# Contextual correlates of happiness in European adults

Eva Anna Christina Hart, Jeroen Lakerveld, Martin Mckee, Jean-Michel Oppert, Harry Rutter, Hélène Charreire, Ruut Veenhoven, Helga Bardos, Sofie Compernolle, Ilse de Bourdeaudhuij, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Eva Anna Christina Hart, Jeroen Lakerveld, Martin Mckee, Jean-Michel Oppert, Harry Rutter, et al. Contextual correlates of happiness in European adults. PLoS ONE, 2018, 13 (1), pp.1-17. 10.1371/journal.pone.0190387. hal-02627107

HAL Id: hal-02627107

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02627107

Submitted on 26 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Contextual correlates of happiness in European adults

Eva Anna Christina Hart¹, Jeroen Lakerveld¹, Martin McKee², Jean-Michel Oppert³,⁴,
Harry Rutter², Hélène Charreire³,⁵, Ruut Veenhoven⁶,⁷, Helga Bárdos⁸,
Sofie Compernolle⁹, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij⁹, Johannes Brug¹,¹⁰, Joreintje
Dingena Mackenbach¹*

1 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2 ECOHOST–The Centre for Health and Social Change, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom, 3 Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle (EREN), Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologie et Statistiques, Inserm (U1153), Inra (U1125), Cnam, COMUE Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université Paris 13, Bobigny, France, 4 Sorbonne Universités, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris 06; Institute of Cardiometabolism and Nutrition, Department of Nutrition, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France, 5 Paris Est University, Lab-Urba, UPEC, Urban School of Paris, Créteil, France, 6 Erasmus Happiness Economics Research Organization, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 7 Optentia Research, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa, 8 Department of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Public Health, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary, 9 Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium, 10 Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

* j.mackenbach@vumc.nl

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Hart EAC, Lakerveld J, McKee M, Oppert J-M, Rutter H, Charreire H, et al. (2018) Contextual correlates of happiness in European adults. PLoS ONE 13(1): e0190387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190387

**Editor:** Hajo Zeeb, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology BIPS, GERMANY

**Received:** January 18, 2017

**Accepted:** December 4, 2017

**Published:** January 24, 2018

**Copyright:** © 2018 Hart et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data underlying this study contains residential locations that cannot be completely anonymized. As such, the dataset will not be made publicly available. Any interested party can contact the data manager to gain access to the data. Dependent on the nature of the request interested parties will either gain immediate access (e.g., parties wishing to check the statistics used in a specific study) or interested parties' publication proposals will be discussed in the Spotlight Data Access and Publication Committee (e.g., parties wishing to use the data to answer a new research question). Interested Parties who get access to the

## Abstract

### Objectives

We aimed to examine the associations of both objectively assessed and perceived physical and social neighborhood characteristics with happiness in European adults. In addition, we aimed to study how these associations differed among subgroups.

### Methods

Participants (N = 6037) of the cross-sectional SPOTLIGHT survey reported on their level of happiness using a 5-point Likert scale, and on perceived physical and social environmental neighborhood characteristics. Objective physical environmental characteristics were assessed using a Google Street View-based neighborhood audit. Associations of 14 physical and social environmental characteristics with happiness were analyzed using multivariable multinomial regression analyses with clustered standard errors.

### Results

Living in neighborhoods with higher levels of aesthetics and more water and green space was associated with being very happy. Individuals who perceived their neighborhood to be safer, more functional and more aesthetic were more likely to be very happy. The associations of functionality and aesthetics with happiness were strongest in the Ghent region (Belgium), the Randstad (the Netherlands) and Greater London (United Kingdom). Perceived absence of air pollution was only associated with higher levels of happiness in more highly
data will sign an agreement that the data will only
be used for the specific purpose and that they will
not make the data publicly available. JL is the data
manager of the Spotlight project and he can be
contacted via je.lakerveld@vumc.nl (or
upstreamteam@vumc.nl).

**Funding:** The SPOTLIGHT project is funded by the Seventh Framework Programme (CORDIS FP7) of the European Commission, HEALTH (FP7-HEALTH-2011-twostage), Grant agreement no. 278186. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.

educated participants. Individuals with a larger social network, more social cohesion and
who trusted their neighbors were more likely to be very happy. The association between
social networks and happiness was somewhat stronger in men than in women. In general,
the associations between environmental characteristics and happiness had similar direc-
tions and sizes across socio-economic and socio-demographic subgroups.

Conclusions

This European study provided evidence that both objectively assessed and perceived physi-
cal and social characteristics of the neighborhood environment are associated with the hap-
piness of its residents.

**Introduction**

Happiness is one of the most important values in life [1]. Being happy is associated with healthy lifestyle behaviors and longevity [2-7]. Happiness is a complex concept and can be defined in multiple ways. A commonly used definition of happiness is “the degree to which an individual judges the overall quality of his/her life as a whole favorably” [8-10], in other words, how much one likes the life one lives.

Many studies have identified individual-level factors of happiness, such as biological, per-
sonality, lifestyle, socio-demographic and socio-economic factors [5,11–14]. Yet, the contexts
or environments in which people live have also been found to be associated with happiness
[13,15–18]. Neighborhood environments have increasingly gained attention in epidemiologi-
cal studies as they contain both physical and social attributes that are likely to be relevant to
individual health and well-being [19,20]. This notion is underpinned by the concept of envi-
ronmental human-friendliness (EHF) [17], which implies that environments may support
individuals and groups in pursuing and realizing their goals, which contribute to an higher
level of happiness.

Several studies provide evidence for an association between social and physical environ-
mental factors and happiness. For example, social environmental factors such as neighborhood
social capital have consistently been positively associated with happiness and related constructs
such as subjective well-being [16,21,22]. Some aspects of the physical environment have also
been studied extensively; European and American studies found that settings that were aes-
thetically more attractive and had more green space have consistently been related to higher
levels of happiness [15,23–25].

Perceived access to public transport, culture and leisure facilities have been positively linked
with happiness in ten major cities in the world (including New York, Paris and Beijing) [15],
while another study, in five world cities, found happiness to be more closely correlated with
cultural, sporting, shopping and transport amenities (place variables) among young people
and with quality of government services (performance variables) among older people [18]. In
addition, urbanisation, air pollution and living in a neighborhood of economic disadvantage
have been inversely linked to happiness in the US and Europe [26-29]. There is also some evi-
dence from Ireland that proximity to the coast is associated with a higher level of happiness
[13]. However, there is a lack of studies investigating multiple social and physical environmen-
tal factors in the same sample and across different regions in Europe.

Both the actual environmental characteristics and environmental perceptions may be rele-
vant for happiness [30,31]. However, only a few studies thus far have measured these objective
and subjective environmental characteristics at the same time [32,33]. Additionally, some studies have suggested that environment-happiness associations may differ between socio-demographic and socio-economic subgroups, but such evidence is scarce [34]. The aim of this study was thus to explore the physical and social neighborhood environmental correlates of happiness in adults across Europe. We distinguished between perceived and objective measures of the physical environment and explored differences between socio-economic and socio-demographic subgroups.

