Content uploaded by Mehdi Moeinaddini
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mehdi Moeinaddini on Jan 25, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1PhD Candidate at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Email: hamed.mirzaei.1984@gmail.com
263
PLANNING MALAYSIA:
Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners
SPECIAL ISSUE IV (2016), Page 263 - 272
IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT INDICATORS FOR A HAPPY CITY
Hamed Mirzaei1, Azin Bahreini2, Mehdi Moeinaddini3, Zohreh Asadi-Shekari4,
Muhammad Zaly Shah5 & Zahid Sultan6
1,2,3,4,5,6 Faculty of Built Environment
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
Abstract
Although, happiness has been evaluated by many researchers, there are very limited
studies on happy environment, specifically happy cities. In addition, different methods
that have been introduced for measuring happiness by previous studies have several major
shortcomings. Firstly, happiness is considered equivalent to satisfaction or the quality of
life. Secondly, the majority of these methods are not easy to follow and it is difficult to
connect them to design process. Furthermore, these methods support only a limited
number of indicators and majority of them are not related to the happy environment. Thus,
this paper reviews prominent studies on happiness evaluations and happy environment to
identify effective indicators for happy cities. It also attempts to highlight current
happiness evaluation methods that consider happy environment to determine how various
studies assess cities for happiness. The weaknesses and strengths of different evaluation
methods are discussed in this paper to propose a better way to assess happy cities. A
systematic review is used to identify indicators for happy cities. Overall, socio-economic
factors, environmental factors (e.g., air pollution and temperature), geographical location
and facilities management are effective variables for happy cities. This study discusses
the challenges in happiness evaluation and attempts to introduce new objectives for
futures studies. The results of this study can be used to propose strategies to have happier
cities.
Keyword: Happiness; Happy city; Happy environment; Measuring happiness
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays people who are living in urban areas suffer from stress and depression because
of their motorized lifestyle (Bókony et al., 2012; Peig and Green, 2010). Although
happiness can decrease this stress and stress-related diseases (Shochat et al., 2007; Ã-Ralf
et al., 2007), people who are living in urban areas are not as happy as people who are
living close to nature. Lack of happiness has negative effects on the quality of life
(Mercer, 2012; Ballas, 2013). In addition to the birth or genetics, marital status and
earnings, environmental factors such as air quality, green space, temperature, wind speed
and ambient noise level also can affect happiness level (Peig and Green, 2010; Ã-Ralf et
al., 2007; Jordison and Kieran, 2003). Therefore, paying attention to the environmental
factors in urban areas can affect happiness and quality of life.
Hamed Mirzaei, Azin Bahreini, Mehdi Moeinaddini, Zohreh Asadi-Shekari, Muhammad Zaly Shah & Zahid Sultan
Identify Significant Indicators for a Happy City
© 2016 by MIP
264
Dense urban living has been prescribed as a solution for sprawl negative
externalities such as environmental and resources crisis. However, this solution changes
the society rapidly and affects lifestyle and the quality of life (Huang et al., 2013). If
enough attentions would not been paid to the lifestyle changes, the resulted lifestyle can
decrease happiness and increase stress and pressure (Mecer, 2012). Therefore, one of the
problems in our cities can be lack of happiness feeling while people experience more
stress and pressure and this issue can affect the quality of life (Bókony et al., 2012).
Researchers use various models for measuring the happiness (Savageau, 2007;
Ballas, 2013). For instance, some studies measure the happiness using the effective
factors for quality of life (Marans and Stimson, 2011). Well-being is also one of the
important factors that represents happiness in many studies (e.g., Gowdy, 2005; Dolan et
al., 2008; Welsch, 2009). Satisfaction (e.g. Mackerron and Mourato, 2009; Menz and
Walsch, 2010) and pleasure (e.g. Maddison and Rehdanz, 2010; Raphael et al., 2001) also
represent happiness in various studies. The living environment can affect all of these
factors that are used to measure happiness. Therefore, there is a possible relationship
between living environment and happiness (Ballas & Dorling, 2013).
There are some studies that consider the relationship between happiness and
environment (Marshall et al., 2014). These limited studies (e.g., Susana Ferreira et al.,
2010; Tobias Menz, 2011) focused on the relationship between macro-level factors such
as air pollution, economic and life satisfaction at country level (Ballas & Dorling, 2013;
Welsch, 2009; Ballas & Dorling, 2007). Therefore, this study tries to focus on city level
that has not been investigated.
