| Literature DB >> 31561634 |
Minou Weijs-Perrée1, Gamze Dane2, Pauline van den Berg3, Machiel van Dorst4.
Abstract
Previous research has shown that the urban environment could influence people's behavior and wellbeing. However, little is still known about how the objective and subjective measures of the momentary experience of urban public spaces could contribute to the satisfaction with the urban environment of cities, which eventually could influence the momentary and long-term subjective wellbeing (SWB) of citizens. Therefore, the aim of this research is to gain insight into how momentary experience and satisfaction with the urban public space could contribute to the SWB of citizens, and thereby control for personal, contextual characteristics. Relationships were simultaneously analyzed using a multi-level path analysis approach based on a sample of 1056 momentary experiences of urban public spaces reported by 161 citizens of the urban area Eindhoven, The Netherlands. The results showed that personality and personal characteristics are highly important for explaining long-term SWB and subsequently long-term SWB positively influences momentary SWB (the degree of feeling secure, comfortable, happy and annoyed) together with the momentary satisfaction of urban public space characteristics. In addition, contextual characteristics, such as time/day and distance to facilities are important for explaining people's momentary SWB. Policy makers and urban planners can use these results when developing policy and designing a healthy, attractive, livable and safe living environment for citizens.Entities:
Keywords: Urban public spaces; experience sampling method (ESM); experiences; geotagging; multi-level path analysis; satisfaction; subjective wellbeing (SWB)
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31561634 PMCID: PMC6801588 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16193621
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Figure 2Distribution of the number of experiences per respondent.
Participants characteristics (n = 161).
| Gender | Sample ( | Sample (%) | Eindhoven 2019 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 84 | 52 | 51 |
| Female | 77 | 48 | 49 |
| Age | (>20 years) | ||
| Age (18–35 years) | 17 | 11 | 32 |
| Age (35–45 years) | 26 | 16 | 17 |
| Age (>65 years) | 40 | 25 | 21 |
| Household composition | |||
| One-person household | 45 | 28 | 48 |
| Couple without children | 73 | 45 | 25 |
| Couple with children | 35 | 22 | 26 (households with |
| Single parent family and other | 8 | 5 | |
| Work situation | |||
| Self-employed | 12 | 7 | 64 (percentage of people with income from work (>12 h) |
| Full-time | 56 | 35 | |
| Part-time | 30 | 19 | |
| Unemployed | 19 | 13 | 36 |
| Education | |||
| Low education level | 51 | 33 | NA |
| Medium education level | 70 | 43 | |
| Higher education level | 38 | 24 | |
| Homeownership | |||
| Home owner | 127 | 79 | 47 |
| Tenant | 34 | 21 | 53 |
| Health | |||
| Reasonable/Bad | 26 | 16 | NA |
| Mean | St. deviation | ||
| Long-term subjective wellbeing (SWB) | 26.46 | 5.520 | |
| Life satisfaction | 18.13 | 3.548 | |
| Negative affect | 10.83 | 2.093 | |
| Positive affect | 19.17 | 1.725 | |
| Personality traits | |||
| Extroversion | 6.52 | 1.803 | |
| Agreeableness | 7.84 | 1.212 | |
| Conscientiousness | 7.66 | 1.341 | |
| Neuroticism | 4.78 | 1.544 | |
| Openness | 7.47 | 1.565 |
Momentary experience characteristics (n = 1056).
| Indoor/Outdoor | Sample ( | Sample (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Indoor | 174 | 17 |
| Outdoor | 882 | 83 |
| Company | ||
| Alone | 612 | 58 |
| One or more other people | 444 | 42 |
| Location type | ||
| Work | 44 | 4 |
| On the road(relocating) | 386 | 37 |
| Shop/mall | 148 | 14 |
| Café/bar/restaurant | 72 | 7 |
| Activity type | ||
| Work/studying | 69 | 7 |
| Transportation mode | ||
| Car | 192 | 18 |
| Bicycle | 511 | 49 |
| Walking | 320 | 30 |
| Public transport | 21 | 2 |
| Mean | St. deviation | |
| Familiarity | 4.58 | 0.693 |
| Satisfaction urban public space | 41.22 | 7.824 |
| Momentary SWB | 3.91 | 1.058 |
| Location characteristics in kilometers | ||
| Distance to nearest shops | 0.2691 | 0.3115 |
| Distance to nearest restaurants | 0.3488 | 0.3597 |
| Distance to nearest public transport stop | 0.2721 | 0.2035 |
| Weather (extracted from the Royal | ||
| Temperature | 236.64 | 45.830 |
| Cloudiness (1–9) | 4.35 | 3.402 |
| Rain (Yes) | 0.05 | 0.210 |
Goodness-of-fit of the model.
| Degrees of Freedom | 686 |
|---|---|
| Full information Maximum-Likelihood Chi-square | 553.58 |
| Chi square/degrees of freedom | 0.807 |
| Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) | 0.00 |
| 90% Confidence interval for RMSEA | 0.00; 0.00 |
| 1.00 |
Figure 3Significant standardized effects.
Results multilevel path model (unstandardized estimates).
| From/to | Satisfaction Urban Public Space | Momentary SWB | Long-term SWB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | Coefficients | Coefficients | ||
|
| ||||
| Satisfaction urban public space | 0.02 ** | |||
| Location – Leisure/ café/ bar/restaurant | 0.30 ** | |||
| Location – Shop/mall | −0.20 * | |||
| Location – Relocating/ on the move | −0.60 ** | |||
| Distance – shops (in km) | 2.22 ** | 0.51 ** | ||
| Distance - public transport stop (in km) | 3.20 ** | |||
| Time/day – weekend | 1.14 ** | 0.29 ** | ||
| Error variance | 44.31 | 0.65 | 3.91 | |
| R2 | 0.032 | 0.20 | 0.17 | |
| R2 reduced form | 0.032 | 0.17 | 0.17 | |
|
| ||||
| Long-term SWB | 0.03 ** | |||
| Extroversion | 0.70 ** | |||
| Neuroticism | −1.65 ** | |||
| Homeownership | 2.62 ** | |||
| Work situation – Retired | 2.71 ** | |||
| Health – Reasonable/ Bad | −2.75 ** | |||
| Life changing event – moving | 1.86 ** | |||
| Error variance | 44.31 | 0.68 | 3.91 | |
| R2 | 0.00 | 0.049 | 0.78 | |
| R2 reduced form | 0.00 | 0.016 | 0.78 | |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.