# Methods

## Study design and study sample

Within the SPOTLIGHT ('sustainable prevention of obesity through integrated strategies') project, a cross-sectional study was carried out among inhabitants of urban areas in five different European countries: Ghent and suburbs (Belgium), the Randstad (a conurbation including Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague and Utrecht in the Netherlands), Greater London (UK), Paris and suburbs (France) and Budapest and suburbs (Hungary). Sampling of neighborhoods and recruitment of participants has been described in detail elsewhere [35]. Briefly, neighborhood sampling was based on a combination of residential density and socioeconomic status (SES) data at neighborhood level. This resulted in four types of neighborhoods: low SES/ low residential density, low SES/ high residential density, high SES/ low residential density and high SES/ high residential density. In each urban region, three neighborhoods of each neighborhood type were randomly sampled (i.e. 12 neighborhoods per region, 60 neighborhoods in total).

An online survey among residents of the selected neighborhoods included questions on demographics, neighborhood perceptions, social environmental factors, motivations and barriers for healthy behavior, obesity-related behaviors, weight, height and happiness. A total of 6037 (10.8% response rate) individuals participated in the survey between February and September 2014. The study was approved by the corresponding local ethics committees of participating countries. In Belgium, the study was approved by the ethics committee of Ghent University Hospital, in The Netherlands by the Medical Ethics Committee of the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam, in Hungary by the Health Science Council, Scientific Research Ethic Committee, in France by the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés and in the UK by The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee. All participants provided written informed consent.

## Outcome measure–happiness

We assessed level of happiness using a single-item question: 'In general, how happy are you?'. Measuring happiness by a single item is considered to be reliable, valid, and viable in community surveys as well as in cross-cultural comparisons [36] and our question was similar to questions widely used elsewhere [37]. Our item had five response options ('very happy', 'moderately happy', 'no feelings either way', 'moderately unhappy' and 'very unhappy'). The last two responses were combined as there were very few individuals in the 'very unhappy' category (0.8%), which resulted in four categories for analysis.

## Exposure measure–objectively assessed physical environment

The individual level data were supplemented by data from a validated neighborhood audit developed within the SPOTLIGHT project. The methods have been described elsewhere [38]. In brief, characteristics of the physical environment were objectively assessed with the valid
and reliable SPOTLIGHT Virtual Audit Tool (S-VAT), which was conducted using Google Street View (GSV) [39]. This tool consists of 41 items on environmental characteristics that were assessed in 4,486 street segments, in 59 neighborhoods (for one Hungarian neighborhood there were no GSV available at the time of the virtual audit) by trained researchers in the SPOTLIGHT project. The characteristics were related to public transport, aesthetics, land use-mix, grocery stores, type of food outlets, recreational, walking and cycling facilities. The proportion of street segments featuring each of the 41 items at neighborhood level was calculated. Further details on these characteristics can be found elsewhere [39,40].

We divided the items into four domains according to Pikora's framework of environmental determinants: 'traffic safety', 'functionality', 'destinations' and 'aesthetics' [41]. The domain 'traffic safety' included characteristics such as the percentage of streets with pedestrian crossings and traffic lights and the domain 'functionality' included characteristics such as the percentage of streets with well-maintained sidewalks and traffic calming devices. 'Destinations' included characteristics such as the percentage of streets with supermarkets, local shops or restaurants, and 'aesthetics' included for example the percentage of streets with well-maintained green areas and good condition residential buildings. A previous study within the same project has demonstrated the reliability of these domains in the current dataset [42]. The domains were treated as continuous variables, with probabilities that a street segment would contain them ranging from 0.01 to 0.71. In addition to the domains, we assessed the percentage of streets alongside bodies of water (e.g. river, canal, lake) and green spaces as a single continuous variable ranging from 0.01 to 1.00.

## Exposure measure—perceived physical environment

We measured the perceived physical environment by asking participants about the characteristics of their neighborhood, using five-point Likert scales. Statements on the neighborhood environment were based on items of the validated ALPHA questionnaire [43] and the Multi Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) instrument [44]. The five response options ranged from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'. An additional questionnaire item assessed whether or not six specific destination types (e.g. local businesses or facilities) were present in the neighborhood.

Following a similar categorization to the one used for objectively assessed environmental characteristics, four domains in the perceived physical environment were distinguished according the framework of Pikora [41,42]. We assessed the domains as continuous variables, with a higher score indicating more positive perceptions towards the physical environment. An example of a statement for 'perceived safety' is: 'There is not a lot of busy traffic in the neighborhood', but also: 'Crime levels are low in the neighbourhood'. In addition, we studied the item on air pollution and the item on litter, rubbish or graffiti as single categorical variables in three categories: agree, neutral and disagree.

## Exposure measure—perceived social environment

The social environment was assessed using a 13-item questionnaire developed by Beenackers et al. [45] that was previously validated in this sample [46]. All items were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'. Based on a reliability analysis we distinguished two domains of neighborhood social capital: social network and social cohesion [46]. To examine these domains in a neighborhood context, we aggregated individual scores at the neighborhood level. The domains were operationalized as continuous variables, with social network ranging from 7.90 to 12.69, and social cohesion ranging from 13.33 to 19.75. Additionally, the single item 'most people in this neighborhood can be trusted'
was used as an indicator of neighborhood levels of trust and assessed in three categories based on the distribution of the data.

## Covariates and potential moderators

We obtained data from the survey on age, gender, presence of children in the household, level of education, employment status, urban region of residence, years of residency and whether most of the participants' leisure time was spent in the neighborhood (yes/no). Age (18 to 65, 65+) and years of residency in the neighborhood (0-9, 10+) were dichotomized. Since education systems differed between the participating countries, level of education was also dichotomized (lower: from less than primary school to higher secondary education, higher: college or university level). We divided employment status into three groups: employed/in education, not employed/not in education, and retired.

## Statistical analysis

Participants for whom no address was known (n = 162), who lived in a neighborhood that was not covered by GSV at the time of data collection (n = 84), or who could not be allocated to one of the remaining 59 neighborhoods (n = 586) were excluded from analysis. This left 5,205 participants available for analysis. The analyses were conducted using Stata version 12 [47].

Descriptive characteristics and univariate comparisons of the total sample and by four levels of happiness were assessed using One-way ANOVAs and Chi-Square tests. Comparisons for non-normally distributed continuous variables were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis One-way ANOVA. We separately examined the relations between the fourteen independent variables and happiness, by conducting multivariable multinomial logistic regression analyses with clustered standard errors at the neighborhood level. By using clustered standard errors, the regression coefficients' standard errors were corrected for the correlated clusters within neighborhoods. A multinomial logistic regression analysis provides relative risk ratios (RRR), but for the sake of interpretation of the results we refer to the 'likelihood' of being happy, rather than to the 'relative risk' to be happy. We used the 'unhappy' category as a reference group to gain insight in the neighbourhood factors associated with 'being happier'. Since the objectively assessed domains originally did not contain values >1 (traffic safety: 0.01-0.62, functionality: 0.12-0.69, destinations: 0.01-0.12, aesthetics: 0.19-0.71) we related a 0.1-point (instead of a 1-point) change in these variables to likelihood of happiness.

Missing values ranged from <1% (employment status) to 24.3% (perceived functionality) and were handled using the multiple imputation technique, based on an assumption that values were missing at random. With the multiple imputation technique, missing values are replaced by plausible values multiple times to account for the uncertainty of these values [48]. Given the percentage of missing values, ten complete datasets were generated using predictive mean matching, which were, after analysis, pooled into one final data set [49,50]. As a sensitivity check, all final analyses were repeated using complete cases only.

