







































 

Indian Journal of Finance and Banking 

 Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

                                       ISSN 2574-6081   E-ISSN 2574-609X 

Published by CRIBFB, USA 

 

39 

 

CRITICAL DIMENSIONS OF WELL-BEING IN SELANGOR, 

MALAYSIA 
 

 

Dr. Nor Azilah Husin 

Associate Professor & Deputy Dean 

Faculty of Business and Accountancy 

University of Selangor 

40000 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia 

E-mail: nor_azilah@unisel.edu.my 

 

Fahmi Ngah 

Smart Selangor Delivery Unit 

Selangor State Government, Malaysia 

 

Astri Yulia 

Senior Lecturer 

Language Education Department 

Faculty of Education and Social Science 

University of Selangor, Malaysia 

 

Zainal Azhar Zainal Azim 

Lecturer 

 Faculty of Business and Accountancy 

University of Selangor 

40000 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia 

 

Amirul Syafiq Mohd Ghazali 

Lecturer 

Faculty of Business and Accountancy 

University of Selangor 

40000 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia 

 

 

ABSTRACT 

Selangor is leading the other thirteen states in Malaysia in the economy, making it one of the 

most preferred places to stay for its economic flourish, employment prospect, great 

infrastructure, and excellent facilities. Selangor is ranked the highest by contributing 23% of its 

National Gross National Product to Malaysia. Nevertheless, for social indicators, Selangor 

ranked fourth in the country. Social development was not at par with the fast-growing economy 

and the extensive physical developments that take place. Thus, the objective of this paper is to 

identify the critical dimensions of Selangorians’ well-being. We adapted a questionnaire from a 

Gallup survey and distributed it about 1500 questionnaires to people in Selangor using random 

mailto:nor_azilah@unisel.edu.my


https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

40 

 

and non-proportionate stratified sampling in twelve (12) municipalities of the state. We 

employed SPSS 22.0 for descriptive results and Smart PLS 3.0 for the structural equation 

modeling. The finding revealed that the economic dimension (t-values =5.141), environment 

dimension (t-values =6.668), health dimension (t-value=5.092), and spiritual dimension (t-

values= 4.969) were significant to well-being except for emotion dimension (t-values =0.283). 

This finding provides insights to practitioners, local authorities, and policymakers of the state 

government in enhancing Selangorians’ quality of life and well-being.  

 

Keywords: Critical Dimension, Well-Being, Economic, Environment, Health, Spiritual, 

Emotion. 

 

JEL Classification Codes:  I31, I38. 

 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Selangor has three international airports, numerous important highways, and ports, placing it the 

most developed state in Malaysia. Its Gross National Product (GNP) which is almost 30 percent 

of the whole nation, making it one of the preferred places to stay and work (Abdullah, 2017). By 

having great infrastructure, a conducive environment, and good facilities, is Selangor having 

great well-being? Even though Selangor is ranked the highest by contributing 23% National 

GDP, followed by Wilayah Kuala Lumpur, dan Sarawak (Statistics Department, 2016). 

Nevertheless, for social indicators, Selangor ranked the lowest among these top four states.  It 

indicated that social development was not tally with the fast-growing economy and the wide-

ranging physical development that take place (Hashim & Shuib, 2016). It is quite crucial to find 

out the scenario of social development as well as the well-being in this golden state of Malaysia.   

Well-being is now getting a lot of attention from academicians, physicians, practitioners, and 

policymakers locally and globally. What is well-being? Well-being may refer to living well 

together at a community that aspects of living have in facilitating local individual well-being. It 

is also central to place sustainability and quality of life (Husin et al. 2020). Previous researchers 

have conceptualized well-being in different definitions. For instance, Kim and Ludwigs (2017) 

utilized cultural, social, human, political, economic, and physical capital to measure well-being.  

Meanwhile, Tonon (2017) concentrated more on fulfillment with life, satisfaction with people 

around them, involvement in the community group, mutual support among neighbors, the society 

of the neighbors, and the accessibility of public spaces.  In a similar front, Rath, Harter, and 

Harter (2010) reckoned that five crucial elements in well-being for general people are career, 

social, physical, financial, and public, whereas world leaders place too much emphasis on 

economic measures of performance. This case might not adequately represent other dimensions 

that shape well-being like environmental and social dimensions, for example, the gross domestic 

product (GDP) and gross national product (GNP) are common key drivers for assessing growth 

and development. The increase in GDP and GNP is a measurement for the policies and decision-

making to keep on growing. Many researchers cannot come into a conclusive definition of well-

being. Instead of defining it, researchers come up with the dimensions that explain well-being.  

