverbanks, along drainage canals, along railway tracks and in station yards, and near market places. Most of the inhabitants are migrants from rural areas or from smaller towns who built their dwellings out of used non-durable material such as cardboard, plastic sheets, pieces of wood and scrap metal. In some cases, however, one can find some dwellings that have been reasonably upgraded (Yudohusodo and Salam, 1991).
Those living on the street and inhabitants of informal settlements share many features. Both groups are often subject to raids. However, the more violent evictions usually happen in informal settlements because usually it involves the sensitive issue of land ownership. The occupants usually refuse to be removed on the ground that they have been living there long before the land had any commercial value.
Raids towards street homeless people tend to be peaceful because they are only thought to be creating a nuisance or - using an expression often used by city officials and planners - ‘disturb the attractiveness of the city’. The street homeless, unlike the informal settlers, usually do not resist. They see their displacement as temporary (such as when there is a visiting dignitary or a national day celebration). After things have returned to ‘normal’ they are usually allowed to come back again to their old places. For the residents of informal settlements, however, it is impossible to return because their settlements have been taken over by other users (Rahardjo, 2002). But the most salient feature they share is that both groups are not registered as residents of the city and are in fact considered as illegal residents. Therefore, members of these groups can not hold a kartu tanda penduduk (KTP).
All Indonesians above the age of seventeen should possess a KTP issued by their respective local authority. Not having a KTP means that a person is not officially registered as a citizen of his/her city. Furthermore, it is a serious offence for which a person can be expelled from the city and even to go to prison. According to Yayasan Humana (2001) “A KTP is the sole defining element for both inclusion and identity”.
At a more private level, those who do not have a KTP cannot legally marry and get a marriage certificate. Consequently, their children are not issued birth certificates, which will be a problem when they are about to enter school.
From a human rights point of view all kinds of national ID cards are problematic (Fussell, 2001). Not surprisingly, proposals to introduce national ID cards in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and other countries have raised debates on issues of government control and individual privacy . The Indonesian KTP has its share of controversies. The better known one is the indication of religion as one of the item on the back of the card. There are only five religious categories: Islam, Katolik (Christian-Catholic), Protestan (Christian-Protestant), Hindu and Budha (Buddhist). As no other categories are possible this in effect discriminates other religious groups and those not having any religion . Other forms of discrimination include the fact that until 1996 former members of the outlawed Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) had the letters “ET” for ex- tahanan politik (ex-political prisoner) stamped on their cards and that up to 1998 the category non-pribumi (non-native) as opposed to pribumi (native) appeared on KTPs held by Chinese Indonesians.
However, there is another, less obvious form of discrimination caused by the KTP system that is often overlooked, which has resulted in the inability of homeless people to access formal housing. To be able to obtain a KTP, which literary translates to ‘card indicating domicile’, a person has to have an officially recognised address . The homeless (whether they are informal settlers or street homeless) do not have any official address. Therefore, they can not hold a KTP, are not registered as residents of the city where they live and do not appear in any official statistics. They are, in effect, caught in a vicious circle: having no officially recognised address they cannot obtain a KTP; having no KTP, they cannot gain access to formal housing (and, therefore, no formal address, which brings them back to square one)(Rahardjo, 2004).
They are also not organised into community and neighbourhood units (rukun warga and rukun tetangga) of which every household (at least theoretically) should be a member. Even if they are, their organisations do not enjoy official recognition. Thus, they are not able to gain access to urban services such as education, health care and, of course, housing, though the Indonesian government has launched many housing programmes for the urban poor, including the much hailed Kampung Improvement Project (KIP) in the 1970s and 1980s (Devas, 1981).
Conclusion
For the urban poor in Indonesia having a home is important, not as a shelter to protect them from the elements per se, but for a much more basic reason: it is needed for their Being, Belonging and Becoming. Besides being necessary for maintaining their physical health, having a home could reduce the stress and worry they face, and give them hope for the future. A home is essential if one is to become part of the general society, raise a family, and gain access to education, health, and other services. It is also essential if one is to get a job and realises one’s aspirations and goals in life.
Their lack of housing, on the other hand, has been the direct causes for their exclusion and the even lost of their rights as citizens. The plight of those who are not adequately housed are worse in Indonesian cities which have tried to enact regulations similar to the US quality of life laws, including prohibiting activities like busking, begging and peddling in the streets which are considered annoying and disturbing. And the KTP system, in its present form as a domicile card, though not designed to discriminate the poor, in practice has had the same consequence on the poor as the above mentioned quality of life regulations.