After multiple imputation, we tested for moderation by age, gender, presence of children in the household, level of education, employment status, urban region of residence and the amount of leisure time spent in the neighborhood in all associations of the independent variables with happiness. Years of residency were additionally tested for moderation in the association of trust, social cohesion and social network with happiness. The tests were performed by adding interaction terms to the models, involving the (categories of) independent variables and the (categories of) moderators. Given the large number of tests, a p-value for interaction of <0.05 (instead of p<0.1) was considered to be statistically significant. Where there were significant moderating effects, analyses were stratified by the factor in question to interpret the
direction of the interactions. Those variables that were not moderators were treated as con-
founders. Analyses were then a priori adjusted for age, gender, presence of children in the
household, level of education and employment status, and we additionally tested whether
urban region of residence and the amount of leisure time spent in the neighborhood were con-
founding variables. Number of years of residency was tested as a confounder solely for the
social environment-happiness association. To obtain a *p*-for trend we performed linear regres-
sion analyses with happiness as a continuous dependent variable, to detect possible dose-
response associations.

**Results**

Table 1 presents the socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the total sample and the descriptive statistics of the environmental aspects. Table A in S1 File presents the univariate analysis, showing that moderately (42.2% of the sample) and very happy (40.1% of the total sample) individuals more often lived in neighborhoods with higher levels of aesthetics and perceived their neighborhood to be safer, more functional and free from rubbish, litter and graffiti. Furthermore, these univariate analyses showed that they lived in neighborhoods with more social cohesion and were more likely to trust their neighbors.

Objectively assessed physical environment

Associations between aspects of the objectively assessed physical environment and level of hap-
piness based on the multivariable multinomial logistic regression analyses are presented in
Table 2. In general, we found negative associations of traffic safety, functionality, and amount
of destinations in the neighborhood with happiness, and positive dose-response relations of
aesthetics and water and green spaces with levels of happiness. We found evidence that
employment status moderated the association of traffic safety and functionality of the neigh-
borhood with happiness, thus we presented these associations stratified by employment status
(Table 2). Additionally, gender and urban residence moderated the association of destinations
in the neighborhood with happiness, so these analyses were stratified as well. We did not find
any statistically significant interactions by age, presence of children in the household, level of
education or the amount of leisure time spent in the neighborhood.

Among retired individuals, a higher level of traffic safety was associated with a lower likelihood of being very happy (RRR = 0.70, 95%-confidence interval (CI) = 0.55; 0.89), with evidence of a dose- response relation (i.e. a 0.10-point increase in traffic safety (range 0.01–0.62) was associated with a likelihood ratio of 0.7 of being very happy relative to being unhappy). For unem- ployed individuals, a higher level of traffic safety was also associated with a lower likelihood of being very happy, in comparison to being unhappy. Among employed individuals we found no statistically significant differences. Similar patterns were present in the association between functionality of the neighborhood and happiness. Living in a neighborhood with more destina- tions was associated with a lower likelihood of being very happy for both men and women (RRR for men = 0.19, 95%-CI = 0.07; 0.49, RRR for women = 0.38, 95%-CI = 0.18; 0.84).

Living in a neighborhood with higher levels of aesthetics was associated with a higher likelihood of being moderately happy (RRR = 1.19, 95%-CI = 1.07; 1.32) or very happy (RRR = 1.28, 95%-CI = 1.16; 1.42). Likewise, living in a neighborhood with more water and green spaces was also associated with a higher likelihood of being moderately (RRR = 1.57, 95%-CI = 1.02; 2.42) or very happy (RRR = 1.83, 95%-CI = 1.15; 2.93). Both associations showed evidence of a dose-response relation. These effect sizes suggest that a 0.1-point increase in aesthetics (range 0.19–0.71) was associated with a 1.3 times higher likelihood of being very happy, and a 1-point increase in water and green spaces (range 0.00–1.00) was associated with a 1.8
<table><caption>Table 1. Characteristics of the total sample.</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>Total sample (N = 5205)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age (years)</td><td>52.1 ± 16.3</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (% female)</td><td>55.4</td></tr><tr><td>Children (% household without children)</td><td>70.1</td></tr><tr><td>Education (% higher)</td><td>54.2</td></tr><tr><td>Employment status</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- % employed/in education</td><td>58.7</td></tr><tr><td>- % unemployed</td><td>12.2</td></tr><tr><td>- % retired</td><td>29.1</td></tr><tr><td>Urban region of residence</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Ghent region (Belgium)</td><td>32.5</td></tr><tr><td>- Greater Paris (France)</td><td>13.5</td></tr><tr><td>- Greater Budapest (Hungary)</td><td>14.1</td></tr><tr><td>- the Randstad (the Netherlands)</td><td>29.9</td></tr><tr><td>- Greater London (UK)</td><td>9.9</td></tr><tr><td>Spending most spare time in neighborhood (% yes)</td><td>72.4</td></tr><tr><td>Years lived in neighborhood (% ≥10)</td><td>64.5</td></tr><tr><td>Objectively assessed physical environment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Traffic safety (0.01–0.62)</td><td>0.26 ± 0.14</td></tr><tr><td>Functionality (0.12–0.69)</td><td>0.38 ± 0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Destinations (0.01–0.12) (Median, (IQR))</td><td>0.02 (0.02)</td></tr><tr><td>Aesthetics (0.19–0.71)</td><td>0.52 ± 0.13</td></tr><tr><td>Water/green spaces (0.00–1.00)</td><td>0.39 ± 0.34</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived physical environment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Safety (1–5)</td><td>3.18 ± 0.65</td></tr><tr><td>Functionality (1–5)</td><td>3.47 ± 0.74</td></tr><tr><td>Destinations (1–2) (Median, (IQR))</td><td>1.67 (1.33)</td></tr><tr><td>Aesthetics (1–5)</td><td>3.58 ± 0.88</td></tr><tr><td>No air pollution</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- % Agree</td><td>34.3</td></tr><tr><td>- % Neutral</td><td>27.3</td></tr><tr><td>- % Disagree</td><td>38.4</td></tr><tr><td>No rubbish/litter/graffiti</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- % Agree</td><td>53.6</td></tr><tr><td>- % Neutral</td><td>12.5</td></tr><tr><td>- % Disagree</td><td>33.9</td></tr><tr><td>Social environment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Social network (7.90–12.69)</td><td>10.42 ± 1.18</td></tr><tr><td>Social cohesion (13.33–19.75)</td><td>17.36 ± 1.54</td></tr><tr><td>Trust</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- % Agree</td><td>56.6</td></tr><tr><td>- % Neutral</td><td>32.3</td></tr><tr><td>- % Disagree</td><td>11.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: **Bold** numbers represent *p*-values below the 0.05 level. Values are percentages or mean ± SD, unless indicated otherwise. N per variable may vary due to missing values. IQR = Interquartile range.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190387.t001

times higher likelihood ratio of being very happy compared to being unhappy. Sensitivity analyses with a non-imputed data set yielded similar results (see Table B in S1 File).
Perceived physical environment

Table 3 presents the association between aspects of the perceived physical environment and level of happiness. In general, we found positive associations between the perceived environmental characteristics and happiness, except for perceived presence of key destinations. Age, gender, presence of children in the household, employment status and leisure time spent in the neighborhood were not moderators in these associations. Although we found statistically significant interactions by urban region of residence, stratified analysis of the variables litter, graffiti and rubbish by urban region of residence lacked sufficient statistical power, since too few respondents per category remained. Educational level was also found to moderate the relation between perceived destinations and perceived air pollution with happiness, and was stratified accordingly (Table 3).