Dodge, Daly, Huyton, and Sanders (2012) presume that it would be proper for a fresh definition 

of well-being to centre on a state of equilibrium or balance that can be influenced by life 

episodes or challenges. Another common definition of well-being is the combination of social, 

economic, environmental, cultural, and political conditions identified by individuals and their 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

41 

 

communities as essential for them to flourish and fulfill their potentials (Wiseman & Brasher, 

2008). Though Cunningham, De La Rosa, and Jex (2008) perceived that the well-being is a 

“messy” dimension. There are some agreements that well-being dimension is broad, likely 

multidimensional or multifaceted, and demonstrative of something more generalized than good 

physical health (Prescott-Allen, 2001). He further argued that any well-being assessment should 

revolve around people’s well-being of people, the ecosystem, and how do these people behave 

and react to each other.   

There is another similar study on well-being by Musa, Yacob, Abdullah, and Ishak, 

(2018) in Putrajaya. These researchers formulated a framework of community happiness index 

that holistically combines wide-ranging sustainability dimensions from human well-being to 

environment-friendly well-being sub-index with four sustainability domains, namely social, 

economic, environmental, and urban governance, to tackle individual subjective perceptions of 

the community involvement and development orientation. The finding revealed that Putrajaya 

dwellings performed good environmental-friendly well-being and human well-being, they 

possess a moderate sustainability, and a medium-high level of community happiness.  Most 

literature on well-being emphasizes the importance of people’s experience concerning where 

they are living, health condition, income, education, relationship, and family.  

Malaysian Well-being Index 2013 defines well-being as “…the various direct and 

indirect benefits acquired and enjoyed by the citizen as well as contributed to the life satisfaction 

of individuals, families, and communities.” In Malaysia's scenario, Bakar, Osman, Bachok, and 

Ibrahim, (2016) analyzed 14 components that assess social and economic well-being. The 

Malaysia Plan aligned all the dimensions unswervingly to which aimed to achieve a good quality 

of life and sustainable well-being by improving the economy of individuals and craft an 

opportunity for the citizens to achieve sound well-being. The only drawback of this study lacks 

an environmental component. Such a dimension is also fundamental to measure the extent and 

readiness of the Malaysian citizens in shaping sustainable well-being.  

Well-being research is gaining much bigger attention nowadays from people from all 

walks of life for sustainable and smart cities.  In this study, therefore, we examined the reflection 

of well-being based on five (5) domains, namely environment, economic, health, spiritual, and 

emotion.  This paper is to examine well-being and its determinants in Malaysia’s smart state, 

Selangor. We formulated the questionnaire as such on the Selangor people’s perception and 

feeling about staying in Selangor. It is important for the state government to enable its people to 

have good access now and in the future to the social, economic, and environmental resources 

required to shape its sound well-being. An understanding of the consequence of policy on the 

way people perceive their beliefs lives and behaviors is crucial for designing and, at the same 

time, prioritizing them. Since Selangor state is having a robust development and moving towards 

a Smart state by the year 2027 (Selangor Blueprint, 2016), thus the objective of this study is to 

identify the critical dimensions of people of Selangor’s well-being. We are adapting the Gallup 

Survey (1992) that has five (5) dimensions that relate to well-being. This study is specifically 

looking into the community’s well-being in Selangor. The finding would shed light on the real 

scenario of its well-being, which can benefit the people in Selangor and its governance. 

 

WELL-BEING DIMENSIONS: ECONOMIC, EMOTION, ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, 

AND SPIRITUAL  

The well-being of an individual can be affected by many factors. A lot of studies have well-

documented on the significant relationship between economic factors such as income, savings, 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

42 

 

bills, debts, and materials belongings. (Povey, Boreham, & Tomaszewski, 2016; Di Tella, 

MacCulloch & Oswald, 2001; and Tsai, Dwyer, & Tsay 2016). Money is the crux of all devils as 

well as the root of happiness and well-being. Economic factors affect the way individuals’ 

physical requirements are satisfied and can also influence their intellectual, feeling, and social 

needs too. However, the evidence for any relationship between GDP/capita growth and growth in 

well-being in wealthier countries is sometimes arguable.  Kenny (2005) investigated both 

reasons for expecting the relationship to be stronger in developing countries, and those for a 

weak link that might still apply in less developed countries. He discovered that at least in middle-

income countries, there is little strong evidence in favor of a relationship between economic 

growth and well-being. Meanwhile, Dolan, Peasgood & White (2008) postulated that poor 

health, separation, unemployment, and lack of social contact are all strongly negatively 

associated with well-being.  

