1.

Introduction
In the modern world, the quality of life is a vast, often discussed topic that presents a difficult
concept to grasp in postmodern society, due to its multidimensionality and complexity. Quality of life is
linked to human existence and the meaning of life itself and is a means of seeking the key factors in
our existence, and in understanding ourselves [1]. It explores the material, psychological, social, and
other conditions that provide for a healthy and happy life. It has received attention since the mid-20th
century, when experts began to realize that rapid economic growth does not necessarily bring with it a
higher standard of living. The first use of the term "quality of life" in modern science is often attributed
to the English economist Arthur Cecil Pigou in the early 20th century [2]. However, it did not receive a
significant focus in modern history until the 1960s, when societies in the United States and Western
Europe were growing richer but their life satisfaction was not increasing. This relationship between
increasing wealth and non-increasing, or in some cases decreasing satisfaction, is known as the
Easterlin paradox [3,4].
Scientific research is attempting to better define quality of life. Yet there is no single definition of
the term because of its complexity and multidimensionality. Liu [5] commented on the lack of a single
definition and said that there were as many quality of life definitions as people. According to Wallace
[6], quality of life includes the psychological and sociological dimensions of living, experiencing cultural,
sporting and leisure activities, satisfying interpersonal relationships, having functioning family
relationships and the ability to adapt to (or influence) changes occurring in life. According to Felce and
Perry [7], quality of life is defined as an overall general well-being that comprises objective descriptors
and subjective evaluations of physical, material, social and emotional well-being, and the extent of
personal development and purposeful activity. Emerson [8] defines the quality of life as the satisfaction
of an individual’s values, goals and needs through the actualisation of their abilities or lifestyle. Further
concepts of theoretical models of quality of life are presented in many studies, see, e.g., [9,10,11,12,13].
Despite long-standing research activities, the study of the concept of quality of life is still attractive
in today′s post-industrial society, which brings with it a shift in employment to the tertiary and quaternary
sectors, higher living standards, an increase in leisure time and in individualisation and democratisation.
Interest in the topic can also be seen in the activities of international organisations, such as the
European Union (for the current initiatives within the European Union, see, e.g., [14,15,16]), the United
Nations [17], and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [18]. Comprehensive
quality of life assessments can provide a useful basis for state and local governments in planning,
decision-making and the allocation of local development funds. The detailed monitoring of relevant
indicators (expressed as both synthetic and sub-components) capable of capturing the changes
achieved through these efforts should therefore be an important part of ongoing policies and planning
activities.
As with many other phenomena, quality of life needs to be measured. However, due to its
abstraction, it cannot be measured directly, as there is no quality of life indicator that can be universally
applied (the subjective perception of personal satisfaction could be considered an exception).
Therefore, the generally accepted approach is to decompose the phenomenon into its measurable
components or into the different processes involved in the formation of quality of life, which are
eventually represented by an aggregate (or separate) measure in the form of an index. As Pacione [19]
states, measuring quality of life has the following benefits: the production of some baseline measures
of well-being against which we can compare subsequent measures and identify trends over time; the
knowledge of how satisfactions and dissatisfactions are distributed through society and across space;
an understanding of the structure, dependence and interrelationship of various life concerns; the
identification of normative standards against which actual conditions can be judged in order to inform
effective policy formulation; and the monitoring of the effects of policies in reality.
Within the topic of quality of life, two main dimensions are usually distinguished - objective and
subjective [19,20,21]. While the subjective dimension of quality of life primarily focuses on each
individual′s subjective perception of his or her life, the objective dimension is shaped by the external
environment in which people live. This is influenced by a number of local aspects (economic, social,
environmental, etc.) that can be referred to as quality of life domains, further described by specific
indicators. For this reason, some authors [22,23,24] use the terms quality of place or potential quality
of place. This definition only highlights the unmentionable geographical aspect of the quality of life
phenomenon. A similar perspective is found in the work of Helburn [25], who states that "quality of life
is always more or less related to a particular area, and tends to vary from place to place". The existence
of a geographical dimension of quality of life is further highlighted by [20,26,27].
 Despite the great interest in the topic, there is a lack of consensus among quality of life models
on how to monitor and measure quality of life. This problem has two basic levels: the first problem is
conceptional and deals with the question of which domains (and their corresponding indicators) to
include in the assessment. There will probably never be consensus on this issue. A diverse selection
of domains can be found in many studies [28,29,30,31]. Massam [20] formulates criteria that should be
taken into account when identifying appropriate quality of life indicators. These include: the frequency
of use of the indicators in other studies/publications; the ability to measure the indicators using credible
and reliable data; whether the indicators chosen clearly reflect specific areas of quality of life and
whether the selection of such areas can be considered relevant; whether each indicator measures a
single domain of quality of life and whether these areas are independent of or correlated with each
other.
The second level of the quality of life measurement problem deals with the aggregation of
indicators into comprehensive information in the form of a synthetic index. An index is a dimensionless
measure, easily perceived and comparable, containing complex information that is the result of
synthesis. The assessment of quality of life using synthetic indices is one of the most frequently
mentioned approaches in the literature, and is addressed in the works of Martín and Mendoza [28],
Greyling and Tregenna [32]; Bérenger and Verdier-Chouchane [33], or Somarriba and Pena [34]. From
a mathematical point of view, a number of numerical procedures are suggested, the most commonly
used in the literature are the basic arithmetic of standardized values [35,36], and the use of multivariate
statistics [30,37,38], DEA (data envelopment analysis) [28,39,40], as well as indices based on the
distance in multidimensional space [34,41,42] and the fuzzy approach [33,43]. Macků and Barvíř [44]
performed a comparison of different aggregation methods over the same input data of 24 indicators to
test the robustness/differences in the different approaches.