Individuals who perceived their neighborhood to be safer had a higher likelihood of being happier, with evidence of a dose-response relation. In these associations, a 1-point increase in perceived safety was associated with a 1.8 times higher likelihood of being moderately happy and a 2.3 times higher likelihood of being very happy compared to being unhappy. Among

<table><caption>Table 2. RRR and 95%-CI for the association between objectively assessed physical environmental aspects and happiness as derived from multi-nomial logistic regression analyses with clustered errors (N = 5205).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Objective physical environmental aspect</th><th>Unhappy</th><th>Neutral</th><th>Moderately happy</th><th>Very happy</th><th rowspan="2">p for trend</th></tr><tr><th>(Ref.)</th><th>RRR (95%-CI)</th><th>RRR (95%-CI)</th><th>RRR (95%-CI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>N = 227</td><td>N = 694</td><td>N = 2193</td><td>N = 2091</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>1. Traffic safety<sup>a,1</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Employed</td><td>-</td><td>1.06 (0.84, 1.34)</td><td>0.96 (0.77, 1.20)</td><td>0.92 (0.74, 1.15)</td><td>0.092</td></tr><tr><td>- Unemployed</td><td>-</td><td>0.97 (0.74, 1.26)</td><td>0.86 (0.67, 1.12)</td><td>0.72 (0.58, 0.89)*</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>- Retired</td><td>-</td><td>0.76 (0.60, 0.97)*</td><td>0.74 (0.60, 0.90)*</td><td>0.70 (0.55–0.89)*</td><td>0.019</td></tr><tr><td><strong>2. Functionality<sup>b,1</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Employed</td><td>-</td><td>1.07 (0.84, 1.36)</td><td>0.98 (0.80, 1.18)</td><td>0.94 (0.77, 1.14)</td><td>0.109</td></tr><tr><td>- Unemployed</td><td>-</td><td>0.92 (0.65, 1.31)</td><td>0.80 (0.59, 1.10)</td><td>0.69 (0.55, 0.87)*</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>- Retired</td><td>-</td><td>0.75 (0.60, 0.95)*</td><td>0.74 (0.58, 0.93)*</td><td>0.66 (0.52, 0.84)*</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td><strong>3. Destinations<sup>c,1</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Man</td><td>-</td><td>0.50 (0.15, 1.68)</td><td>0.40 (0.14, 1.19)</td><td>0.19 (0.07, 0.49)*</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>- Woman</td><td>-</td><td>0.74 (0.30, 1.81)</td><td>0.48 (0.19, 1.20)</td><td>0.38 (0.18, 0.84)*</td><td>0.004</td></tr><tr><td>- Ghent region (Belgium)</td><td>-</td><td>2.33 (1.10, 4.94)*</td><td>1.06 (0.56, 2.00)</td><td>0.55 (0.25, 1.22)</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>- Greater Paris (France)<sup>2</sup></td><td>-</td><td>0.05 (0.00, 1.09)</td><td>0.06 (0.00, 1.31)</td><td>0.04 (0.00, 0.83)*</td><td>0.053</td></tr><tr><td>- Greater Budapest (Hungary)</td><td>-</td><td>0.89 (0.15, 5.33)</td><td>0.49 (0.09, 2.80)</td><td>0.47 (0.10, 2.31)</td><td>0.080</td></tr><tr><td>- the Randstad (the Netherlands)</td><td>-</td><td>0.48 (0.08, 2.71)</td><td>0.94 (0.11, 8.40)</td><td>0.24 (0.03, 2.02)</td><td>0.080</td></tr><tr><td>- Greater London (UK)</td><td>-</td><td>0.66 (0.10, 4.14)</td><td>0.27 (0.07, 1.01)</td><td>0.29 (0.07, 1.21)</td><td>0.127</td></tr><tr><td><strong>4. Aesthetics<sup>d,1</sup></strong></td><td>-</td><td>1.11 (0.97, 1.28)</td><td>1.19 (1.07, 1.32)*</td><td>1.28 (1.16, 1.42)**</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td><strong>5. Water and green spaces</strong></td><td>-</td><td>1.48 (0.89, 2.46)</td><td>1.57 (1.02, 2.42)*</td><td>1.83 (1.15, 2.93)*</td><td>0.038</td></tr></tbody></table>

'Unhappy' serves as reference category. Models are adjusted for age, gender, children, educational level, employment status and urban region of residence, except when already stratified by one of these variables.

a Percentage of streets with e.g. pedestrian crossings, bicycle lanes and traffic lights.

b Percentage of streets with structured and well maintained street segments, paths and bus stops etc.

c Percentage of streets with community and commercial facilities available.

d Percentage of streets with public parks; trees; good condition residential buildings etc.