Another important domain that associates with well-being is emotion. Townsend (2016) 

outlines emotional geography is concerned with the association between feelings themselves and 

the representations and accounts of these feelings that are experienced through the body and 

within particular spaces. Not just that, he found out that therapeutic landscape literature is to 

guide linkages between the volunteering landscape and the other forms of physical and 

emotional and well-being. 

Sound well-being will make the people live in a harmonious and sustainable community. 

A positive environment can also influence people’s attitudes and behave rationally. Numerous 

studies on the environment are positively related to great community well-being. Phillips and 

Wong (2017) documented that the domain of well-being should represent values and goals for 

the community even though it is difficult to measure well-being as there are varieties of values 

that depend on the characteristics of the place. Newton (2007) defined well-being as “people’s 

positive evaluations on their lives which consist of positive emotion, engagement, satisfaction, 

and meaning.” One important study by Gatzweiler, Zhu, Roux, Capon, Donnelly, Salem & 

Hanaki, (2017) who studied a 10-year plan for improving life in Wales confirmed that Wales’ 

well-being comprises health, opportunities for learning, quality of life a stronger economy, and 

also better, a simpler government which these five determinants are in the country’s plan.  

We now look at the relationship between health and well-being. Unfortunately, Khairani 

Afifi (2019) reported that Malaysia is the unhealthiest nation in Asia. Two-thirds of Malaysian 

adults are at risk of chronic diseases. Almost half of its population is overweight, and half of the 

working population have mental health. Strachan, Wright, and Hancock (2007) confirm that 

Government initiatives of health programs are fundamental to have better well-being. Not only 

that, as a pro-active action by the government, it is also imperative to know that the relationship 

of health to well-being is undeniable. Marks, Cave, Hunter, and Mason (2011) discovered the 

influence of governance and incentive programs on commissioning for health and well-being and 

the governance towards deterrence.   These researchers discovered that contracting health and 

well-being involves working through partnerships, performance management regimes preferred 

community success and well-being. Community well-being is a function of many determinants 

working together to promote an optimal quality of life for all residents of a community. 

However, the promotion of lifelong learning among older adults can significantly contribute to 

community well-being is debatable. The aging society is a global phenomenon presenting both 

opportunities and challenges to community well-being. Merriam and Kee (2014) suggested that 

the more active, healthier, and educated older adults are, the less problematic, they are one 

family, relatives, and community resources and services.  



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

43 

 

Spiritual is another important domain for community well-being. Religion and spirituality 

are some of the key drivers of happiness in psychology, as spirituality plays a very important role 

in one’s life. Nevertheless, Coleman, McKiernan, Mills, and Speck (2002) pointed out that 

spiritual well-being is a neglected aspect of quality of life in British research. Doodman and 

Safari (2017) carried out a study in Iran and found out that spiritual well-being positively and 

significantly predicted happiness in adolescents. As a construct domain, spirituality provides 

diverse options for researchers seeking to describe and understand stress, well-being, and related 

phenomena. Indicators of personal experiences with religions/ spirituality can be descriptive and 

functional, as they are deeply connected to the basic human need for managing the aspects of life 

that are dynamic, ambiguous, and uncontrollable. The psychological, philosophical, and 

behavioral aspects of spirituality make this form of demographic variance incredibly valuable for 

future consideration in occupational stress research. Gallup (1999) suggested that 

religion/spirituality, more than any other background or demographic characteristic, maybe the 

key to understanding how people think and act but also quite likely among individuals in other 

countries and cultures. As presented by Pargament, Smith, Koenig, & Perez (1998) and Abu-

Raiya (2013), the association with religion or spirituality is always related to positive outcomes, 

but not necessarily always true.  Spirituality is multivalent, meaning that one’s religious or 

spiritual experiences and involvement can lead to negative results as well as positive ones. 

Everyone needs to explore what they believe is their sense of meaning and purpose. 

Spiritual wellness may include meditation, prayer, affirmations, or 

specific spiritual practices that support one’s connection to a higher power or belief system. 