Thus, the poor of these Indonesian cities, not unlike their US counterparts, face formidable constraints in the form of so called quality of life regulations. This has prevented them from improving their own quality of life. They are in effect denied the conditions necessary for a good life, which in turn prevents them from practicing good living. Furthermore, because of their poor economic and housing situations they face the threat of being criminalised.
A person’s quality of life and the ability to exercise his/her civil rights should not depend on or be linked to the physical and legal status of a person’s housing. Otherwise, it will cause unhappiness and create anxiety, uneasiness as well as cast a gloomy view of the future. Therefore, what the government should do is facilitate the housing process by providing infrastructure, proscriptive laws and access to building elements (land, materials, credit, etc.) particularly for the poor. Above all housing should not be seen as merely as a commodity, valued only for its transactional value, but should be seen mainly for its role to promote human welfare seen from psychological, spiritual and environmental perspectives.
Bibliography
Anonymous (n.d) Jigme Singye Wangchuk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigme_Singye_Wangchuck, retrieved 18 July 2008
Anonymous (n.d) Gross National Happiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness, retrieved 17 July 2008
Devas, Nick (1981) “Indonesia’s Kampung Improvement Program: An Evaluative Case Study.” In Ekistics 286: pp 19-36
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2006) First European Quality of Life Survey: Social dimensions of housing Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
Ferrans, C.E., and Power, M.J. (1985) “Quality of Life Index, Development and Psychometric Properties”, Advance in Nursing Science 8(1), 15-24
Fussel, Jim (2001) Group Classification on National ID Cards
as a Factor in Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing, paper presented on November 15, 2001 to the Seminar Series of the Yale University Genocide Studies Program
Hershock, Peter D., (2004) “Trade, Development, and the Broken Promise of Interdependence: A Buddhist Reflection on the Possibility of Post-Market Economics” in Gross National Happiness and Development: Proceedings of The First International Seminar on Operationalization of Gross National Happiness, Thimphu, Bhutan: The Centre for Bhutan Studies
National Coalition for the Homeless (2004) Illegal to be Homeless: The Criminalization of Homelessness in the United States, Washington, DC, USA: National Coalition of the Homeless
Nientied, Peter and van der Linden, Jan (1988) “Approaches to Low-Income Housing in the Third World” in Gugler, Josef (ed.) The Urbanization of the Third World. New York, USA: Oxford University Press
Kurtus, Ron (2005) University of Toronto Quality of Life Model, School for Champions LLC, http://www.school-for-champions.com, downloaded 15 November 2008
Rahardjo, Tjahjono (2002) The nature, extent, and eradication of homelessness in developing countries: Indonesia (CARDO/ESCOR Project: R7905), Semarang, Indonesia: Centre for Urban Studies – Soegijapranata Catholic University
Rahardjo, Tjahjono (2004) “Indonesia”, in Levinson, David (ed.) Encyclopedia of Homelessness, Thousand Oaks, USA & London, UK: Sage Publications
Schell, Orville (2002) “Gross National Happiness" in Red Herring, January 15, 2002.
Tideman, Sander (2001) Gross National Happiness: Towards Buddhist Economics, http://www.neweconomics.org/ downloaded 17 July 2008
Turner, John F. C. and R. Fichter (1972) Freedom to Build: Dweller Control of the Housing Process. New York, USA: The Macmillan Company
Turner, John FC (1977) Housing by People, New York, USA: Pantheon Books
TBS, (2000) Quality of Life, a Concept Paper: Defining, Measuring and Reporting Quality of Life for Canadians, Ottawa, Canada: Treasury Board Secretariat
Ura, Karma and Galay, Karma (eds.) (2004) Gross National Happiness and Development: Proceedings of The First International Seminar on Operationalization of Gross National Happiness, Thimphu, Bhutan: The Centre for Bhutan Studies
Veenhoven, Ruut (1996) “The Study of Life Satisfaction”, in Saris, W.E., Veenhoven, R., Scherpenzeel, A.C. and Bunting B. (eds.) A comparative study of satisfaction with life in Europe. Budapest, Hungary: Eötvös University Press
Worcester, Tracy (2004) “Operationalising Gross National Happiness,” in Gross National Happiness and Development: Proceedings of The First International Seminar on Operationalization of Gross National Happiness, Thimphu, Bhutan: The Centre for Bhutan Studies
Yayasan Humana (2001) Social Hierarchy and the Production of Street Children in Indonesia. http://www.s-s-net.com/humana.Hirarki downloaded September 2002
Yudohusodo, S. & Salam, S. (eds.) (1991) Rumah Untuk Seluruh Rakyat, Jakarta, Indonesia: Yayasan Padamu Negeri