METHOD
Happiness can be affected by everything that people need such as income, health,
recreational activities and etc (Dolan et al., 2008). M.Farouk Radwan (2014) believes that
happiness is the feeling that you experience when you realize that everything is exactly
as should be. Happiness comes from everything around you that can give satisfaction or
pleasure feeling to you (Susana Ferreira et al., 2010). Cities that are living places for lots
of people contain everything around people’s life. Therefore, cities can affect people’s
happiness.
There are various measurements for happiness in different studies. These
measurements include satisfaction (e.g. Mackerron and Mourato, 2009; Menz and
Welsch, 2011), quality of life (Marans and Stimson, 2011), well-being (e.g., Gowdy,
2005; Dolan et al., 2008; Welsch, 2009), and pleasure (e.g. Maddison and Rehdanz, 2010;
Raphael et al., 2001). In addition, there are some indicators in the cities that can affect
satisfaction, quality of life, well-being and pleasure. Therefore, happy city factors can be
achieved by considering the relationship between happiness measurements and city
indicators. The happy city factors and their effects are evaluated in this study by reviewing
existing limited studies about happiness and urban life. This paper tries to review the
majority of the studies that considered at least one of the happiness measurements and
urban structures indicators.
Although age, gender and race in addition to the socio-economic factors such as
income and cultural differences can affect happiness, the current study considers just
urban structure indicators regardless of the individual characteristics. Therefore, this
study focuses on urban structure indicators that are the same in various socio-economic
© 2016 by MIP
265
contexts. Therefore, the results can be used for various cities around the world. This study
also considers happy city factors that can be defined by measurable factors and the
influence of non-measureable indicators (e.g., sense of belonging) is not considered.
RESULTS
Economic is one of the factors that have considerable effects on happiness level and well-
being (Welsch and Kühling, 2009). Various studies have focused on subjective well-being
because they can measure and compare well-being between people. Hereby, they
achieved their desired information by asking people. In addition, they fitted econometric
models to their respondents and assess some of happiness factors empirically.
Dolan et al. (2008) determined factors that have positive or negative correlations
with well-being. The positive factors include environmental condition (e.g. green space,
blue space, attractive land cover and etc), high income, ambition and social capital
indicators (e.g., trust, membership of friendly relations or interest groups and belief in a
god). The negative factors include environmental problems (e.g. air pollution, noise
pollution, water pollution and etc), higher incomes for others, unemployment, higher past
income and negative relationship indicators (such as separation and divorce). In addition,
economists found a new way to measure happiness by the influence of environmental
factors on well-being and monetary terms (Welsch, 2009). Welsch (2006) found links
between environment and income through computing the cost of air pollution (e.g.,
healthcare and material repairing costs). Lower cost means more monetary benefits and
being happier. The positive and negative environmental factors that are mentioned in
these studies can be used as parts of our proposed happy city indicators.
The landscape is one of the environmental factors that can affect happiness by
creating evolutionary kind of feeling (Searns, 1995; Milligan et al., 2004). Hartig et al.
(2010) focused on the living environment around people that can shape the human mind.
This study mentioned that the nature of human always depends on the nature. Therefore,
attractive landscape can create pleasure and happiness feeling that has positive effects on
mind. Various studies have tried to prove that nature improve emotional needs such as
happiness (Wilson, 1993; Katsui and Ghotbi, 2005). In addition to the positive effects of
natural environments on emotion and happiness, they also act as restoration of
psychological (Wilson, 1993; Aks & Sprott, 1996; Katsui and Ghotbi, 2005; Hartig et al.,
2010). The natural environments (e.g., landscape, forest, savanna and mountains) should
be reachable in the environment around human habitat. Diener et al. (2009) and Moro et
al. (2008) found that people (based on the subjective well-being) who are living proximity
to the coastline are happier. Ferreira & Moro (2010) mentioned that coastline is not
significant factor for happiness if the distance is more than 5 km.
Paying attention to the natural forms for landscape is important since natural
habitats have curve, regular and irregular geometric shapes that lead to increase aesthetic,
positive emotion and pleasure (Aks & Sprott, 1996; Jordison and Kieran 2003). The
natural capital is one of environmental factors in various studies that has positive
relationship with happiness indicators at country level (Engelbrecht, 2009; Vemuri and
Costanza 2006; Engelbrecht 2009). This factor also can be used at the city level.