Research indicates that spirituality is related to better health results (Utsey, Bolden, Williams, 

Lee, Lanier, & Newsome, 2007). Spirituality may help people cope with illness, suffering, and 

even death. Spirituality also influences end-of-life decisions. Many people reckon 

that spirituality and religion are the same things, and so they bring their beliefs and prejudices 

about religion to discussions about spirituality. Spirituality and religiosity are sometimes 

interchangeably explained concepts related to God or a higher power, things sacred or divine, or 

a heightened level of human consciousness. 

Therefore, specifically, this study investigated the reflection of well-being on the well-

being domains, namely economic, emotion, environment, health, and spiritual. Based on the 

literature reviewed, this study is expected to have positive linkages between well-being and all 

five dimensions. Indirectly, this paper would contribute to the body of knowledge towards the 

realization of the Smart City of Selangor. 

 

METHODOLOGY 

This study aims to investigate the formative second order of five (5) dimensions of community 

well-being among people who live in Selangor. This research design includes a cross-sectional 

and a quantitative approach. We adapted a set of a questionnaire from Gallup (1992). The 

population is people who live in Selangor and come from all walks of life.  The researchers 

administered the questionnaires themselves. A total of 1306 out of 1500 questionnaires were 

received (84.4% response rate). The data is collected using random and non-proportionate 

stratified sampling as the targeted respondents. Hence, 1306 of the data collections were further 

analyzed the causal relationship using Partial Least Square (PLS) by measure on measurement 

and structural model of this study. Items under each construct and present the descriptive 

statistics for each item with a 5-point scale. Before the analysis, we analysed the data of the 

demographic factors aimed to understand the characteristic of the respondents in this study. The 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

44 

 

study analyzed the data using Smart PLS 3.0. PLS-SEM method is on iterative techniques 

approach that maximizes the stated variances of endogenous constructs. It also well behaved, 

such as multiple regression techniques (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 1998). This 

characteristic approaches PLS-SEM is important for exploratory research. We assessed the 

measurement model in PLS in terms of consistency and validity, which consists of item loading, 

composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). 

Item loadings must be greater than 0.70 to be satisfactory for the constructs to represent 

the variable. Also, the value of composite reliability, which is greater than 0.70, is to be 

acceptable in terms of its reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) determine the 

amount of variance captured by the construct from each of the variables due to measurement 

errors. As suggested by Fornell and Lacker (1981), the construct should be a minimum of 50% of 

the variance. This value implies that the values of AVE should be more than 0.50. We examine 

the structural model in PLS by evaluating the path coefficients value at a 5% level of 

significance to see the nature of the relationship between the constructs. To validate the model, 

we conducted the diagnostic checking onto the model by observing the value of R2, which 

determines the strength of the model. Besides, we also examine the effect size by using f 2 value, 

and the value determines the magnitude or strength of the relationships among the constructs. 

This result helps the researchers to assess the overall contribution of the study. A value of effect 

size of 0.02 indicates small effects, 0.15 indicate medium effects, and more than 0.35 indicate 

large effects, respectively (Cohen, 1988). 

 

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 

In Table 1 shows 1306 of Selangorians from 12 of local authorities and the higher respondents 

participated in this study from Majlis Perbandaran Kajang (n=113), followed by Majlis 

Perbandaran Selayang, Majlis Perbandaran Kelang, Majlis Perbandaran Sepang, Majlis Daerah 

Sabak Bernam with a total of 110 of respondents. Next is Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya 

(n=109) Majlis Daerah Hulu Selangor (n=109), Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya (n=108), 

Majlis Daerah Kuala Selangor (n=108), Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya (n=107), Majlis 

Bandaraya Shah Alam (n=106), and Majlis Daerah Kuala Langat (n=106). 

Also, the number of males with a total of 656 is slightly above females, with a total of 

650. However, Malay respondents were highly dominant in this study, with a total of 724, 

followed by Indian was 291, Chinese was 251, and others were 40. Additional information 

revealed the income level of 796 of the respondents were range between RM1001 to RM5000, 

followed by 198 respondents who were less than RM1000, followed by 197 respondents who 

earn RM50001 to RM10,000 and only 115 of them from those earning more than RM10,000 a 

month. Those the results interpret that most of the respondents were a group of B40 with the 

income household within RM6,275 and RM3,000. 

