Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Social Indicators Research
Published in: Social Indicators Research 1/2021

13-11-2020 | Original Research

Is the Well-Being of Neighboring Cities Important to Me? Analysis of the Spatial Effect of Social Capital and Urban Amenities in South Korea

Authors: Zhe Hong, In Kwon Park

Published in: Social Indicators Research | Issue 1/2021

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Much scholarly attention is paid to understanding subjective well-being (SWB) from a spatial perspective. Various features of a city including social capital may have significant impacts on SWB in addition to individual attributes and national characteristics. However, the extant empirical studies of SWB tend to focus on the national- or regional-scale analysis rather than the city-scale analysis. Particularly, few studies inquire into the impacts of social capital and urban amenities on SWB along with the spatial dependence at the city level. This paper aims to examine the spatial effects of social capital and urban characteristics on the SWB of cities. For this purpose, we construct a series of spatial panel models for SWB using data for 219 cities in South Korea, from the Korean Community Health Survey (KCHS) conducted in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017. The results show that income, Gini-coefficient, social trust, social networks with friends, participation in charity activities, open space, and cultural opportunities all affect the SWB. Particularly, social capital and open space have spatial spillover effects on the SWB, even after controlling for socio-demographic variables. These findings will not only draw some important policy implications for urban planning and public management to improve the level of urban SWB, but also provide a piece of significant evidence for follow-up studies of its kind.
previous article Household Level Non-Monetary Poverty in Ethiopia and its Driving Factors: a Multidimensional Approach with Panel Estimation
next article The Experiential Basis of Social Trust Towards Ethnic Outgroup Members

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
The local government system in South Korea can be divided into three level divisions: provincial (Do-Gwangyeoksi), municipal (Si-Gun-Gu), and sub-municipal (Eup-Myeon-Dong) units. The provincial unit governed by an elected governor includes multiple municipalities, the municipal unit is the smaller self-governing body with an elected mayor, and the sub-municipal unit is the neighborhood unit without any political power.
 
2
The reason for reducing one municipal unit is that Cheongwon-Gun was abolished by the merger with Cheongju-Si in 2014.
 
3
The queen contiguity weights matrix is a binary weighting matrix, which classifies regions as neighbors, who share either a border or a corner point. We have treated island units as missing values. The percentage of missing values is only 3.52% (8/227).
 
4
The equalized income is calculated by dividing the household’s total income from all sources by the square root of the number of household members. Since the household income is measured by intervals in KCHS, we converted the interval incomes to the midpoint values of the corresponding classes. We then calculated the Gini coefficient using the midpoint values with the individual weights based on sampling probabilities.
 
5
The “superficial social relations” here refer to “weak ties”. Based on Granovetter (1983) and Putnam (2000), social capital can be divided into strong and weak ties. Strong ties such as relationship with family members and close friends mainly provide emotional support, which directly contributes to SWB, while weak ties such as relationship with colleagues and neighbors predominantly provide information support.
 
6
An anonymous reviewer suggested an alternative explanation: the spatial sorting of well-off people. People are happier in a place with good amenities. Due to their socioeconomic status, wealthy people would easily migrate to areas with a better quality of life, and sometimes overflow into the surrounding area. Good urban environments may attract richer people who are more satisfied with their lives. But this interpretation need further evidence with concrete data analysis, which is reserved for future study.
 
