The aim of this study is to provide a new quantitative perspective on the geography of well-being using an urban–rural typology and characteristic city size elements in order to detect where people are happier and to examine the determinants of well-being by considering spatial dependence effects. We use 81 NUTS 3 regions and the time period 2012–2019 to analyse the geography of well-being for Turkey with panel and spatial panel models. Our results show that living in an urban area, in general, makes people happy, but that density negatively affects well-being. In addition, city size matters for enhancing well-being. We also analyse the determinants of well-being by using several socio-economic well-being indicators. Next, the aspatial and spatial model results based on spatial econometric regressions show that education, health, employment, and income are all important for well-being, whereas indirect effects (spillovers) of these indicators also exist. Our results indicate that ignoring spatial effects causes a misinterpretation of the effects of critical determinants of well-being in geography.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elburz et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: