Subjective well-being and the city
Percentage of respondents All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays? percent 10 20 30 40 8.11 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Source: European Social Survey. Wave 6. 2012 Life satisfaction 3
Life satisfaction varies by region Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. (2011). Geography of European life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 101, 435-445.
Life satisfaction also varies by city Florida, R., Mellander, C. & Rentfrow, P. J. (2011). The happiness of cities. Regional Studies, 47(4), 613-627.
Subjective well-being Subjective well-being and urbanisation Developed Countries a d c b Less Developed Countries Urban population size/density
Subjective well-being is lower in large cities The USA case: * 2.5<10k or towns 10k<50k Source: US General Social Survey 1972-2008 *Berry and Okulicz-Kozaryn An urban-rural happiness gradient Urban Geography 2011 32(6): 871-883
A spatial analogue to the Easterlin paradox? Large metropolitan centres are engines of growth. Subjective well-being is lower in large agglomerations (in developed economies). Is this a spatial analogue of the paradox of affluence? With increasing agglomeration will (relative) average levels of subjective well-being in countries fall?
Subjective well-being in large agglomerations Helsinki-Uusimaa 8.0 0 percent 10 20 30 40 percent 10 20 30 40 Subjective well-being Rest of Finland 8.15 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Controls expose greater differences between the centre and periphery 8
The subjective has a microeconomic basis-theoretically and empirically
Subjective well-being is a (positive) function of income S = f (I) While positively related, income only accounts for a small proportion of the variance in subjective well-being.
Satisfaction with life varies widely at all levels of income Satisfaction with life 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Household income decile
Many other factors affect subjective well-being 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Mean satisfaction with life 8 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 Age of respondent, calculated Source: ESS6 (Finland) Age of respondent Main others: Marriage Health Trust Genetics
Adding non-income personal characteristics, X S = f (I, X) Now add characteristics of the city, C S = f (I, X, C)
In micro-economic theory, the individual s only connection with others is via the market.
Subjective well-being is also affected by relative income** S = f (I, I*, X, C) ** Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics, 61(3), 359-381.
Income and relative income have opposite effects on subjective well-being S I* = Io/I (ratio of others income to own income) I (own income)
Characteristics of contemporary models S = f (I,I*, X, C ) S = subjective well-being I = income of individual or household X = vector of other attributes of the individual C = vector of city characteristics
Where to from here?
Research challenges.. S = f (I,I*,X,C) 1. Other measures of subjective well-being? 2. Recognising heterogeneity within well-being (ill-being vs well-being) 3. Incorporating reference group effects? 4. Controlling for personality differences big five 5. What do we mean by city size? 6. Measuring geographic context
Research challenges continued 7. Establishing causation (the role of panels) 8. Getting the above into data collections 9. Recognising sub-groups heterogeneity in behaviour A quick look at Reference groups City size Geographic context
Incorporating reference group effects Who in the world do we compare ourselves with? I respondent neighbourhood S C N settlement country other countries
What do we mean by city size? Density vs population 200.0 400.0 600.0 Population density (persons per square hectare) 0.0 Saidpur Rajshahi Casablanca Hong Kong Dhaka Kolkata Mumbai Manila Cebu Bandung Baku Cairo Jalna Addis Ababa Puna Seoul Aswan Jaipur Ho Chi Minh City Vijayawada Alexandria Pusan Singapore Hyderabad AnqingSan Salvador Algiers Teheran Istanbul Bacolod Mexico City Medan Kanpur Songkhla Thessaloniki Yiyang Coimbatore Yulin Madrid Santiago Shanghai Valledupar Ansan Guangzhou Palermo Leshan Marrakech Sao Paulo Akashi Banjul Bamako Sanaa Palembang Guatemala City Changzhi Moscow Buenos Aires Guaruja Caracas KampalaGuadalajara Bangkok Kigali Beijing Chinju Chonan Kingston Ibadan Fukuoka Tel Accra Aviv Ndola Tebessa Ulan Malatya Ouagadougou Warsaw Bator Zhengzhou Kuala Lumpur Paris Port Ribeirao Tijuana Ahvaz Budapest Wien Milano Sheffield Sudan Montevideo Preto London Jequie Gorgan Kuwait Ilheus Astrakhan Le Castellon Shimkent Johannesburg Leipzig Pretoria Oktyabrsky Mans Sydney Los Angeles St. Victoria Ipoh Harare Yerevan City Zugdidi Modesto Springfield Pittsburgh Tacoma Catharines CincinnatiHouston Minneapolis Philadelphia Chicago 0.0 10000000.0 20000000.0 30000000.0 Population_T2 Source: The Lincoln Institute Population Tokyo
Log of population density Is urban population a proxy for urban density? 3 4 5 6 7 e 15.5 = 5.4 million Hong Kong Dhaka Mumbai Saidpur Rajshahi Casablanca KolkataManila Cebu Jalna Baku Bandung Cairo Addis Ababa Puna Aswan Jaipur Ho Chi Minh City Seoul Vijayawada Alexandria Pusan Singapore Hyderabad Anqing San SalvadorAlgiers Teheran Istanbul Bacolod Mexico City Medan Kanpur Songkhla Yulin Thessaloniki Yiyang Coimbatore Madrid Santiago Shanghai Ansan Guangzhou Tokyo Valledupar Palermo Marrakech Leshan Sao Paulo Banjul Bamako Sanaa Palembang Guatemala City Guadalajara Bangkok Moscow Buenos Aires Akashi Changzhi Caracas Kampala Guaruja Kigali Ibadan Accra Beijing Chinju Chonan Kingston Tel Aviv Fukuoka Zhengzhou Kuala LumpurParis Ndola Tebessa Ulan Malatya Ouagadougou Bator Warsaw Tijuana Ahvaz Budapest Milano Wien London Port Sudan Ribeirao Preto Montevideo Sheffield Kuwait Yerevan City Johannesburg Gorgan Jequie Zugdidi Shimkent Astrakhan Pretoria Harare Sydney Castellon Leipzig Los Angeles Ilheus Le Mans Ipoh Oktyabrsky Victoria Pittsburgh Philadelphia Modesto Cincinnati MinneapolisHouston Chicago Springfield St. Catharines Tacoma 12 13 14 15 16 17 lnpopt2 Log of population e 6.2 = 493 p/ha e 3.1 = 22.2 p/ha Source: The Lincoln Institute r = 0.313
How does geographic context [and time] affect subjective well-being? MAUP: The modifiable areal unit problem UGCoP: The uncertain geographic context problem* *Schwanen, T., & Wang, D. (2014). Well-being, context, and everyday activities in space and time. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(4), 833-851. *Kwan, M.-P. (2012). The uncertain geographic context problem. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(5), 958-968.
Time and space define context ardson, D. B., Volkow, N. D., Kwan, M.-P., Kaplan, R. M., Goodchild, M. F., & Croyle, R. T. 13). Spatial turn in health research. Science, 339(22 March ), 1390-1392.
Key points 1. Quality of life is not the same as subjective well-being. 2. Agglomeration lowers local subjective well-being. Why? 3. We compare ourselves to others. Which others? 4. What is context where and when? 5. Qualitative studies of context? 6. A role for regional studies?
Philip.Morrison@vuw.ac.nz