 

Table 1.  Demographic Factors 

 

Demographic Factors N % 

Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya 109 8.3 

Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya 108 8.3 

Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam 106 8.1 

Majlis Perbandaran Kajang 113 8.7 

Majlis Daerah Hulu Selangor 109 8.3 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

45 

 

Majlis Perbandaran Kelang 110 8.4 

Majlis Daerah Kuala Langat 106 8.1 

Majlis Perbandaran Selayang 110 8.4 

Majlis Daerah Kuala Selangor 108 8.3 

Majlis Perbandaran Sepang 110 8.4 

Majlis Daerah Sabak Bernam 110 8.4 

Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya 107 8.2 

Gender Male 656 50.2 

Female 650 49.8 

Race Malay 724 55.4 

Indian 291 22.3 

Chinese 251 19.2 

Others 40 3.1 

Income less than 1,000 198 15.2 

1,001-5,000 796 60.9 

5,001-10,000 197 15.1 

Above 10,000 115 8.8 

 

First Order Reflective Measurement Model 

From the finding, Table 2 indicates all the indicator loadings of constructs were greater than 0.5. 

Furthermore, the composite reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values 

found greater than 0.5. Moreover, as indicated in Table 2, all constructs do not highly correlate 

with each other. Thus, the results are implying that the constructs are unique from and unrelated 

to each other. Hence the result confirmed there is no issue on discriminant validity as the 

indicators load more strongly on their construct, and the AVE share between each construct and 

its measure is greater than the variance shared between the construct and another construct.  

 

Table 2. Convergent validity 

 

Factors Indicators Factor 

Loading 

Composite 

Reliability 

(CR) 

Average 

Variance 

Extracted 

(AVE) 

Economic  C2D 0.825 0.860 0.671  

C2E 0.805 

C2F 0.828 

Emotion C4A 0.849 0.923  0.801 

C4B 0.907 

C4D 0.926 

Environment C1A 0.870 0.899 0.641  

C1B 0.813 

C1C 0.759 

C1D 0.794 

C1E 0.761 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

46 

 

Health C3A 0.778 0.842 0.571 

C3C 0.757 

C3D 0.736 

C3E 0.752 

Spiritual C5A 0.880 0.913 0.724 

C5B 0.806 

C5C 0.877 

C5E 0.837 

C5A 0.880 

Well-being D2A 0.728 0.825 0.541 

D3A 0.725 

D4A 0.770 

D5A 0.719 

 

For the next consequent test, we run the discriminant validity test. As recommended by 

Hair et al. (2017), we use the Lacker criterion to assess the discriminant validity between 

reflective constructs. Table 3 showed that bolded values on the diagonal were greater than the 

corresponding row and column values indicating the measure was discriminant, and thus we 

conclude that the constructs have discriminant validity. 

 

Table 3. Discriminant validity 

 

Constructs Economic Emotion Environment Health Spiritual Well-being 

Economic 0.819           

Emotion 0.093 0.895         

Environment 0.510 0.071 0.800       

Health 0.425 -0.008 0.458 0.756     

Spiritual 0.229 0.024 0.254 0.292 0.851   

Well-being 0.413 0.044 0.464 0.417 0.306 0.736 

 

 
Figure 1. First Order Reflective Measurement Model 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

47 

 

Second-Order Formative Measurement Model 

As in Figure 1, the R square (R2) of the model was 31.1 percent of the variance of well-being 

explained by the economic, environment, health, and spiritual factors. According to the 

suggestions of Hair et al., (2011), the R2 values of 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 in the structural model 

can represent the strong, medium, and weak determination coefficient. These results showed that 

all those constructs moderately presented the constructs of well-being. Table 4 is a 

multicollinearity analysis. It revealed there were no issues of multi-collinearity as the VIF values 

were less than 10, economic (VIF=1.459), emotion (VIF=1.014), environment (VIF=1.515), 

health (VIF=1.402), and spiritual (VIF=1.121).  

 

Table 4. Multicollinearity analysis 

 

Constructs VIF Values 

Economic 1.459 

Emotion 1.014 

Environment 1.515 

Health 1.402 

Spiritual 1.121 

 

Next is the significance of weight based on the t-values, and standard error. Based on 

Table 5, the associated coefficients for the formative relationships so-called as outer weights in 

the model presented the outer weight of economic factor was (0.260), followed by emotion 

(0.253), environment (0.342), health (0.304), and spiritual (0.007). The results interpreted that all 

those dimensions were at a moderate level of well-being excepted for spiritual was found was 

weak.  