1 Domain was multiplied tenfold.

2 The reference category for Greater Paris (France) consisted of less than 10 people.

* = p-value <0.05

** = p-value <0.001.
<table><caption>Table 3. RRR and 95%-CI for the association between perceived physical environmental aspects and happiness as derived from multinomial logistic regression analyses with clustered errors (N = 5205).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Perceived physical environmental aspect</th><th>Unhappy</th><th>Neutral</th><th>Moderately happy</th><th>Very happy</th><th rowspan="2">p for trend</th></tr><tr><th>(Ref.)</th><th>RRR (95%-CI)</th><th>RRR (95%-CI)</th><th>RRR (95%-CI)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>N = 227</th><th>N = 694</th><th>N = 2193</th><th>N = 2091</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Safety<sup>a</sup></td><td>-</td><td>1.41 (1.05, 1.88)*</td><td>1.81 (1.44, 2.29)**</td><td>2.29 (1.82, 2.88)**</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>4. Functionality<sup>b</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Ghent region (Belgium)</td><td>-</td><td>1.09 (0.72, 1.65)</td><td>1.32 (1.04, 1.67)*</td><td>1.65 (1.26, 2.16)**</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>- Greater Paris (France)<sup>1</sup></td><td>-</td><td>0.68 (0.20, 2.32)</td><td>0.86 (0.27, 2.70)</td><td>1.24 (0.39, 3.88)</td><td>0.015</td></tr><tr><td>- Greater Budapest (Hungary)</td><td>-</td><td>1.57 (0.92, 2.69)</td><td>1.67 (1.06, 2.64)*</td><td>1.43 (0.87, 2.34)</td><td>0.014</td></tr><tr><td>- the Randstad (the Netherlands)</td><td>-</td><td>1.93 (1.32, 2.84)*</td><td>2.25 (1.63, 3.10)**</td><td>2.99 (2.13, 4.19)**</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>- Greater London (UK)</td><td>-</td><td>2.16 (0.88, 5.34)</td><td>2.82 (1.30, 6.11)*</td><td>3.20 (1.45, 7.09)*</td><td>0.006</td></tr><tr><td>3. Destinations<sup>c</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Lower education</td><td>-</td><td>0.87 (0.75, 1.02)</td><td>0.80 (0.69, 0.93)*</td><td>0.89 (0.76, 1.05)</td><td>0.825</td></tr><tr><td>- Higher education</td><td>-</td><td>1.13 (0.87, 1.46)</td><td>1.07 (0.83, 1.37)</td><td>1.22 (0.95, 1.57)</td><td>0.021</td></tr><tr><td>2. Aesthetics<sup>d</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Ghent region (Belgium)</td><td>-</td><td>1.11 (0.79, 1.57)</td><td>1.42 (1.08, 1.86)*</td><td>1.72 (1.30, 2.27)**</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>- Greater Paris (France)<sup>1</sup></td><td>-</td><td>1.29 (0.56, 2.98)</td><td>1.70 (0.71, 4.06)</td><td>1.96 (0.78, 4.93)</td><td>0.053</td></tr><tr><td>- Greater Budapest (Hungary)</td><td>-</td><td>1.13 (0.69, 1.86)</td><td>1.42 (0.90, 2.26)</td><td>1.56 (0.99, 2.46)</td><td>0.080</td></tr><tr><td>- the Randstad (the Netherlands)</td><td>-</td><td>1.74 (1.20, 2.50)*</td><td>1.83 (1.32, 2.54)**</td><td>2.88 (2.09, 3.95)**</td><td>0.080</td></tr><tr><td>- Greater London (UK)</td><td>-</td><td>1.17 (0.74, 1.84)</td><td>2.19 (1.43, 3.37)**</td><td>2.59 (1.66, 4.05)**</td><td>0.127</td></tr><tr><td>5. No air pollution<sup>2</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>a) Disagree</td><td>-</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>b) Neutral</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Lower education</td><td>-</td><td>0.92 (0.54, 1.58)</td><td>0.77 (0.45, 1.31)</td><td>0.85 (0.50, 1.44)</td><td>0.496</td></tr><tr><td>- Higher education</td><td>-</td><td>1.13 (0.64, 2.00)</td><td>1.20 (0.73, 1.98)</td><td>1.36 (0.82, 2.24)</td><td>0.123</td></tr><tr><td>c) Agree</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Lower education</td><td>-</td><td>0.81 (0.44, 1.47)</td><td>1.00 (0.62, 1.63)</td><td>1.24 (0.75, 2.05)</td><td>0.009</td></tr><tr><td>- Higher education</td><td>-</td><td>1.18 (0.60, 2.33)</td><td>2.11 (1.17, 3.81)*</td><td>2.74 (1.47, 5.11)*</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>6. No litter/rubbish/graffiti<sup>2</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>a) Disagree</td><td>-</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>b) Neutral</td><td>-</td><td>1.92 (1.24, 2.97)*</td><td>1.57 (1.04, 2.39)*</td><td>1.63 (1.06, 2.50)*</td><td>0.629</td></tr><tr><td>c) Agree</td><td>-</td><td>1.41 (0.97, 2.06)</td><td>1.97 (1.47, 2.63)**</td><td>2.58 (1.88, 3.54)**</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr></tbody></table>

'Unhappy' serves as reference category. Models are adjusted for age, gender, children, educational level and employment status, except when already stratified by one of these variables.

a Perceived safety from crime and safety from traffic.

b Perceived quality and presence of structure in terms of street segments and paths.

c Perceived availability of community and commercial facilities.

d Play areas are well maintained; neighborhood is pleasant to walk/cycle in; neighborhood is free from rubbish/litter/graffiti.

1 The reference category for Greater Paris (France) consisted of less than 10 people.

2 Additionally adjusted for urban region of residence.

* = p-value <0.05

** = p-value <0.001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190387.t003

individuals living in Ghent (Belgium), the Randstad (the Netherlands) and greater London (UK), who perceived their neighborhood to be more functional, there was a higher likelihood of being happier, with a dose-response relation. This association was, however, not statistically significant in for moderately happy or very happy individuals living in greater Paris (France), and very happy individuals living in Budapest (Hungary).
Among the Flemish, Dutch and English participants, individuals who perceived their neighborhood to have more favorable aesthetics had a higher likelihood of being very happy (RRR = 1.72 with 95%-CI = 1.26; 2.16, RRR = 2.88 with 95%-CI = 2.13; 4.19, RRR = 2.59 with 95%-CI = 1.45; 7.09, respectively). More highly educated people who perceived the air in their neighborhood not to be polluted also had a higher likelihood of being very happy (RRR = 2.74, 95%-CI = 1.47; 5.11). Furthermore, individuals who perceived that their neighborhood was free from litter, rubbish and graffiti had a higher likelihood of being happier. Sensitivity analyses with a non-imputed data set yielded similar results (see Table C in S1 File).

## Social environment

Social environmental aspects were positively associated with happiness, with evidence of a dose-response effect (Table 4). Gender was a moderator in the association of social network and happiness, but other than that we did not find any statistically significant interactions for the social environmental aspects. Therefore, we stratified social network by gender.

For both men and women, we found that living in a neighborhood with a greater social network was associated with a higher likelihood of being very happy for both men and women (RRR = 1.74 with 95%-CI = 1.32; 2.29 for men, RRR = 1.49 with 95%-CI = 1.22; 1.82 for women). Living in a neighborhood with higher levels of social cohesion was associated with a higher likelihood of being happier (moderately happy: RRR = 1.22, 95%-CI = 1.10; 1.35), very happy: RRR = 1.31, 95%-CI = 1.19; 1.44), meaning that a 1-point increase in social cohesion (range 13.33–19.75) was associated with a 1.3 times higher risk of being very happy relative to being unhappy. Furthermore, individuals who trusted their neighbors had a higher likelihood of being moderately happy (RRR = 2.70, 95%-CI = 1.83; 4.00) and very happy (RRR = 4.33, 95%-CI = 2.83; 6.62). Sensitivity analyses with a non-imputed data set yielded similar results (see Table D in S1 File).

## Discussion

We explored several relations between physical and social environmental aspects and happiness in adults across Europe. In general, we found that living in neighborhoods with higher

<table><caption>Table 4. RRR and 95%-CI for the association between social environmental aspects and happiness as derived from multinomial logistic regression analyses with clustered errors (N = 5205).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Social environmental aspect</th><th>Unhappy</th><th>Neutral</th><th>Moderately happy</th><th>Very happy</th><th rowspan="2">p for trend</th></tr><tr><th>(Ref.)</th><th>RRR (95%-CI)</th><th>RRR (95%-CI)</th><th>RRR (95%-CI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>N = 227</td><td>N = 694</td><td>N = 2193</td><td>N = 2091</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>1. Social network</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Male</td><td>-</td><td>1.24 (0.97, 1.60)</td><td>1.60 (1.25, 2.06)**</td><td>1.74 (1.32, 2.29)**</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>- Female</td><td>-</td><td>1.27 (1.01, 1.59)*</td><td>1.33 (1.05, 1.69)*</td><td>1.49 (1.22, 1.82)**</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td><strong>2. Social cohesion</strong></td><td>-</td><td>1.08 (0.98, 1.19)</td><td>1.22 (1.10, 1.35)**</td><td>1.31 (1.19, 1.44)**</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td><strong>3. Trust</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>a) Disagree</td><td>-</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td>Ref.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>b) Neutral</td><td>-</td><td>1.45 (0.97, 2.15)</td><td>1.76 (1.19, 2.60)*</td><td>2.04 (1.30, 3.19)*</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>c) Agree</td><td>-</td><td>1.44 (0.93, 2.21)</td><td>2.70 (1.83, 4.00)**</td><td>4.33 (2.83, 6.62)**</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr></tbody></table>

'Unhappy' serves as reference category.

