Spatial influences on domains of life satisfaction in the UK

Hand, Chris

doi:10.1080/00343404.2019.1645953

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The statistical association between subjective wellbeing and urban settlement has now received attention worldwide [8,9] particularly in Europe: Norway [12,13], Sweden [14], Finland [5,15], the United Kingdom [16][17][18][19][20], Ireland [21], Germany [22,23], Switzerland [24], Italy [25,26], Spain [27], Romania [28,29] and, most recently, Slovakia [30]. While many European studies offer empirical support for the paradox others draw attention to the highly conditional nature of the proposition.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whose Happiness in Which Cities? A Quantile Approach

Morrison¹

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proposition that living in the largest urban agglomerations of an advanced economy reduces the average wellbeing of residents is known as the urban wellbeing paradox. Empirical tests using subjective wellbeing have produced mixed results and there are two reasons for being cautious. Firstly, the default reliance on the conditional mean can disguise uneven effects across the wellbeing distribution. Secondly, relying on respondents to define their settlement size does not ensure a consistent measure of the agglomeration. I therefore apply quantile regression to the life satisfaction and happiness measures of wellbeing as collected by the 2018 European Social Survey (ESS9) and employ a consistent local labour market-based definition of agglomeration—The Functional Urban Area (FUA). I compare three countries as proof of concept: one with a known strong negative (respondent defined) agglomeration effect (Austria), one with a slight negative effect (Czech Republic), and one where living in the main agglomeration is positively associated with average wellbeing (Slovenia). The uneven wellbeing effect of living in the largest agglomeration in each country raises questions about who benefits in which cities.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whose Happiness in Which Cities? A Quantile Approach

Morrison¹

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the study indicates that the reason for moving into a rural area is not primarily to move closer to the workplace. This may have to do with decisions related to quality of life away from problems of atmospheric pollution, noise, and traffic congestion that are often associated with cities [5,21,43]. It may also relate to the inflated home prices in major cities that force people to move to rural areas where they may find more affordable accommodation [20,44].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The attractiveness of rural areas can also be seen in the higher reported life satisfaction of rural areas compared to urban areas [21]. Rural areas appear to attract professionals and individuals from managerial classes who seek to combine employment with higher quality-of-life and more affordable housing [43].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wirth argues that "On the whole, the city discourages an economic life in which the individual in time of crisis has a basis of subsistence to fall back upon, and it discourages self-employment" [6] (pp. [21][22]. He explains that this is because while income is on average higher in the city than in the countryside, homeownership is rare and housing accommodation expenses are higher in the cities, absorbing as a result a large share of the earned income.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, an increasing number of people also move out of major cities and into rural areas [14,19]. Urban areas offer several advantages in terms of access to goods and services compared to rural areas, but the greater noise and air pollution of urban areas, as well as the higher cost of living, can have a negative effect on individual life satisfaction and overall quality of life [5,20,21]. During the years leading to the 2008 financial crisis, there was an increase in the movement of people from urban to rural areas in the UK, which also continued during the recovery years [22,23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effects of Rural and Urban Areas on Time Allocated to Self-Employment: Differences between Men and Women

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the association of the rural–urban divide and the time individuals allocate to self-employment. The empirical analysis uses fixed effects modelling on data from the UK Household Longitudinal Survey over the period 2009–2019. The study identifies significant differences in the time men and women allocate to self-employment between rural and urban areas according to their career age group. While men and women tend to allocate more time to selfemployment in their senior career age when residents of urban areas, the time they allocate to self-employment between rural and urban areas in early- and mid-career age differs markedly. More importantly, we find that significant differences exist not only between residents of rural and urban areas, but also between residents of these areas and in-migrants to these areas. We find a significant positive effect on the time senior career age women who migrate to rural areas allocate to self-employment. In contrast, we find that early career men who move from rural to urban areas allocate significantly more time to self-employment. The results reveal the existence of complex dynamics between gender and age, which affect the allocation of time to self-employment between rural and urban areas.

show abstract