Happiness in Different Types of Residential Areas
Abstract
There is a dearth of research in Finland into the effect of residential area on happiness independent of other factors. The same goes for research into the associations between residential area and perceived happiness. This article aims to identify which factors explain happiness and differences in the occurrence of happiness between urban and rural municipalities in Finland. Comparisons are made between four different types of residential area (city centre, suburban area, rural settlement and rural countryside).
The research data come from the Regional Well-being and Health project from 2010. The sample was collected from the sub-region of Kainuu, Ostrobothnia (Oulu sub-region and southern Oulu) and Turku. Happiness was measured on the basis of subjective experiences. The data were analysed using logistic regression. Two types of explanatory variables were used: sociodemographic control variables and proper explanatory variables that in one way or another are associated with the region. The variables were chosen based on earlier happiness studies.
Our results suggest that people who live in the rural countryside are happier than those who live in cities or rural settlements. The differences between rural and urban residential areas remained even when other factors explaining happiness or the respondent’s geographical area were added to the regression models. Two underlying happiness factors stand out in every residential area: living in a partnership and good self-perceived health emerged as factors contributing to happiness regardless of place of residence. Regional factors such as insecurity in cities contributed very little to explaining differences in happiness between different types of municipalities.
Authors
Arttu Saarinen, Ilpo Airio, Risto Kaikkonen, Minna-Liisa Luoma
Additional Information
- Peer-Reviewed: yes.
- Open Access: yes.
- Cite as: Saarinen, A., Airio, I., Kaikkonen, R., & Luoma, M. (2013). Onnellisuus erityyppisillä asuinalueilla. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, 78(5), 520–532. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe201402101415