Models are adjusted for age, gender, children, educational level, employment status and urban region of residence, except when already stratified by one of these variables.

<footnote>* = p-value <0.05</footnote>

<footnote>** = p-value <0.001.</footnote>
levels of aesthetics, more water and green spaces that were perceived to be safer, more func-
tional and cleaner, with more social contacts, stronger social cohesion and where neighbors
are trusted, was associated with higher levels of happiness. Additionally, we found that objec-
tive measures of traffic safety, functionality of the neighborhood and presence of key destina-
tions in the neighborhood were inversely associated with happiness. We also found negative
associations between the perceived number of these destinations and happiness. Some associa-
tions were moderated by socio-demographic or socio-economic factors, but for nearly all asso-
ciations the direction was similar across men and women, higher and lower educated
individuals, employed, unemployed and retired individuals and across European regions in
the study.

The positive association between objectively assessed water and green spaces and happiness is consistent with what has been found in previous studies [25,51,52]. One hypothesis to explain this is that of biophilia, which states that humans have an innate tendency to affiliate with other forms of life [53]. Living in a natural neighborhood, e.g., a neighborhood with more water and green spaces, contributes to fulfilling this need, and this is argued to lead to a greater well-being [54]. Another possible explanation for the association of water and green spaces with happiness is that natural environments are associated with lower levels of stress and may have a restorative effect [55]. Furthermore, green environments have been associated with higher engagement in physical activity, and some evidence suggests that green spaces promote social cohesion and interaction [55,56], which are in turn well-established predictors of happiness [9,22,57,58].

In addition to an environment with more water and green space, we found that (perceived
and objectively assessed) level of aesthetics in the neighborhood was associated with happiness.
This is in line with the findings of Leyden et al., who concluded that aesthetics of the neighbor-
hood matter for individual happiness [15]. Indeed, our findings showed that individuals who
reported that their neighborhood was free from rubbish, litter and graffiti, and thus generally
perceived as visually more pleasant, were happier. Furthermore, we found that individuals liv-
ing in a neighborhood that they perceived to be more functional (choice of routes, usually slow
traffic, and sufficient pedestrian crossings to cross busy roads) were happier. This finding
might be explained by a neighborhood that is more functional being more conducive to social
interactions, since it reduces barriers to social connections, and greater happiness is associated
with some forms of social capital [59]. In all of these cases reversed causality is also possible,
whereby happiness affects the choice of a place to live. For instance, happy people could give
more priority to aesthetic issues and closeness to water and green spaces, both because of
effects of happiness itself or as a result of tendencies related to happiness [60], such as more
frequent sporting and lower materialism [61].

Furthermore, this study provided further evidence of the strong association of social net-
works, social cohesion and trust with happiness. We found that these associations were similar
among indicators of socio-economic and socio-demographic groups, and across urban Euro-
pean regions of the SPOTLIGHT study. Previous studies have consistently found a link
between social capital and happiness [9,22,58]. Rodríguez-Pose and von Berlepsch also found
that social interaction and trust were associated with happiness in a large cohort in several
European countries [16]. Leyden et al. found that social cohesion in the neighborhood is posi-
tively associated with happiness in ten major world cities [15]. It is argued that this strong asso-
ciation exists because people with close friends, neighbors and spouses are less likely to express
a range of characteristics associated with diminished subjective well-being, such as sadness,
loneliness and low self-esteem [58]. It is yet to be determined whether all these social environ-
mental factors are a proxy for the broader social environment, or whether specific social fac-
tors such as perceived social support are important for happiness. Reversed causality can also
be involved, since it has been found that happy people are also tend to more easily built social networks [62].

There were differences in associations observed with objectively and subjectively measured safety and functionality. Previous studies, including a study using the same dataset as this study, have also found differences between objective and subjective measures of the environment [63,64]. The objectively verifiable presence of certain environmental characteristics in a neighborhood increases the probability that an individual will be exposed to them, but this is not a certainty. The strength of the association may depend on the level of ‘conscious’ exposure and may be influenced by personality, experiences and cognitive capacities [30]. Some environments may be objectively functional for some individuals, but less so for other individuals who have different requirements of their environment. Alternatively, some objectively assessed ‘safe’ neighborhoods may actually be perceived as unsafe.

We found negative associations between objectively assessed traffic safety and functionality and happiness. Although this may seem counterintuitive, it could be that measures to improve traffic safety and functionality have been put in place due to traffic unsafety (e.g. because of heavy traffic), like pedestrian crossings, bicycle lanes and traffic lights. As such, these measures may have made the neighborhood safer or more pleasant for walking and cycling [65], but residents may still be aware of the dangers or unpleasantness that required these measures and, as such, result in lower levels of happiness. Indeed, heavy traffic is generally associated with more traffic nuisance and air pollution, which is in turn negatively related to well-being [28,66,67]. This corresponds with our finding that individuals who lived in neighborhoods where the air was not perceived to be polluted were happier, though this relation was only statistically significant among the higher educated.

We found some inverse-but mostly non-significant- associations for the objective and perceived assessed destinations with happiness. These negative associations can possibly be explained by the fact that neighborhoods with more destinations were likely to be denser, with a more urbanized built environment, and less of a natural environment. However, this is in contrast with the study of Leyden et al., who found that easy access to culture and leisure community facilities was positively associated with happiness [15].

## Strengths and limitations

Our study has several strengths. We made use of a dataset from a large survey that was conducted using consistent methods across five European urban regions, which increased its generalisability. This study was the first to combine factors of different contextual domains in relation with happiness, with several physical as well as social environmental factors included. Furthermore, our study contributed to understanding the associations between perceived and objective measures of the physical environment, and how they vary within different subgroups of the population. The objective measures of the environment were obtained using an innovative and validated tool [39].

There are also some limitations to our study. Firstly, this was a cross-sectional study, thus causality cannot be determined. Secondly, there was a low response rate (10.8%). Although this is not unusual in studies on this scale, this could have led to selection bias. Third, although the question we used to assess happiness is an accepted question in research on this topic, there is no gold standard measure of this construct, and self-reported measures of happiness can also be vulnerable to a variety of response biases [68,69]. The questionnaire was provided in multiple languages according to the participants’ residential language, but even though a back and forward translation technique was applied, the construct of ‘happiness’ may have a slightly different meaning in each of the five participating urban regions. As a result, this
question may have been interpreted slightly different by respondents in different countries [68]. However, research on happiness in multi-lingual Switzerland did not find this an issue between French, German and Italian [70]. Fourth, associations between physical environmental perceptions and happiness may be spurious, because participants' happiness can influence their environmental perceptions [71]. Finally, the use of regression analyses with clustered standard errors at the neighbourhood level may have resulted in wider confidence intervals, but our software did not allow for a multilevel analysis while using multiple imputed data and a categorical outcome variable.

## Conclusions

In conclusion, we found that several aspects of the social and physical neighborhood were associated with levels of happiness in an urban European population, across different socio-economic and socio-demographic subgroups. Future studies could investigate whether the association of happiness with the functionality of the neighborhood and a green environment with happiness is mediated by social capital or physical activity. If future studies are able to confirm causality in these associations using a longitudinal or “natural experimental” design—e.g., by following people who move to different neighborhoods—the arguments for using urban design to promote happiness, and with it, presumably, the overall health of the general population, will be strengthened.