1.1. Quality of Life in Czechia

Quality of life is usually assessed within countries, to varying levels of detail. To

examine the geographical aspect of quality of life in detail, it is necessary to focus on as
much administrative detail as possible, in order to observe the spatial differentiation in the
area of interest. In Czechia, there are few detailed studies focusing on the assessment of
quality of life at the level of individual municipalities. Murgaš and Klobučník [45] examine
the municipalities of Czechia in terms of the "Gold Standard of Quality of Life", expressing
the criteria of a "good" life. According to the authors, the essence of the golden standard of
quality of life is "quantifiable manifestations of an age-old archetypal human desire common
to all humans throughout human history, the desire to live a long, healthy life, to have a
family, to be surrounded by children and later grandchildren, to be educated, to have
meaningful work that is fulfilling, to be considered a good person and to have a good
reputation. Further assessments of quality of life at the municipal level have been conducted
by the research agencies Median and the Aspen Institute (their research has never been
published in a scientific journal, only at the conference [46] and in Czech media [47]). The
authors identified 14 key quality of life indicators, which were aggregated into an index as a
weighted sum of standardized values. On the basis of this comprehensive assessment,
peripheries and cores of quality of life were identified within individual regions. Regional
inequalities across countries are presented by Prokop [46] as one of the most significant
problems in the development of Czech society.

1.2. Integration of GIS in the Quality of Life Research

A large portion of the existing studies (including the two from the Czech environment)
mainly use aggregated statistical data to describe indicators, and this gives spatially biased
information. The Median and Aspen Institute study uses indicators, such as distance to
district town, accessibility of kindergartens, accessibility of secondary schools, and
accessibility of health facilities. However, these indicators are only non-spatial in nature; they
are in binary form and reflect the availability/unavailability of facilities (availability of
kindergartens), with availability expressed as population per facility (availability of
secondary schools and availability of health facilities). At the same time, this information is
aggregated to a higher administrative unit (MEP; municipality with extended powers) than
the targeted municipalities. This use of statistical data does not reflect the real geographical
availability and accessibility.
GIS is an essential tool for spatial data analysis and visualisation; its methods could be
used to estimate the overall quality of life and to evaluate its distribution in geographical
space. GIS can also be used to assess relationships between individual input indicators or
between the output quality of life index and indirect contextual factors. In particular, for an
assessment containing indicators from the environmental domain, extensive spatial data
sources or remote sensing data can be used. For instance, a significant aspect of quality of life
is its relationship with the land use/land cover (LULC), which can serve as an indirect
indicator of several variables [48], such as the quality of the landscape [49]. GIS technologies
have been used by Li and Weng [30], who used GIS to combine remote sensing data and
socioeconomic variables from US Census 2000. Similarly, remote sensing data-derived
inputs for the quality of life assessment have been processed in the GIS environment in the
study by Rao et al. [38].
The application of GIS tools plays a key role in large-scale assessment of urban quality
of life. At this level, the resolution of statistical data is often limited and is therefore
complemented by indicators derived from detailed spatial data, such as urban greenery,
accessibility to specific services, housing density [50], or traffic intensity [51]. The limited
use of GIS in quality of life studies has been pointed out by Mittal et al. [52], which can be
seen as an opportunity for greater involvement of the GIS tool in quality of life assessment.
Another applicability of GIS also for the topic of subjective-oriented well-being is presented
by Davern and Chen [53] in the form of a GIS-based methodology. They also emphasise the
link between social topics (such as quality of life) and spatial studies.
Based on the assumption of the relevance of GIS for quality of life assessment, the
research question that was established for this paper concerns whether it is possible to refine
the quality of life assessment in Czechia by implementing geographical information systems
(GIS) that would more accurately depict the actual state of indicators related to the topic of
accessibility.

1.3. Aims of the Study

The quality of life index, compiled by Median and the Aspen Institute, adequately
covers the complexity of the quality of life. The omission of the spatial aspect from some of
the indicators opens up the potential for their refinement, and thus a subsequent improvement
in the overall quality of life index. The aim of this paper is to update selected quality of life
indicators that focus on accessibility to services and institutions, using GIS tools to describe
actual accessibility in geographic space. Subsequently, the quality of life index will be
constructed. Finally, the impact of changes in the indicator design on the overall quality of
life index and its spatial distribution across Czechia will be evaluated.
The study aims to enrich the existing methodological framework for quality of life
assessment using GIS tools, which can inspire further case studies from other geographical
areas. As mentioned, there are currently only a limited number of detailed studies focusing on
the quality of life in Czechia. The update and refinement of one of them contributes to the
discussion in the Czech academic and policy-planning environment. The study brings new
data that can serve as useful reference information in the analysis of other social phenomena,
such as voting behaviour or the assessment of social exclusion, which has, unfortunately,
been increasing in Czechia in recent years.
 The stated objectives will attempt to test the hypothesis of whether a different
expression of the indicators plays a significant role in the overall context of the quality of life
index. Another hypothesis expects that the most significant changes (decline in quality of
life) will be evident in areas distant from larger cities. These expectations will be tested by
changing the input indicators using GIS tools. Standard statistical methods, such as linear
regression or correlation, will verify the subsequent evaluation of the significance of this
change.