Urbanity, Neighbourhood Characteristics and Perceived Quality of Life (QoL): Analysis of Individual and Contextual Determinants for Perceived QoL in 3300 Postal Code Areas in Finland

Abstract

This analysis examines the geography of subjective wellbeing within a single country via a novel dataset consisting of more than 26,000 respondents embedded in 3100 postal code areas in Finland. We include a detailed indicator on the level of urbanity of the respondent’s location derived from a 250 × 250 m GIS grid, contextual measures of the postal code area´s socioeconomic status as well as proximity to the nearest urban locality and capital city. This analytical framework model makes it possible to examine both individual and contextual determinants for perceived quality of life (QoL). In addition, we include individual-level measures on mental health (Mental Health Inventory MHI-5) and satisfaction with housing and neighbourhood characteristics. The results show that when controlling for socioeconomic factors living in an inner urban area or a neighbourhood (postal code area) with a high unemployment rate are associated with lower QoL and. Also, the share of population with a tertiary education in a postal code area has a positive effect for individual QoL. However, the effects of inner urban living and unemployment rate become insignificant when including mental health indicators and perceived loneliness. In sum, the results confirm and add more detail to earlier findings on lower QoL in urban context and connect living in inner urban area to mental health indicators. As such, the analysis provides further evidence for the positive QoL effects of more rural living while having an access to health and other services.

The Effects of Urban Living Conditions on Subjective Well-Being: The Case of German Foreign Service Employees

“…Studies that merely focus on objective environmental indicators do not take the importance of such subjective evaluations into account. Some studies investigate a direct link between objective living conditions and well-being on one hand, but additionally include subjective characteristics as potential factors (e.g., Ettema & Schekkerman 2016 ; Weckroth et al, 2022 ). Others conceptualise the relationship between objective living conditions and SWB indirectly by including subjective evaluations of these conditions (McCrea et al, 2006 ).…”

“…The subjective assessment of living conditions is dependent on people’s preferences and values and is thus related to their assessment of their overall well-being. Several researchers therefore highlight the importance of including both types of measures, whenever possible, to create a reliable and complete picture of how living conditions impact SWB (McCrea et al, 2006 ; Pacione, 2003 ; Weckroth et al, 2022 ).…”

“…The immediate living environment, such as the quality and level of maintenance of housing, as well as the appearance and level of maintenance of the neighbourhood has often been analysed. The direct living environment has been found to be strongly linked to people’s overall well-being (e.g., Ma et al, 2018 ; Ettema & Schekkerman, 2016 ; Weckroth et al, 2022 ), and to even have an impact on physical health (Aretz et al, 2019 ). Based on the ‘bottom-up perspective’ (Campbell et al, 1976 ), the domains-of-life literature (e.g., Cummins, 1996 ) assumes overall life satisfaction is the result of satisfaction in several life domains.…”

“…The impact of urban living conditions on subjective well-being (SWB) is of growing interest for both researchers and policy makers (e.g., Ettema & Schekkerman 2016 ; Weckroth et al, 2022 ). Studies have investigated the impact of a variety of specific environmental factors, ranging from ecological problems to public transport, on well-being (e.g., Aretz et al, 2019 ; Levinson, 2020 ).…”

Ecological Study of Urbanicity and Self-reported Poor Mental Health Days Across US Counties

“…On the other hand, urban populations are also more likely to have access to mental health care, more likely to participate in social organizations which offer psycho-social support (Yang, 2019 ), and more likely to have educational and financial opportunities (Ha, 2019 ), all of which are associated with positive mental health outcomes. A recently published paper assessing quality of life in Finland found higher rates of high quality of life in rural areas but not after controlling for perceived loneliness (Weckroth et al, 2022 ). Another study found that people in urban areas have higher prevalence of both depression and anxiety despite having lower prevalence of other risk factors (Zijlema et al, 2015 ).…”