## Supporting information

S1 File. Supplementary tables.

(DOCX)

## Acknowledgments

We thank the participants of the SPOTLIGHT study for their contribution.

## Author Contributions

**Conceptualization:** Eva Anna Christina Hart, Jeroen Lakerveld, Ruut Veenhoven, Joreintje Dingena Mackenbach.

**Data curation:** Eva Anna Christina Hart, Joreintje Dingena Mackenbach.

**Formal analysis:** Eva Anna Christina Hart.

**Funding acquisition:** Jeroen Lakerveld, Martin McKee, Jean-Michel Oppert, Harry Rutter, Hélène Charreire, Helga Bárdos, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Johannes Brug.

**Investigation:** Jeroen Lakerveld, Jean-Michel Oppert, Harry Rutter, Hélène Charreire, Helga Bárdos, Sofie Compernolle, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Johannes Brug, Joreintje Dingena Mackenbach.

**Methodology:** Joreintje Dingena Mackenbach.

**Project administration:** Jeroen Lakerveld.

**Supervision:** Jeroen Lakerveld, Joreintje Dingena Mackenbach.

**Writing – original draft:** Eva Anna Christina Hart, Jeroen Lakerveld, Joreintje Dingena Mackenbach.
**Writing – review & editing:** Eva Anna Christina Hart, Jeroen Lakerveld, Martin McKee, Jean-Michel Oppert, Harry Rutter, Hélène Charreire, Ruut Veenhoven, Helga Bárdos, Sofie Compernolle, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Johannes Brug, Joreintje Dingena Mackenbach.

References

1. King LA, Napa CK. What makes a life good? J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998; 75: 156–65. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9686456 PMID: 9686456

2. Diener E, Chan MY. Happy People Live Longer: Subjective Well-Being Contributes to Health and Longevity. Appl Psychol Heal Well-Being. 2011; 3: 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01045.x

3. Veenhoven R. Healthy happiness: effects of happiness on physical health and the consequences for preventive health care. J Happiness Stud. 2008; 9: 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9042-1

4. Lawrence EM, Rogers RG, Wadsworth T. Happiness and Longevity in the United States. Soc Sci Med. 2015; 145: 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.09.020 PMID: 26421947

5. Grant N, Wardle J, Steptoe A. The relationship between life satisfaction and health behavior: a cross-cultural analysis of young adults. Int J Behav Med. 2009; 16: 259–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-009-9032-x PMID: 19319695

6. Kye SY, Park K. Health-related determinants of happiness in Korean adults. Int J Public Health. 2014; 59: 731–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-014-0588-0 PMID: 25033934

7. Fararouei M, Brown IJ, Akbartabar Toori M, Estakhrian Haghighi R, Jafari J. Happiness and health behaviour in Iranian adolescent girls. J Adolesc. 2013; 36: 1187–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.09.006 PMID: 24215965

8. Diener E. Subjective well-being. The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am Psychol. 2000; 55: 34–43. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11392863 PMID: 11392863

9. Helliwell JF, Layard R, Sachs J. World Happiness Report 2015. New York; 2015.

10. Veenhoven R. The Concept of Happiness. Conditions of Happiness. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1984. pp. 12–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6432-7

11. Dfarhud D, Malmir M, Khanahmadi M. Happiness & Health: The Biological Factors- Systematic Review Article. Iran J Public Health. 2014; 43: 1468–77. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4449495&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract PMID: 26060713

12. Prasad M. An Analysis of Relationship between Happiness and Personality: A Literature Review. Asian J Multidiscip Stud. 2016; 4: 41–46.

13. Brereton F, Clinch JP, Ferreira S. Happiness, geography and the environment. Ecol Econ. 2008; 65: 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.008

14. Inglehart R. Gender, Aging, and Subjective Well-Being. Int J Comp Sociol. 2002; 43: 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/002071520204300309

15. Leyden KM, Goldberg A, Michelbach P. Understanding the Pursuit of Happiness in Ten Major Cities. Urban Aff Rev. 2011; 47: 861–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087411403120

16. Rodríguez-Pose A, von Berlepsch V. Social Capital and Individual Happiness in Europe. J Happiness Stud. 2013; 15: 357–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9426-y

17. Horelli L. Environmental human-friendliness as a contextual determinant for quality of life. Rev Eur Psychol Appliquée/European Rev Appl Psychol. 2006; 56: 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2005.02.012

18. Hogan MJ, Leyden KM, Conway R, Goldberg A, Walsh D, McKenna-Plumley PE. Happiness and health across the lifespan in five major cities: The impact of place and government performance. Soc Sci Med. 2016; 162: 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.030 PMID: 27359322

19. Diez Roux A V, Mair C. Neighborhoods and health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010; 1186: 125–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05333.x PMID: 20201871

20. Diez Roux A V. Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 1783–9. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11684601 PMID: 11684601

21. Delhey J, Dragolov G. Happier together. Social cohesion and subjective well-being in Europe. Int J Psychol. 2015; 51: 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12149 PMID: 25683956

22. Veenhoven R. Social conditions for human happiness: A review of research. Int J Psychol. 2015; 50: 379–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12161 PMID: 25899153

23. Marselle MR, Irvine KN, Lorenzo-Arribas A, Warber SL. Moving beyond green: exploring the relationship of environment type and indicators of perceived environmental quality on emotional well-being
following group walks. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015; 12: 106–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120100106 PMID: 25546275

24. White MP, Alcock I, Wheeler BW, Depledge MH. Would You Be Happier Living in a Greener Urban Area? A Fixed-Effects Analysis of Panel Data. Psychol Sci. 2013; 24: 920–928. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612464659 PMID: 23613211

25. MacKerron G, Mourato S. Happiness is greater in natural environments. Glob Environ Chang. 2013; 23: 992–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.010

26. Winters J V., Li Y. Urbanization, Natural Amenities, and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from U.S. Counties. IZA Discuss Pap. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA); 2015; Available: http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp8966.html

27. Ludwig J, Duncan GJ, Gennetian LA, Katz LF, Kessler RC, Kling JR, et al. Neighborhood effects on the long-term well-being of low-income adults. Science. 2012; 337: 1505–10. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1224648 PMID: 22997331

28. Welsch H. Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data. Ecol Econ. 2006; 58: 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.006

29. Cuñado J, de Gracia FP. Environment and Happiness: New Evidence for Spain. Soc Indic Res. 2012; 112: 549–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0038-4

30. Wen M, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. Objective and perceived neighborhood environment, individual SES and psychosocial factors, and self-rated health: an analysis of older adults in Cook County, Illinois. Soc Sci Med. 2006; 63: 2575–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.06.025 PMID: 16905230

31. Weden MM, Carpiano RM, Robert SA. Subjective and objective neighborhood characteristics and adult health. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 66: 1256–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.041 PMID: 18248865

32. Leonardi F, Spazzafumo L, Marcellini F, Gagliardi C. The Top-Down/Bottom-Up Controversy from a Constructionist Approach. A Method for Measuring Top-Down Effects Applied to a Sample of Older People. Soc Indic Res. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999; 48: 189–218. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006977717925

