An essay that proposes a new area of research based on a study previously analyzed.

How An Urban Environment Affects Our Mood

Lifestyles, while unique to every individual, are a key component in determining our quality of life. Lifestyles include our routines, workplaces, social circles, and health. An equally contributing factor in our lifestyle, and therefore our well-being, is the environment we are surrounded by. In any space, the aesthetics, sensory details, people, and familiarity are constantly being absorbed by an individual–yet natural spaces remain the most optimal to one’s lifestyle. Specifically, the natural environment can have a directly positive impact on our mood and emotions by providing sunlight and open spaces, which can even create indirect results like increased social interactions and healthy routines. 

Yet, the rise of urbanization since long before the past century has been combative to the natural environment. Characterized by noise pollution, greenhouse gasses, and cramped neighborhoods, urban environments struggle to maintain natural spaces, and thus the conclusion can be made that the quality of life of its residents are much lower than that of rural residents. Thus, the relationship between an urban space and the mood/quality of life of its residents should be studied by analyzing a survey of New York City citizens to gauge how their mood and well-being are affected by the inherently unique space of an urban environment. 

Background

As climate change and global warming continue to threaten our quality of life, the general public develops more and more reasons to preserve our environment. In fact, about 62% of respondents of the Gallup World Poll stated that they would prioritize sustainability over economic growth. This supportive attitude, fortunately, seems to be the rule, not the exception, as 88% of the respondents agreed that environmental protection directly influences their well-being. 

The close relationship between an individual and nature is due to a plethora of reasons, from instincts to lifestyle trends. Biophilia, which directly translates to “a love of life or living things” (Anderson, 2020), is the hypothesis that humans are instinctively connected with other living organisms. In other words, humans possess an inclination to protect and cherish their environment not simply on a surface level, but on an evolutionary basis . The results of biophilia include improvement of mental well-being , specifically a decrease in stress, and increase in positive emotions and cognitive restoration (Krekel & MacKerron, 2020).

Accessibility to green spaces also comes with indirect positive outcomes. Most obviously, it encourages physical exercise and social interaction by having these spaces available to the public for most of the day, providing both natural aesthetic and space for reaction (Krekel & MacKerron, 2020). These habits thus lead to health benefits and socialization, both of which are amongst the strongest determinants of happiness (Krekel & MacKerron, 2020). Additionally, the natural environment frees residents from other types of stressors. For example, parks are void of any sort of noise pollution, which increase stress levels and therefore are associated with respiratory and cardiovascular disease (Krekel & MacKerron, 2020). 

However, experts of this study also state that people with access to natural habitats such as coastal areas and woodlands are happier than their dense, urban-residing counterparts (Krekel & MacKerron, 2020). This is logical because while urbanization has resulted in vast economic growth and higher living standards, city-life also comes with its fair share of caveats. When further investigating this study, many comparisons can be made between the sentiments towards urban jungles vs. natural areas. In summary, weather directly affects both pollution and time spent outdoors, air quality has substantial effects on public health, and most notably green spaces allow residents to fully reap the benefits of nature. Discrepancies can be made towards each of these components; thus it is necessary to understand the sentiments of city residents towards the lifestyle they chose. 

Methods

• Cloutier, S., Larson, L. R., & Jambeck, J. (2014). Are sustainable cities “happy” cities? Associations between sustainable development and human well-being in urban areas of the United States. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 16(3), 633–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-013-9499-0
  • This study states that the importance of assessing happiness in urban areas lies in the fact that happiness is now being regarded on a community, rather than individual, level; therefore, policy-makers are now considering the sentiments of their residents when making urban plans and developments. Specifically, this study sought the relationship between sustainability practices on the quality of life of urban residents–which would prioritize nature even in a city. The study accomplishes this assessment by collecting the publicly available data from the Gallup Happiness Index, ranked cities in order of best to worst according to four indexes: the Green City Index, the SustainLane Rankings, the Popular Science Rankings, and the Our Green Cities Index. The results indicate that across all four sustainability indices, the sustainability practices had positive associations among the city residents. In other words, more environmentally conscious decisions–which one can argue are inherently un-urban–are likely to result in happier residents. 
• Lee, S., Song, T., & Lim, U. (2022). How are happy and unhappy people differently affected by their local environments? The heterogeneous relationship between happiness and local environments in Seoul, Korea. Cities, 127, 103768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103768
  • The purpose of this study is to determine how the happiness of an area’s residents will change  if the local environment changes. Specifically, they seek to answer the question, what physical and social characteristics affect happiness? In order to account for the heterogeneity of a population (such as extremely happy or extremely unhappy people), the 2018 Seoul Survey dataset was used to evaluate the public’s opinion towards their local environment. Quality of life is directly impacted by local environmental factors such as educational/cultural facilities, public transit, urbanization, and of course, the availability of green spaces. The results indicate that residents were the least satisfied with the availability of green spaces–which is to be expected, as an urban city such as Seoul is likely to lack natural areas. In fact, when policy-makers improve the physical environment through green spaces and public amenities, the happiness levels of the community increases, the happiness inequalities are alleviated. 
• Sander, W. (2011). Location and happiness in the United States. Economics Letters, 112(3), 277–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.05.015
  • The study urges for more research of the U.S. population’s well-being due to the fact that individuals have not become happier over the past century. While many variables such as income, education, and marriage contribute to one’s happiness, an overlooked factor is one’s location. In fact, the study mentions the Pew Research Center, which states that respondents are somewhat happier in warm and/or rural locations than in cold cities. To investigate the relationship between location and happiness, the researchers used data from the National Opinion Research Center’s “General Social Survey” and recorded the responses of “not happy,” “pretty happy,” or “very happy.” The results showed that 91% of rural residents say they are happy while only 82% of city residents say they are happy. 
• Guite, H. F., Clark, C. R., & Ackrill, G. (2006). The impact of the physical and urban environment on mental well-being. Public Health, 120(12), 1117–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2006.10.005
  • The study begins by implying that some elements of cities are inherently combative of peoples’ happiness. These elements include graffiti, noise exposure, and high-rise living. In order to reverse these effects, the researchers chose to rely on health and social science to find the relationship between the environment and mental well-being. Using a cross-sectional questionnaire study, residents of specific housing areas in Greenwich, London, were assessed for their satisfaction levels, which were defined by density (estate, road, home, etc.), community facilities, maintenance of grassy areas, and more. The results indicated that neighborhood noise and dissatisfaction with green spaces/community facilities were significant contributors to people’s low levels of happiness.

Outcomes 

Cities are a unique form of living due to the fact that a vast amount of people are concentrated in one small space. While living in a city includes a plethora of benefits–from many job opportunities to cultural diversity–the caveats of accommodating so many people in an area are difficult to ignore. A glaringly obvious one is its lack of natural spaces. Cities are centers of industrialization, so factories and workplaces, as well as apartment buildings, are prioritized over parks and greenspaces. Based on Krekel and MacKerron, nature plays a great role in an individual’s happiness; therefore cities, which juxtapose rural or suburban areas, are likely to compromise their residents’ well-being, and report low levels of happiness. First, we should use surveys to gauge the public’s opinion towards living in cities. Depending on the happiness levels reported, policy-makers can achieve a middle ground by incorporating more parks, projects, and green initiatives, such as planting trees in sidewalks, or rooftop gardens. By doing so, urban life can coexist harmoniously with nature.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.