Frijters and Praag (1998) investigated on the weather’s factors and influences on
the subjective well-being (SWB) in Russia. They focused on temperature between 18.3
Co and 28 Co, precipitation, wind speed, rainy days and hours of sunshine. They found
Hamed Mirzaei, Azin Bahreini, Mehdi Moeinaddini, Zohreh Asadi-Shekari, Muhammad Zaly Shah & Zahid Sultan
Identify Significant Indicators for a Happy City
© 2016 by MIP
266
that these factors can affect SWB. For instance, the temperature more than 28 Co or less
than 18.3 Co has negative effect on SWB. Rehdanz and Maddison (2005) also examined
climate variables and focused on variations in temperature and months (e.g., lower
temperature at warm months and higher temperature at cool months). They found that
SWB is related to mean temperature variations. Similarly, Maddison and Rehdanz (2010)
focused on temperature and determined ideal temperature using data in country level (87
countries). The proposed ideal temperature is between 18.3 Co and 28 Co. The effects of
precipitation, wind speed, rainy days and hours of sunshine on SWB can be different
based on the study area. For instance, wind has negative effect on SWB in Ireland (Moro
et al., 2008; Ferreira and Moro, 2010).
Welsch (2002; 2003; 2006; 2007) found a negative relationship between SWB and
air pollution factors at country level. Menz and Welsch (2010) also introduced the
negative effects of air pollution on the health that decrease SWB using data from 25
countries. They mentioned that if the concentration of air pollution is more than PM10, it
can lead to health problems and decrease SWB. Similarly, Rehdanz and Maddison (2005,
2008) found a relationship between SWB and perceived of participants regarding air
pollution level (higher perceived pollution level, lower SWB). There are considerable
studies regarding the negative effects of air pollution on SWB and happiness at country
level (e.g., Ferreira and Moro, 2010; MacKerron and Mourato, 2009; Levinson, 2009).
This factor also can be used at the city level.
Water pollution also can affect SWB and happiness. Part of the water pollution
can be related to air pollution but the main reasons are organic pollutants (e.g., severely
polluted sources that are located near the rivers). Water pollution can increase people
worries regarding drinking water in their house, health problems and losing natural
resources such as green and open space. Therefore, water pollution is another
environmental factors that have direct negative effect on individuals' well-being, life
satisfaction and happiness (Israel and Levinson, 2003; Ferreira and Moro, 2010). Van
Praag and Baarsma (2005) focused on noise pollution and examined aircraft noise near
airport in Amsterdam. They found a negative correlation between noise pollution and
SWB. Weinhold (2008) investigated the effect of perceived noise pollution on SWB using
individual data in Europe (e.g., the sound of aircraft when they slept). This study also
found a strong negative relationship. Table 1 summarizes the effective factors regarding
happiness and built environment that are mentioned by previous studies. This table also
shows the relationship between built environment factors and happiness. These factors
can be used to define happy city indicators.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INDICATORS
Indicators are measurements selected to represent a large phenomenon of interest. An
indicator points to certain issue or certain condition in certain city. It provides useful
information for decision makers, not just data (Peterson et al., 1999), and can generate
discussion among people with different backgrounds and viewpoints (Andrew, 1998).
Environmental indicators evolved during the 1970s when the environment became
a mainstream issue and governments responded with environmental assessment
legislation and processes. In the 1980s, two approaches arrived, which were sustainable
development and healthy communities. Sustainable development indicators are now
commonly used at the national, regional and local levels in many nations. The healthy
© 2016 by MIP
267
community model continues to frame analysis, although it seems to have been eclipsed
since the late 1990s by the quality of life model (Seasons, 2005). In the past 20 years,
some of the most interesting theoretical advances in broad-based indicator development
have been the promotion of a capabilities approach; the synthesis of economic, quality of
life and environmental indicators under the banner of sustainability; and experimentation
with participatory methodologies (Keough, 2005).
Besides the broad-based sustainable indicators and quality of life indicators, there
are also more specified or focused indicators which have been developed and used for the
issues of environmental health, such as Environmental Health Indicator by WHO, the
adaptation by WHO-Europe and New Zealand, and the Environmental Public Health
Indicators by Atlanta.