33. Mollenkopf H, Kaspar R. Ageing in rural areas of East and West Germany: increasing similarities and remaining differences. Eur J Ageing. Springer-Verlag; 2005; 2: 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-005-0029-2 PMID: 28794724

34. Eibich P, Krekel C, Demuth I, Wagner GG. Associations between Neighborhood Characteristics, Well-Being and Health Vary over the Life Course. Gerontology. 2016; 62: 362–370. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26821249 https://doi.org/10.1159/000438700 PMID: 26821249

35. Lakerveld J, Ben Rebah M, Mackenbach JD, Charreire H, Compernolle S, Glonti K, et al. Obesity-related behaviours and BMI in five urban regions across Europe: sampling design and results from the SPOTLIGHT cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2015; 5: e008505. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008505 PMID: 26507356

36. Abdel-Khalek AM. Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. Soc Behav Pers. 2006; 34: 139–150. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2006.34.2.139

37. Veenhoven R. World Database of Happiness. Overview of techniques for measuring happiness included in the World Database of Happiness. [Internet]. 2016 [cited 15 Oct 2016]. Available: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_quer/hqiFP.htm

38. Lakerveld J, Brug J, Bot S, Teixeira PJ, Rutter H, Woodward E, et al. Sustainable prevention of obesity through integrated strategies: The SPOTLIGHT project's conceptual framework and design. BMC Public Health. BioMed Central; 2012; 12: 793. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-793 PMID: 22985293

39. Bethlehem JR, Mackenbach JD, Ben-Rebah M, Compernolle S, Glonti K, Bárdos H, et al. The SPOTLIGHT virtual audit tool: a valid and reliable tool to assess obesogenic characteristics of the built environment. Int J Health Geogr. BioMed Central; 2014; 13: 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-13-52 PMID: 25515179

40. Feuillet T, Charreire H, Roda C, Ben Rebah M, Mackenbach JD, Compernolle S, et al. Neighbourhood typology based on virtual audit of environmental obesogenic characteristics. Obes Rev. 2016; 17: 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12378 PMID: 26879110

41. Pikora T, Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Jamrozik K, Donovan R. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 56: 1693–1703. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00163-6 PMID: 12639586

42. Mackenbach JD, Lakerveld J, van Lenthe FJ, Bárdos H, Glonti K, Compernolle S, et al. Exploring why residents of socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods have less favourable perceptions of their neighbourhood environment than residents of wealthy neighbourhoods. Obes Rev. 2016; 17 Suppl 1: 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12375 PMID: 26879112
43. Spittaels H, Foster C, Oppert J-M, Rutter H, Oja P, Sjöström M, et al. Assessment of environmental correlates of physical activity: development of a European questionnaire. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. BioMed Central; 2009; 6: 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-6-39 PMID: 19580645

44. Curl CL, Beresford SAA, Hajat A, Kaufman JD, Moore K, Nettleton JA, et al. Associations of organic produce consumption with socioeconomic status and the local food environment: Multi-Ethnic Study of Ath-erosclerosis (MESA). PLoS One. 2013; 8: e69778. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069778 PMID: 23936098

45. Beenackers MA, Kamphuis CBM, Mackenbach JP, Burdorf A, van Lenthe FJ. Why some walk and others don't: exploring interactions of perceived safety and social neighborhood factors with psychosocial cognitions. Health Educ Res. 2013; 28: 220-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyt002 PMID: 23393100

46. Mackenbach JD, Lakerveld J, van Lenthe FJ, Kawachi I, McKee M, Rutter H, et al. Neighbourhood social capital: measurement issues and associations with health outcomes. Obes Rev. 2016; 17 Suppl 1: 96-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12373 PMID: 26879117

47. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2011.

48. Wayman JC. Multiple Imputation For Missing Data: What Is It And How Can I Use It? Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL; 2003.

49. Bodner TE. What Improves with Increased Missing Data Imputations? Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J. 2008; 15: 651-675. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510802339072

50. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.

51. Zelenski JM, Nisbet EK. Happiness and Feeling Connected: The Distinct Role of Nature Relatedness. Environ Behav. 2012; 46: 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512451901

52. Beyer KMM, Kaltenbach A, Szabo A, Bogar S, Nieto FJ, Malecki KM. Exposure to neighborhood green space and mental health: evidence from the survey of the health of Wisconsin. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014; 11: 3453-72. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110303453 PMID: 24662966

53. Wilson EO. Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1984.

54. Kellert SR. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity And Human Society. Washington: Island Press; 1997.

55. Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S, Frumkin H. Nature and health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014; 35: 207-28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443 PMID: 24387090

56. Newton J. Wellbeing and the Natural Environment: A brief overview of the evidence [Internet]. Unpublished Report to DEFRA. 2007. Available: www.surrey.ac.uk/resolve/seminars/Julie Newton Paper.pdf

57. Richards J, Jiang X, Kelly P, Chau J, Bauman A, Ding D. Don't worry, be happy: cross-sectional associations between physical activity and happiness in 15 European countries. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15: 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1391-4 PMID: 25636787

58. Helliwell JF, Putnam RD. The social context of well-being. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004; 359: 1435-46. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1522 PMID: 15347534

59. Williams J. Designing Neighbourhoods for Social Interaction: The Case of Cohousing. J Urban Des. 2005; 10: 195-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800500086998

60. Lyubomirsky S, King L, Diener E. The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success? Psychol Bull. 2005; 131: 803-855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 PMID: 16351326

61. Ryan L, Dziurawiec S. Materialism and Its Relationship to Life Satisfaction. Soc Indic Res. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001; 55: 185-197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011002123169

62. Fredrickson BL. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. The Royal Society; 2004; 359: 1367-78. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512 PMID: 15347528

63. Roda C, Charreire H, Feuillet T, Mackenbach JD, Compernolle S, Glonti K, et al. Mismatch between perceived and objectively measured environmental obesogenic features in European neighbourhoods. Obes Rev. 2016; 17 Suppl 1: 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12376 PMID: 26879111

64. Ball K, Jeffery RW, Crawford DA, Roberts RJ, Salmon J, Timperio AF. Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity environments. Prev Med (Baltim). 2008; 47: 294-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.05.001 PMID: 18544463

65. Van Dyck D, Cerin E, Conway TL, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Owen N, Kerr J, et al. Perceived neighborhood environmental attributes associated with adults' transport-related walking and cycling: Findings from the USA, Australia and Belgium. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. BioMed Central; 2012; 9: 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-70 PMID: 22691723

66. Öhrström E. Longitudinal surveys on effects of changes in road traffic noise—annoyance, activity disturbances, and psycho-social well-being. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004; 115: 719. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1639333 PMID: 15000184
67. Louis D. Annoyance from Road Traffic Noise: A Review. J Environ Psychol. 2001; 21: 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0187

68. Veenhoven R. Accepted Measures of Happiness. World Database of Happiness. 2015. p. 15.

69. Angner E. Is it possible to measure happiness? Eur J Philos Sci. 2013; 3: 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-013-0065-2

70. Inglehart R, Klingemann H-D. Genes, Culture, Democracy, and Happiness. Culture and Subjective Well-Being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2000. pp. 165–83.

71. Diez Roux A-V. Neighborhoods and health: where are we and were do we go from here? Rev d'épidémiologie santé publique. 2007; 55: 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2006.12.003 PMID: 17320330