Furthermore, to assess the significance of the weight, a bootstrapping was conducted, and 

the T-values should be greater than 1.96. The finding revealed that the economic (t-values 

=5.141), environment (t-values =6.668), health (t-value=5.092), spiritual (t-values= 4.969), 

exception for emotion (t-values =0.283) found less than 1.96. The emotional dimension is not 

significant to well-being. Recommended by Sarstedt, Ringle, & Hair, (2017) when an indicator 

has no significant weight, and the outer loading is below 0.50, the study should decide whether 

to retain or delete the indicator by examining its theoretical relevance and potential content 

overlap with other indicators of the same construct. In this study, the emotion was not 

significant, and but the prior study remained as the construct for well-being, then this study 

included the emotion factor as a determinant for well-being. 

 

Table 5. Significance values well-being 

 

Relationship Outer Weight SE T-Value Result 

Economic -> Well-being 0.260 0.172 5.141 Supported 

Emotion -> Well-being 0.253 0.013 0.283 Not Supported 

Environment -> Well-being 0.342 0.252 6.668 Supported 

Health -> Well-being 0.304 0.188 5.092 Supported 

Spiritual -> Well-being 0.007 0.149 4.969 Supported 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

48 

 

 
Figure 2. Second-order formative measurement model 

 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, this study aimed at data analysis used to estimate and interpret formative second-

order constructs of five constructs of well-being in Figure 2 with a study among 1306 of 

residents in Selangor. The finding revealed that the economic dimension, environment 

dimension, health dimension, and spiritual dimension were significant to well-being except for 

the emotion dimension was not significant to well-being. The environment showed the most 

significant factor (t-value =6.668), followed by economic (t-value =5.141), health (t-value 

=5.092), spiritual t-value =4.969). The implication of the findings highlights the assessment for 

the study might use the formative second order of measurement model. A step and interpretation 

of this study guide the researcher to further explained the result of the study. 

 

DISCUSSION 

The most significant dimension found in this study is the environment dimension. Most of the 

respondents agree that a conducive environment is vital in determining community well-being, 

which in line with Musa et al. (2018) study. The questions that we probed are on the 

respondents’ perceptions of having a great environment, such as the availability of space for the 

young and the senior citizens. We also do not forget to mind the issues of the poor regardless of 

their ethnic and minorities. Besides, recycling centers are of importance in determining the 

Selangor community's well-being.   Secondly, there is no doubt; the economic dimension is also 

paramount. Povey et al., 2016; Di Tella et al., 2001; and Dwyer, 2016) have the same opinion. 

Based on the questions asked in the questionnaire, the Selangorians agreed that they should have 

some savings, life insurance, health insurance, and good pay that commensurate with their 

qualifications. These matters are important to ensure their economic status to embrace well-

being. The next crucial dimension is health. If one is not healthy, the community's well-being is 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

49 

 

hard to achieve.  The study indicated that most of the respondents are satisfied with their health 

status; they have enough energy to get things done daily and generally have health problems. 

This scenario could be due to a wonderful environment that they feel, and Selangor claims to 

have world-class medical centers.  The fourth key dimension is spiritual. Our finding is 

concurrent with Phillip and Wong (2017) and Gatzweiler et al. (2017) study. The majority of the 

Selangorians are Muslims, followed by Buddhists, Hindus, and Christians. Most of them 

admitted that they pray and have fulfilled their responsibilities as required by their religions. 

They also believed that they have a strong belief in their respective religion that they should not 

only think good but do good.  Having a strong religious belief is key to great community well-

being. Despite the caution and controversy about the ‘robustness’ of proof and reluctance to 

publish non-significant findings that have undergone rigorous statistical tests, the number, and 

variety of different studies showing the different ways in which interaction with nature has a 

positive impact on well-being should be critical.  Interestingly, our study found out that the 

emotional dimension is not significant to the well-being dimension. This study contradicts with 

Townsend (2016) study. This scenario probably is due to the questions asked about their 

emotional elements, such as whether or not they experienced anger, worry, or stress lately. They 

could have felt all those emotions due to personal issues that are not necessarily related to the 

overall well-being. As long as everyone understands and respects each other, well-being is 

accessible across a large range of possible domains of life, but almost always includes some 

variances of environment, economy, health, and security. The most important first step in 

assessing well-being is always to consider its purpose in terms of the choices for action that it 

can measure or distinguish. Whether the objective is to identify how community-scale activities 

might affect or impact, normative preferable individual behavior, to reduce inequalities between 

and within states or across generations, this is not a technical decision but an idea and political 

one which needs to be formulated by the local governance. Thus, we strongly recommend 

scholars, policymakers, and state governments to pay closer attention to these variables that 

enhance Selangorians’ well-being.  