In this study, preliminary set of environmental health indicators was developed for
the aspect of urban air. It includes two major components which are air quality indicators
and air-related health indicators. In selecting and proposing environmental health
indicators, the following points were taken into consideration:
Table 1: Summary of significant environment factors that influence on happiness
Air pollution
Noise
pollution
Water
pollution
Min & Max
temperature
Wind speed
Rainy
Sunny
Landscape
Natural
habitats
Natural
capital
Coastline
Aks &
Sprott,
(1996)
+
Brereton et
al. (2008)
+
Engelbrecht
(2009)
+
Ferreira
and moro
(2010)
-
-
-,+
-,+
-,+
-,+
+
Frijters and
Praag
(1998)
-,+
Hartig et al.
(2010)
-
+
Israel and
Levinson,
2003
Juricevic et
al (2010)
+
Katsui and
Ghotbi
(2012)
+
Levinson
(2009)
-
Mackerron
and
Mourato
(2009)
-
Hamed Mirzaei, Azin Bahreini, Mehdi Moeinaddini, Zohreh Asadi-Shekari, Muhammad Zaly Shah & Zahid Sultan
Identify Significant Indicators for a Happy City
© 2016 by MIP
268
Maddison
and
Rehdanz
(2010)
-,+
Menz and
Welsch
(2010)
-
Moro et al.
(2008)
-,+
-,+
-,+
+
Rehdanz
and
Maddison
(2005)
-,+
Rehdanz
and
Maddison
(2008)
-
-,+
Ulrich et
al., 1991
+
Praag and
Baarsma
(2005)
-
Vemuri and
Costanza,
(2006)
+
Weinhold
(2008)
-
Welsch
(2002)
-
Welsch
(2003)
-
Welsch
(2006)
-
Welsch
(2007).
-
Wilson
(1993)
+
Note:
(-) negative effects on happiness
(+) positive effects on happiness
CONCLUSION
Increase urbanization and motorized lifestyle lead to various negative externalities such
as inactive lifestyle, traffic congestions, air pollution, more fuel consumption, noise
pollution and health problem. These negative externalities can reduce happiness in our
living environment. Nowadays, living environments especially in developing countries
are not happy environments. There are limited studies regarding happy environment
especially at city level. Therefore, this study focuses on the happy cities and tries to find
happy city factors by reviewing current literature. The results show that although socio-
economic factors affect happiness significantly, environmental factors such as air quality,
climate, noise and access to green spaces also can affect happiness.
Based on previous studies, there are different evidences from observational and
experimental sources that showing some environmental factors have positive correlation
© 2016 by MIP
269
with SWB and happiness (e.g., landscape, natural habitats and capital, coastline,
temperature between 18.3 co and 28 co) while the effects of some of them such as wind
speed, rainy or sunny days are highly depend on the weather conditions in the region.
There are also some environmental factors such as air pollution, noise pollution, water
pollution and temperature less than 18.3 co and more than 28 co that have negative
correlation with SBW and happiness.
Because happiness is an essential need, appropriate conditions in the cities can
increase happiness. However, previous studies did not consider cities opportunities to
increase happiness. The current study attempts to make up for this shortcoming by
introducing some factors for happy cities. These indicators were extracted from limited
existing literature. The value of this research is in providing a foundation to develop
happy city studies that were not addressed previously.
Although this study tries to cover majority of limited studies regarding built
environment and happiness, further studies can introduce more factors for happy city by
considering more studies and including experts and people opinions. Further studies also
can prioritize the happy city factors based on the strength of their relationship with
happiness. A model to evaluate and rate cities for happiness also can be proposed by
further studies. This model can be developed based on the relationships between happy
city factors and happiness. The final step for further studies can be suggesting
improvements to have happier cities based on the failures that are identified by their
proposed model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank all of those who have supported this research for their useful
comments during its completion. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Research Management Centre (RMC) and Centre for
Innovative Planning and Development (CIPD). The funding for this project is made
possible through the research grant obtained from the Ministry of Education, Malaysia
under the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) 2014 (FRGS grant
no:R.J130000.7821.4F602).
