Urbanization and Subjective Well-Being
25
does not depend solely on the quantitative net balance between the advantages and
disadvantages of urbanization. Rather, these externalities are also qualitatively different in cities of different kinds, and this is a further channel through which they
contribute to individuals’ SWB.
3 The Indirect Effect of Urbanization on SWB
The association of low levels of urbanization with higher SWB was often interpreted
in the literature as the demonstration that living in rural settings is always beneficial
for individuals’ well-being.
This assumption, however, does not consider the relative location of rural settings compared with more urbanized areas. Urbanization effects, in fact, are not
constrained within the boundaries of the city producing them. Rather, they spread
to the neighbouring environment, with an intensity and nature that is highly differentiated based on the rank of the city, as theoretically suggested by central place
theory (Christaller 1933). Rural communities embedded in urbanized regions, for
instance, are expected to benefit from the positive externalities, without suffering the
disadvantages that are typical of urban settings.
The investigation of this hypothesis represented the second research line undertaken by the authors. A first study (Lenzi and Perucca 2016a) focused on the analysis
of SWB in different kinds of rural communities and classified according to the urbanization level of the NUTS2 region they were pertaining to.
Results showed that people living in rural communities embedded in both first
and second rank regions (i.e. highly urbanized) are, on average, more satisfied than
those living in the urban settings of the same regions. On the other hand, living in a
rural setting within third-rank regions, (i.e. those characterized by the lowest level of
urbanization) is associated with lower SWB than the residents in the urban settings
of the same regions. In short, rural inhabitants tend to be more satisfied than others,
consistently with the literature, but only if they live in highly urbanized regions (i.e.
first rank and second rank).
A more complex and detailed approach to this research question was applied in
Lenzi and Perucca (2020). This study assumed that SWB depends not only on the
urbanization level of the community of residence, among other things, but also on the
distance, in terms of travel time, to the closest city of a higher rank. Empirical findings
also pointed out, besides the direct effect of urbanization on the SWB of the resident
population, an indirect effect which cities generate on the SWB of individuals living
in other regions and in urban settings of a lower rank. While the direct effect, as
largely demonstrated by previous studies and by the authors themselves, is generally
negative for the largest cities, the indirect effect of urbanization on SWB is positive.
This implies that keeping other things constant, the shorter the distance to a city of
higher rank compared with that of one’s place of residence, the higher one’s own
level of SWB will be.
25
does not depend solely on the quantitative net balance between the advantages and
disadvantages of urbanization. Rather, these externalities are also qualitatively different in cities of different kinds, and this is a further channel through which they
contribute to individuals’ SWB.
3 The Indirect Effect of Urbanization on SWB
The association of low levels of urbanization with higher SWB was often interpreted
in the literature as the demonstration that living in rural settings is always beneficial
for individuals’ well-being.
This assumption, however, does not consider the relative location of rural settings compared with more urbanized areas. Urbanization effects, in fact, are not
constrained within the boundaries of the city producing them. Rather, they spread
to the neighbouring environment, with an intensity and nature that is highly differentiated based on the rank of the city, as theoretically suggested by central place
theory (Christaller 1933). Rural communities embedded in urbanized regions, for
instance, are expected to benefit from the positive externalities, without suffering the
disadvantages that are typical of urban settings.
The investigation of this hypothesis represented the second research line undertaken by the authors. A first study (Lenzi and Perucca 2016a) focused on the analysis
of SWB in different kinds of rural communities and classified according to the urbanization level of the NUTS2 region they were pertaining to.
Results showed that people living in rural communities embedded in both first
and second rank regions (i.e. highly urbanized) are, on average, more satisfied than
those living in the urban settings of the same regions. On the other hand, living in a
rural setting within third-rank regions, (i.e. those characterized by the lowest level of
urbanization) is associated with lower SWB than the residents in the urban settings
of the same regions. In short, rural inhabitants tend to be more satisfied than others,
consistently with the literature, but only if they live in highly urbanized regions (i.e.
first rank and second rank).
A more complex and detailed approach to this research question was applied in
Lenzi and Perucca (2020). This study assumed that SWB depends not only on the
urbanization level of the community of residence, among other things, but also on the
distance, in terms of travel time, to the closest city of a higher rank. Empirical findings
also pointed out, besides the direct effect of urbanization on the SWB of the resident
population, an indirect effect which cities generate on the SWB of individuals living
in other regions and in urban settings of a lower rank. While the direct effect, as
largely demonstrated by previous studies and by the authors themselves, is generally
negative for the largest cities, the indirect effect of urbanization on SWB is positive.
This implies that keeping other things constant, the shorter the distance to a city of
higher rank compared with that of one’s place of residence, the higher one’s own
level of SWB will be.