 

LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH 

Well-being can be seen as evaluations of conditions in a community, specifically here in 

Selangor, which involves various community processes, action, and government. However, it is 

equally important to assess subjective perceptions of community well-being and resilience in 

quality of life research (Turksever & Atalik, 2001) because perceptions have their authenticity. 

Although perceived well-being is only modest in this research, it is not necessarily Selangorians 

are not actively engaged with the well-being. 

 

FUTURE RESEARCH AND IMPLICATIONS 

While the current research examines well-being in terms of economics, emotion, environment, 

health, and spirituality, future research should address other factors that influence the well-being 

of a state.  Here, we do not specifically look into the culture. Probably, future research can 

include other potential determinants of well-being. Researchers could also tap on a specific 

community well-being study. Research on social well-being could also be of interest. Moreover, 

a comparative study of well-being from other developing countries might provide insights into 

the enhancement of overall well-being in Selangor.  

 

 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

50 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

We would like to thank the Selangor State Government for funding of this paper under grant no: 

SUK GPPSTI/2017/002. 

 

REFERENCES 

Abdullah, M.F. (2017). Propelling Selangor’s Transformation into Regional Smart State. The 

Other Press. 

Abu-Raiya, H. (2013). The psychology of Islam: Current empirically based knowledge, 

potential challenges, and directions for future research. In K. I. Pargament, J. J. Exline, 

& J. W. Jones (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality: Context, 

theory, and research (Vol. 1, pp. 681 695). Washington, DC: APA.  

Bakar, A. A., Osman, M. M., Bachok, S., & Ibrahim, M. (2016). Investigating rationales of 

Malaysia’s quality of life and well-being components and indicators. Procedia-Social 

and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 132-142. 

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc 

Coleman, P., McKiernan, F., Mills, M., & Speck, P. (2002). Spiritual belief and quality of life: 

the experience of older bereaved spouses. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, 3(1), 20-

26. 

Cunningham, C. J. L., De La Rosa, G. M., & Jex, S. M. (2008). The dynamic influence of 

individual characteristics on employee well-being: A review of the theory, research, and 

future directions. In K. Naswall, J. Hellgren, & M. Sverke (Eds.), The individual in the 

changing working life (pp. 258 283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Department of Statistics, 2016. 

Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, R., & Oswald, A. (2001). Preferences over inflation and 

unemployment. Evidence from surveys of happiness. The American Economic Review, 

91(1), 335–341. 

Dodge, R., Daly, A. P., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. D. (2012). The challenge of defining well-

being. International journal of well-being, 2(3). 

Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A 

review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. 

Journal of economic psychology, 29(1), 94-122. 

Doodman, P., & Safari, H. (2017). Study of Association between Spiritual Well-Being and 

Happiness in Male Students in Firouzabad County, Iran. 

Fornell, C.R., & Lacker, D.F. (1981). Two structural equation models with unobservable 

variables and measurement error.18 

Gallup. (1992). Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/home.aspx 1992 

Gatzweiler, F. W., Zhu, Y. G., Roux, A. V. D., Capon, A., Donnelly, C., Salem, G., ... & 

Hanaki, K. (2017). Advancing health and well-being in the changing urban environment. 

In Advancing Health and Well-being in the Changing Urban Environment (pp. 1-48). 

Springer, Singapore. 

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate 

data analysis (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-219). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of 

Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. 

Gallup.%20(1992).%20https:/www.gallup.com/home.aspx%201992
Gallup.%20(1992).%20https:/www.gallup.com/home.aspx%201992


https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

51 

 

Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial 

least squares structural equation modelling. Sage Publications. 

Hashim, H.  & Shuib, K.B., (2016). Comparing Economic and Social indicators Towards 

Sustainable Development in Selangor. Academia.edu. 

Kenny, C. (2005). Does development make you happy? Subjective well-being and economic 

growth in developing countries. Social Indicators Research, 73(2), 199-219. 

Khairani Afifi, Health is Wealth April 22, 2019, Making better health more accessible for all. 

The Edge. 