Literature
Ambrey, C., & Fleming, C. (2014). Public greenspace and life satisfaction in urban Australia. Urban Studies, 51(6), 1290–1321.
Anselin, L. (2002). Under the hood issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models. Agricultural Economics, 27(3), 247–267.
Arifwidodo, S. D., & Perera, R. (2011). Quality of life and compact development policies in Bandung, Indonesia. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 6(2), 159–179.
Balducci, A., & Checchi, D. (2009). Happiness and quality of city life: The case of Milan, the richest Italian city. International Planning Studies, 14(1), 25–64.
Becchetti, L., Pelloni, A., & Rossetti, F. (2008). Relational goods, sociability, and happiness. Kyklos, 61(3), 343–363.
Benita, F., Bansal, G., & Tunçer, B. (2019). Public spaces and happiness: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Health & Place, 56, 9–18.
Bjørnskov, C. (2003). The happy few: Cross–country evidence on social capital and life satisfaction. Kyklos, 56(1), 3–16.
Bjørnskov, C. (2008). Social capital and happiness in the United States. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 3(1), 43–62.
Botzen, K. (2016). Social capital and economic well-being in Germany's regions: An exploratory spatial analysis. Region, 3(1), 1–24.
Chae, S. M., & Ju, C. B. (2019). Urban regeneration project policy and life satisfaction of local residents: Focusing on neighborhood regeneration general in Seoul. Journal of Korean Policy Sciences Review, 23(3), 55–76.
Cramer, V., Torgersen, S., & Kringlen, E. (2004). Quality of life in a city: The effect of population density. Social Indicators Research, 69(1), 103–116.
Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In Nations and households in economic growth (pp. 89–125). Academic Press.
Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic Journal, 111(473), 465–484.
Easterlin, R. A. (2005). Feeding the illusion of growth and happiness: A reply to Hagerty and Veenhoven. Social Indicators Research, 74(3), 429–443.
Elhorst, J. P. (2014). Spatial econometrics: From cross-sectional data to spatial panels. Berlin: Springer.
Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2008). Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: Longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ, 337, a2338.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.
Helliwell, J. F. (2003). How's life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being. Economic Modelling, 20(2), 331–360.
Helliwell, J. F. (2006). Well-being, social capital and public policy: What's new? The Economic Journal, 116(510), C34–C45.
Helliwell, J. F., Huang, H., & Wang, S. (2014). Social capital and well-being in times of crisis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1), 145–162.
Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well–being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1435–1446.
Hur, M. H. (2014). Exploring the influential factors of the quality of life in the provincial level local governments. The Korean Journal of Local Government Studies, 18(3), 231–254 (in Korean).
Jiang, S., Lu, M., & Sato, H. (2012). Identity, inequality, and happiness: Evidence from urban China. World Development, 40(6), 1190–1200.
Kang, Y. W., Ko, Y. S., Kim, Y. J., Sung, K. M., Kim, H. J., Choi, H. Y., & Jeong, E. (2015). Korea community health survey data profiles. Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, 6(3), 211–217.
Kim, K. (2014). The effect of urban regeneration on the village satisfaction and community spirit of the citizens of Seoul. Journal of Public Society, 4(1), 66–92 (Korean).
Kislev, E. (2019). Social capital, happiness, and the unmarried: A multilevel analysis of 32 European countries. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15, 1–18.
Kroll, C. (2008). Social capital and the happiness of nations: The importance of trust and networks for life satisfaction in a cross-national perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
LeSage, J., & Pace, R. K. (2009). Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Leung, A., Kier, C., Fung, T., Fung, L., & Sproule, R. (2011). Searching for happiness: The importance of social capital. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(3), 443–462.
Lim, B., Lee, G. H., & Ji, N. S. (2015). A comparative study on the residential environment satisfaction and the influential factors on the residential improvement project district and the housing redevelopment project district in Daejeon metropolitan area. Journal of the Korean Urban Management Association, 28(1), 33–51 (Korean).
Lin, C. H. A., Lahiri, S., & Hsu, C. P. (2014). Happiness and regional segmentation: Does space matter? Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1), 57–83.
Lin, C. H. A., Lahiri, S., & Hsu, C. P. (2017). Happiness and globalization: A spatial econometric approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(6), 1841–1857.
Luhmann, M., Murdoch, J. C., & Hawkley, L. C. (2015). Subjective well-being in context: County-and state-level socioeconomic factors and individual moderators. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(2), 148–156.
MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 992–1000.
Morrison, M., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Subjective well-being and national satisfaction: Findings from a worldwide survey. Psychological Science, 22(2), 166–171.
Oishi, S., & Kesebir, S. (2015). Income inequality explains why economic growth does not always translate to an increase in happiness. Psychological Science, 26(10), 1630–1638.
Oishi, S., Kesebir, S., & Diener, E. (2011). Income inequality and happiness. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1095–1100.
Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. (2011). Geography of European life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 101(3), 435–445.
Piketty, T., & Zucman, G. (2014). Capital is back: Wealth-income ratios in rich countries 1700–2010. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1255–1310.
Poon, J. P., & Shang, Q. (2014). Are creative workers happier in Chinese cities? The influence of work, lifestyle, and amenities on urban well-being. Urban Geography, 35(4), 567–585.
Powdthavee, N. (2008). Putting a price tag on friends, relatives, and neighbours: Using surveys of life satisfaction to value social relationships. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(4), 1459–1480.
Puntscher, S., Hauser, C., Walde, J., & Tappeiner, G. (2015). The impact of social capital on subjective well-being: A regional perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(5), 1231–1246.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.
Ram, R. (2010). Social capital and happiness: Additional cross-country evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(4), 409–418.
Rehdanz, K., & Maddison, D. (2008). Local environmental quality and life-satisfaction in Germany. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 787–797.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Maslauskaite, K. (2012). Can policy make us happier? Individual characteristics, socio-economic factors and life satisfaction in Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 5(1), 77–96.
Rodrik, D. (1999). Where did all the growth go? External shocks, social conflict, and growth collapses. Journal of Economic Growth, 4(4), 385–412.
Seresinhe, C. I., Preis, T., MacKerron, G., & Moat, H. S. (2019). Happiness is greater in more scenic locations. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–11.
Smyth, R., Mishra, V., & Qian, X. (2008). The environment and well-being in urban China. Ecological Economics, 68(1–2), 547–555.
Stanca, L. (2010). The geography of economics and happiness: Spatial patterns in the effects of economic conditions on well-being. Social Indicators Research, 99(1), 115–133.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today's divided society endangers our future. WW Norton & Company.
Wang, F., & Wang, D. (2016). Place, geographical context and subjective well-being: State of art and future directions. In Mobility, sociability and well-being of urban living (pp. 189–230). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2009). Income inequality and social dysfunction. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 493–511.
Zagorski, K., Kelley, J., & Evans, M. D. (2010). Economic development and happiness: Evidence from 32 nations. Polish Sociological Review, 1, 3–19.
Zak, P. J., & Knack, S. (2001). Trust and growth. The Economic Journal, 111(470), 295–321.
Metadata
Title
Is the Well-Being of Neighboring Cities Important to Me? Analysis of the Spatial Effect of Social Capital and Urban Amenities in South Korea
Authors
Zhe Hong
In Kwon Park
Publication date
13-11-2020
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Social Indicators Research / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0303-8300
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0921
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02542-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Social Indicators Research 1/2021 Go to the issue

Original Research

The Experiential Basis of Social Trust Towards Ethnic Outgroup Members

Original Research

Economic Freedom and People’s Regard for Education

Original Research

Fertility Intentions in Times of Rising Economic Uncertainty: Evidence from Italy from a Gender Perspective

Original Research

Drying Climates and Gendered Suffering: Links Between Drought, Food Insecurity, and Women’s HIV in Less-Developed Countries

Original Research

Can We Trust Education for Fostering Trust? Quasi-experimental Evidence on the Effect of Education and Tracking on Social Trust

Original Research

A Tourist Segmentation Based on Motivation, Satisfaction and Prior Knowledge with a Socio-Economic Profiling: A Clustering Approach with Mixed Information

Premium Partner

    Image Credits