Hamed Mirzaei, Azin Bahreini, Mehdi Moeinaddini, Zohreh Asadi-Shekari, Muhammad Zaly Shah & Zahid Sultan
Identify Significant Indicators for a Happy City
© 2016 by MIP
270
REFERENCES
Aks, D. J. & Sprott, J. C. 1996. Quantifying aesthetic preference for chaotic patterns.
Empirical studies of the arts, 14(1), 1–16. 57
Ã, R. H., Hug, S., & Seeland, K. 2007. Restoration and stress relief through physical
activities in forests and parks, 6, 213–225.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.08.004
Ballas, D., & Dorling, D. 2007. Measuring the impact of major life events upon happiness.
International Journal of Epidemiology, 36, 1244–1252.
Ballas, D., & Dorling, D. 2013. The geography of happiness. In S. David, I. Boniwell, &
A. Conley Ayers (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 465–481).
Oxford University Press.
Bókony, V., Seress, G., Nagy, S., Lendvai, Á. Z., & Liker, A. 2012. Multiple indices of
body condition reveal no negative effect of urbanization in adult house sparrows.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1), 75–84.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan- .2011.10.006
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. F. 2009. Well-being for public
policy. New York: Oxford University Press USA. 21, 45, 53
Diener, E. & Seligman, M. E. P. 2004. Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1–31. 45
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. 2008. Do we really know what makes us happy? A
review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-
being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 94–122. 20, 48, 50
Engelbrecht, H. 2009. Natural capital, subjective well-being, and the new welfare
economics of sustainability: Some evidence from cross country regressions.
Ecological Economics, 69(2), 380–388. 61, 62
Ferreira, S. & Moro, M. 2010. On the use of subjective well-being data for environmental
valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46(3), 249–273. 20, 21, 40,
41, 42, 43, 60, 61, 62, 129, 153, 154
Frijters, P. & Praag, B. M. S. V. 1998. The effects of climate on welfare and well-being
in Russia. Climatic Change, 39, 61–81. 60
Gowdy, J. 2005. Toward a new welfare economics for sustainability. Ecological
Economics, 53(2), 211–222. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.08.007
Hartig, T., van den Berg, A., Hagerhall, C. M., Tomalak, M., Bauer, N., Hansmann, R.,
Ojala, A., Syngollitou, E., Carrus, G., van Herzele, A., Bell, S., Podesta, M. T. C.,
& Waseth, G. 2010. Health benefits of nature experience: Psychological, social
and cultural processes. In K. Nilsson, M. Sangster, C. Gallis, T. Hartig, S. de
Vries, K. Seeland, & J. Schipperijn (Eds.), Forests, Trees and Human Health.
Springer. 56, 57
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csíkszentmihályi, M. 2007. Experience Sampling
Method: Measuring the Quality of Everyday Life. London: Sage. 14, 33, 63, 83,
84, 85, 88
Huang, Y. L. & Batterman, S. 2000. Residence location as a measure of environmental
exposure:A review of air pollution epidemiology studies. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 10(1), 66–85. 62
© 2016 by MIP
271
Israel, D. & Levinson, A. 2003. Examining the relationship between household
satisfaction and pollution. Paper presented at the Eastern Economics Association
Meetings, 23 February 2003.61
Jordison, S., & Kieran, D. 2003. Crap towns: The 50 worst places to live in the UK.
Boxtree.
Juricevic, I., Land, L., Wilkins, A., & Webster, M. A. 2010. Visual discomfort and natural
image statistics. Perception, 39(7), 884–899. 57
Katsui, Y., & Ghotbi, N. 2005. COMMENTARY : Biophilia for happiness and
environmental ethics.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. 2004b. A
survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The Day Reconstruction
Method. Science, 306(5702), 1776–1780. 33, 63
Levinson, A. 2009. Valuing public goods using happiness data: The case of air quality.
Working Paper 15156, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. 60 214
MacKerron, G. & Mourato, S. 2009. Life satisfaction and air quality in London.
Ecological Economics, 68, 1441–1453. 23, 39, 47, 60, 62, 157, 158
Maddison, D. & Rehdanz, K. 2010. The impact of climate on life satisfaction. Working
Paper 1658, Kiel Institute for the World Economy. 58, 60
Marans, RW., & Kweon, B. 2011. The QoL in metro detroit at the beginning of the
millenium. In R. W. Marans & R. J. Stimson (Eds.), Investigating quality of urban
life (pp. 163–184). Dodrecht: Springer.
