The Grey Chronicles

2009.March.4

Relative Hardship in Iligan? Summary II


This is the tenth part of my previous post on a quest of a suitable figure for Iligan City’s Relative Hardship for 2005. This summary, the second part, tackles the results found and published in previous posts which discussed a comparison of climatic, religious, and safety conditions in India and the Philippines. Yesterday, the post summarized economic, political, and public service condtiions. The last part of the summary will include the last three: health, education and transportation conditions in India and the Philippines.

Again, Philippine base values were computed using the following formula, thus:

Philippine Score = Indian Score ± [(Indian IndicatorPhilippine Indicator)/Indian Indicator].

Example: Using 4.00 as Indian base, 27.20 for India’s Average Temperature and 21.68 for Philippines’ Average Temperature; thus: 4.00 — (27.2021.68)/27.20 = 3.80, the equivalent Philippine score for Average Temperature. The plus/minus sign [ ± ] is arbitrarily employed, yet dependent on which indicator is better [highlighted in yellow background], as such: the Philippine Average Temperature, 21.68, is much better than the India’s Average Temperature, 27.20.


Climatic conditions such as extremely hot or cold weather

Comparative Relative Hardship 2005—Climatic Conditions

Comparative Relative Hardship 2005—Climatic Conditions

The rule is simple: not too cold and not too hot; not too moist and not too dry.

Best practices in Production and Operations Management agree that office workers and others who exert little physical effort on the job function best when temperatures are between 65°F (18°C) and 72°F (22°C). For moderately strenuous activities, temperatures in the range of 60°F (15°C) to 70°F (21°C) are preferable. Thus, lower values are better.


Religious conditions such as religious prevalence, and tolerance of other religions

Comparative Relative Hardship 2005—Religious Conditions

Comparative Relative Hardship 2005—Religious Conditions

Dominance of Majority based on the percentage of the most dominant religion. It is a known fact that the dominant majority usually prevails in terms of societal norms.

Ethnicity of Majority based on the percentage of ethnicity of the most dominant religion. Again, the behaviour of the majority prevails. The more homogeneous the ethnicity, people tend to exhibit same behavior.

There are no Religious Index already devised or research that quantifies religion’s prevalence, thus only population surveys were used. The result above does not imply, however, that one religion is better or not than the other. The same is also true with ethnicity.

If new research are found quantifying prevalence of religion, other than population surveys, the reader is requested to share the findings so that these comparisons could be updated.

The Traditional/Secular-rational values [used here as WVS [A]], defined by World Values Survey, are dimension which reflects the contrast between societies in which religion is very important and those in which it is not.

The Survival and Self-expression values [used here as WVS [B]], defined by World Values Survey, through the shift in priorities from an overwhelming emphasis on economic and physical security toward an increasing emphasis on subjective well-being, self-expression and quality of life. An absolute value nearer to zero is preferable.

For expatriates, secular-rational and self-expression values are obviously preferable, especially if one is moving to a destination with different dominant religion than one’s home country. An absolute value nearer to zero is preferable.


Safety conditions such as personal security and the threat of public violence

Comparative Relative Hardship 2005—Safety Conditions

Comparative Relative Hardship 2005—Safety Conditions

Intentional Homicide based on 10,000 per 2002 population survey. The lesser, the better.

Unintentional Injuries based on deaths per 100,000 per (2002) WHO population survey. It includes: poisonings, falls, fires, drownings, and other unintentional injuries. This number excludes road traffic accidents.

Intentional Injuries based on deaths per 100,000 per (2002) WHO population survey. It includes: self-inflicted injuries, violence, war

There are no available data for 2005, thus used the next best thing, i.e., year 2002. Using newer than 2005 would be tantamount to tampering with the results. Again, when new or recent data are published quantifying safety indicators for 2005, an update of this summary will be posted.


Notes:

For interactive links, see also respective sources of data from the previous posts. A consolidated image of this summary is also found here.

Coleman, Steven (2009) Expatriate Cost of Living in India for February 2009 Online: EzineArticles.com, 13 February 2009. back to text

WHO, Department of Measurement and Health Information (2004). 2002 Burden of Disease. Online: World Health Organization (WHO), December 2004. back to text

Disclaimer : The posts on this site does not necessarily represent any organization’s positions, strategies or opinions; and unless otherwise expressly stated, are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License.

Advertisements

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: