Size of Town, Level of Education and Life Satisfaction in Western Europe

Migheli, Matteo

doi:10.1111/tesg.12205

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Support for this hypothesis is found in empirical research, where Morrison and Weckroth (2018) reported that urban agglomeration raises the income and wellbeing returns for those with tertiary education. Similar evidence is provided by Burger et al (2020), who found that highereducated individuals with higher incomes are happier in cities in the Western part of Europe and North America, a finding also reported in the study by Migheli (2017) using the World Values Survey for Western Europe. Likewise, Carlsen and Leknes (2019) found for Norway that young, single people without children, as well as highereducated people generally, report higher levels of SWB in more populous cities.…”

Section: Between-group Heterogeneitysupporting

confidence: 87%

Selective migration and urban–rural differences in subjective well-being: Evidence from the United Kingdom

Hoogerbrugge

Burger

2021

Urban Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although more and more people choose to live in (large) cities, people in the Western world generally report lower levels of subjective well-being in urban areas than in rural areas. This article examines whether these urban–rural differences in subjective well-being are (partly) driven by selective migration patterns. To this end, we utilise residential mobility data from the United Kingdom based on 12 waves of the British Household Panel Survey. We explore urban–rural differences in life satisfaction as well as changes in life satisfaction of people moving from rural areas to urban areas (or vice versa), hereby paying specific attention to selection and composition effects. The results show that selective migration can, at least partly, explain the urban–rural subjective well-being differential through the selection of less satisfied people in cities and more satisfied people in the countryside. While the average life satisfaction of urban–rural migrants is higher compared to the life satisfaction of rural–urban migrants, we do not find – on average – long-lasting life satisfaction effects of migration. At the same time, there are differences between sociodemographic groups in that we find that a move from the countryside to the city is positively associated with the life satisfaction of students while it is negatively associated with the life satisfaction of people with a non-tertiary education.

show abstract

Section: Between-group Heterogeneitysupporting

confidence: 87%

Selective migration and urban–rural differences in subjective well-being: Evidence from the United Kingdom

Hoogerbrugge

Burger

2021

Urban Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the U.S., like in some other countries, an urban-rural happiness gradient has been observed that rises from lowest levels in large cities to highest levels in the rural periphery (Berry, Okulicz-Kozaryn 2011; Winters 2017) Similarly, Requena (2016) found higher subjective well-being in rural areas 194/354 compared to cities, albeit just in economically more developed countries, while in less developed countries, the rural environment cannot compete with urban resources for creating subjective well-being. Migheli (2017) confirmed the negative effect of urbanisation levels on life satisfaction also in European countries. He argues however, that the effect is less pronounced for welleducated who benefit more from the urban environment.…”

Section: Approaches To Investigate Rural Quality Of Life and Aspects supporting

confidence: 65%

Rural Quality of Life – Poverty, Satisfaction and Opportunity Deprivation in Different Types of Rural Territories

Bernard

2018

European Countryside

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contributes to the rural-urban quality of life comparison issue by investigating territorial differences in quality of life using indices of poverty, satisfaction and opportunity deprivation. The article introduces three innovative elements. First, rural-urban differences are analysed alongside with the within-rural differentiation; second, two distinct spatial patterns of different forms of rural territorial disadvantage are introduced; third, the net-effect of the residential environment is assessed. Empirical results, based on survey data, show increased opportunity deprivation in rural areas, which however is not accompanied by decreased community satisfaction. For the most indices, within-rural differences proved larger than the difference between urban and rural areas. Abstrakt:Článek je příspěvkem k tématu komparace kvality života na venkově a ve městech.Zkoumá územní rozdíly v kvalitě života s použitím indexů chudoby, spokojenosti a příležitostí. Do výzkumu tohoto tématu přináší tři inovativní prvky. Za prvé, rozdíly mezi venkovem a městy jsou analyzovány spolu s diferenciací uvnitř venkova; za druhé představuje a analyticky využívá dva odlišné prostorové vzorce různých forem venkovského znevýhodnění; za třetí, hodnotí čistý efekt rezidenčního prostředí. Empirické výsledky založené na dotazníkových datech ukazují na problém deprivace příležitostí ve venkovských oblastech, který však není doprovázen poklesem spokojenosti s lokalitou. Pro většinu ukazatelů se rozdíly v rámci venkovských oblastí ukázaly být větší než rozdíly mezi městskými a venkovskými oblastmi.

show abstract

“…This is achieved using five dummies clustering towns according to the number of inhabitants; cities with more than 100,000 residents are used as a reference category. In Italy, centres of this size are either large provincial chief towns or regional capitals, and therefore, are characterised by the presence of numerous commercial services ( Migheli, 2017 ). Finally, some regressions control for the variation in the number of weekly purchases of food in different types of stores, such as supermarkets, local shops, and stores located far from the neighbourhood where the household lives, local market, and producers (for fresh food).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Household mobility in food purchasing during COVID-19 lockdown: Evidence from Torino, Italy

Braut

Migheli

Truant

2022

Cities

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the first wave of COVID-19, lockdown restrictions limited people's movements mainly to food purchasing. Using survey data collected in Torino, Italy, from university students, this study analyses the lockdown's impact on the transportation means used for purchasing food compared to the pre-lockdown period. Food store businesses were not limited by the restrictions and people had to purchase food; however, national and local rules limited citizens' movements, potentially leading to a different choices of transportation means than before the pandemic. The results show that both the lockdown and, perhaps, the fear of contagion, moved the preferences of people from public and shared means to foot and private vehicles. These findings can help in rethinking how transportation is organised in an urban environment, such as that in Torino. Ensuring the safety of public and shared transportation may help sustain mobility during health emergencies.

show abstract

Size of Town, Level of Education and Life Satisfaction in Western Europe

Cited by 9 publications

References 73 publications

Selective migration and urban–rural differences in subjective well-being: Evidence from the United Kingdom

Selective migration and urban–rural differences in subjective well-being: Evidence from the United Kingdom

Rural Quality of Life – Poverty, Satisfaction and Opportunity Deprivation in Different Types of Rural Territories

Household mobility in food purchasing during COVID-19 lockdown: Evidence from Torino, Italy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About