Marans, RW., & Stimson, RJ. (Eds.). 2011. Investigating quality of urban life. Dodrecht:
Springer.
Menz, T. &Welsch, H. 2010. Population aging and environmental in OECD countries:
The case of air pollution. Ecological Economics, 69(12), 2582–2589. 60, 61
Mercer. 2012. Quality of Living worldwide city rankings – Mercer survey. Mercer.
<http://uk.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2012>.
Milligan, C., Gatrell, A., & Bingley, A. 2004. “Cultivating health”: Therapeutic
landscapes and older people in northern England. Social Science and Medicine,
58(9), 1781–1793. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00397-6
M.Farouk Radwan. The Psychology of Attraction Explained: Understand what attracts
people to each other. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (4 Sept.
2014).
Moro, M., Brereton, F., Ferreira, S., & Clinch, J. P. 2008. Ranking quality of life using
subjective well-being data. Ecological Economics, 65, 448–460. 36, 43, 60, 61, 62
Peig, J., & Green, A. J. 2010. The paradigm of body condition : a critical reappraisal of
current methods based on mass and length, 1323–1332.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01751.
Rehdanz, K. 2007. Species diversity and human well-being: A spatial econometric
approach. Working Paper FNU-151, Sustainability and Global Change Research
Unit, Hamburg University and Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science,
Hamburg. 39, 43, 54, 61, 62, 199
Rehdanz, K. & Maddison, D. 2005. Climate and happiness. Ecological Economics, 52(1),
25–111. 28, 60, 61
Hamed Mirzaei, Azin Bahreini, Mehdi Moeinaddini, Zohreh Asadi-Shekari, Muhammad Zaly Shah & Zahid Sultan
Identify Significant Indicators for a Happy City
© 2016 by MIP
272
Rehdanz, K. & Maddison, D. 2008. Local environmental quality and life-satisfaction in
Germany. Ecological Economics, 64, 787–797. 47, 60
Savageau, D. 2007. Places rated Almanac. Washington, DC: Places Rated Books LLC.
Searns, R. M. 1995. The evolution of greenways as an adaptive urban landscape form.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 33(1-3), 65–80. http://doi.org/10.1016/0169-
2046(94)02014-7
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. 2008. Ecological Momentary Assessment.
Clinical Psychology, 4(1), 1–32. 33, 63
Shochat, E., Warren, P. S., Faeth, S. H., Mcintyre, N. E., & Hope, D. 2007. From patterns
to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology, 21(4).
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.11.019
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. 1991.
Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230. 57
Van Praag, B. M. S. & Baarsma, B. E. 2005. Using happiness surveys to value
intangibles: The case of airport noise. The Economic Journal, 115, 224–246. 41,
47, 61, 156
Vemuri, A. W. & Costanza, R. 2006. The role of human, social, built, and natural capital
in explaining life satisfaction at the country level: Toward a National Well-Being
Index (NWI). Ecological Economics, 58(1), 119–133. 61
Weinhold, D. 2008. How big a problem is noise pollution? A brief happiness analysis by
a perturbable economist. Working paper. Available from:
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/weinhold/The%20utility%20costs%
20of%20noise%20pollutionv4.pdf [cited 11 December 2009]. 61
Welsch, H. 2002. Preferences over prosperity and pollution: Environmental valuation
based on happiness surveys. Kyklos, 55(4), 473–494. 21, 36, 60, 62
Welsch, H.2003. Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution in ten European
countries. German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), Berlin. Available
from: http://www.diw.de/deutsch/produkte/ publikationen/diskussionspapiere/
docs/papers/dp356.pdf [cited 25 April 2007]. 60, 62
Welsch, H. 2006. Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution using life
satisfaction data. Ecological Economics, 58, 801–813. 58, 60, 62
Welsch, H. 2007. Environmental welfare analysis: A life satisfaction approach.
Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 544–551. 47, 60, 62
Welsch, H. 2009. Implications of happiness research for environmental economics.
Ecological Economics, 68(11), 2735–2742. 20, 43, 46, 83
Welsch, H. & Kühling, J. 2009. Using happiness data for environmental valuation: Issues
and applications.
Wilson, E. O. 1993. Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson
(Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis (pp. 31–41). Washington DC: Island Press. 56