Kim, Y., & Ludwigs, K. (2017). Measuring community well-being and individual well-being 

for public policy: The case of the community well-being atlas. Handbook of community 

well-being research (pp. 423–433). Dordrecht: Springer. 

Lee, S. J., & Kim, Y. (2018). Economy Doesn’t Buy Community Well-being: a Study of Factors 

Shaping Community Well-being in South Korea. International Journal of Community 

Well-Being, 1(1), 33–44.doi:10.1007/s42413-018-0004-2  

Malaysian Well-being Report. (2013). Retrieved from 

https://www.mesym.com/en/posts/malaysian-well-being-report-2013/ 

Marks, L., Cave, S., Hunter, D., Mason, J., Peckham, S., & Wallace, A. (2011). Governance for 

health and well-being in the English NHS. Journal of health services research & 

policy, 16(1_suppl), 14-21. 

Merriam, S. B., & Kee, Y. (2014). Promoting community well-being: The case for lifelong 

learning for older adults. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(2), 128-144. 

Musa, H. D., Yacob, M. R., Abdullah, A. M., & Ishak, M. Y. (2018). Enhancing subjective 

well-being through strategic urban planning: Development and application of 

community happiness index. Sustainable cities and society, 38, 184-194. 

Newton, J. (2007). Well-being and the Natural Environment: A brief overview of the 

evidence. University of Bath, UK. 

Husin, N.A., Yulia, A., Shahdan, T.S., Ngah, F., Ghazali, A., & Azim, ZAZ. (2020).   The 

Quality of Life among Selangorians: A Domain Evaluation. International Journal of 

Innovation, Creativity and Change. 14(1). 1061-1073.   Retrieved from 

https://www.ijicc.net/images/Vol_14/Iss_1/14194_Husin_2020_E_R.pdf 

Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. (1998). Patterns of positive and 

negative religious coping with major life stressors. Journal for the Scientific Study of 

Religion, 37(4), 710 724. doi:10.2307/1388152  

Phillips, R. & Wong, C. (2017). Handbook of community well-being research (pp. 523–530). 

Dordrecht:  

              Springer. 

Povey, J., Boreham, P., & Tomaszewski, W. (2016). The development of a new multi-faceted 

model of social well-being: Does income level make a difference? Journal of Sociology, 

52(2), 155-172. 

Prescott-Allen, R. (2001). The well-being of nations. Island Press. 

Rath, T., Harter, J. K., & Harter, J. (2010). Well-being: The five essential elements. Simon and 

Schuster. 

Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation 

modelling. Handbook of market research, 1-40. 

Selangor Blueprint. (2016). Retrieved from https://selangorkini.my>2016blueprint-smart-

selangor 

Malaysian%20Well-being%20Report.%20(2013).%20Retrieved%20from%20https:/www.mesym.com/en/posts/malaysian-well-being-report-2013/
Malaysian%20Well-being%20Report.%20(2013).%20Retrieved%20from%20https:/www.mesym.com/en/posts/malaysian-well-being-report-2013/
https://www.ijicc.net/images/Vol_14/Iss_1/14194_Husin_2020_E_R.pdf


https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                      Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                             Vol. 4, No. 3; 2020 

52 

 

Strachan, G., Wright, G. D., & Hancock, E. (2007). An evaluation of a community health 

intervention programme aimed at improving health and well-being. Health Education 

Journal, 66(3), 277-285. 

Tonon, G. (2017). Community well-being and national well-being: The opinion of young 

people. In R.  

Tsai, M. C., Dwyer, R. E., & Tsay, R. M. (2016). Does financial assistance really assist? The 

impact of debt on well-being, health behaviour and self-concept in Taiwan. Social 

Indicators Research, 125(1), 127-147. 

Türksever, A. N. E. & Atalik, G. (2001). Possibilities and limitations for the measurement of the 

quality of life in urban areas. Social indicators research, 53(2), 163-187. 

Utsey, S. O., Bolden, M. A., Williams, O., Lee, A., Lanier, Y., & Newsome, C. (2007). Spiritual 

Well-Being as a Mediator of the Relation between Culture-Specific Coping and Quality 

of Life in a Community Sample of African Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural 

Psychology, 38(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297296 

Wiseman, J., & Brasher, K. (2008). Community well-being in an unwell world: Trends, 

challenges, and possibilities. Journal of Public Health Policy, 29(3), 353-366. 

 

 

 

Copyrights 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the 

journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative 

Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) 

 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297296

