It’s a showdown between city, country, or suburb living.
A recent study highlights that people living in cities tend to have lower levels of health, happiness, and economic well-being compared to those residing outside urban areas. The research points to a “Goldilocks zone” in suburban regions, situated between urban centers and rural areas, where individuals experience the highest levels of contentment.
Adam Finnemann, a psychologist and doctoral student at the University of Amsterdam’s Center for Urban Mental Health, led the study. The team analyzed data from 156,000 people aged 40 and over, using the UK Biobank. They developed a new method to classify living environments based on both proximity to city centers and the population density of those areas.
The findings reveal that, although city residents often earn more, this does not translate into greater happiness. In fact, people living in highly urbanized areas scored lower on various measures related to well-being, social satisfaction, and economic contentment. Despite these lower scores, urban areas continue to attract more residents, with the percentage of people living in cities expected to rise from 10% in the 1910s to 68% by 2050. This phenomenon is described as an “urban desirability paradox,” where cities remain popular despite their negative impact on overall well-being.
The study, published in Science Advances on July 19, also found significant disparities in happiness within cities. Wealthier individuals tend to report higher levels of satisfaction compared to those with fewer resources, with this inequality being most pronounced near city centers. While suburban areas were associated with higher general happiness, the study cautions that moving to such areas may not guarantee personal improvement in well-being, as the observed happiness could be influenced by the characteristics of those who choose to live there rather than the location itself.
Discussion about this post