Upload
norman
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Tfi
Sa
b
a
ARRA
KHISSS
1
taetht1newn
(
1h
Ecological Indicators 40 (2014) 147–152
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Indicators
j o ur na l ho me page: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /eco l ind
he Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness Index (SNHI): A metricor assessing a community’s sustainability and potentialnfluence on happiness
cott Cloutiera,∗, Jenna Jambecka, Norman Scottb
College of Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USADepartment of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
r t i c l e i n f o
rticle history:eceived 18 December 2013eceived in revised form 14 January 2014ccepted 15 January 2014
eywords:appiness
ndexustainabilityustainable developmentustainable Neighborhoods
a b s t r a c t
This paper describes the development of the Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness Index (SNHI): atool to assess and compare how well individual cities, towns, neighborhoods and communities embracesustainable practices and how these practices translate to opportunities for residents to pursue happiness.The SNHI is grounded in findings from primary literature and previous research suggesting associa-tions between aspects of sustainable development and higher levels of self-reported happiness. Ninesubsystems of community development were selected for the generation of the SNHI: water manage-ment, energy management, urban design, food management, business & economic development, wastemanagement, buildings & infrastructure, transportation and community governance. SNHI scores weregenerated for sixteen US cities with data compiled from the Green City Index (2011) and the SustainLaneUS City Rankings (2007). A method was then developed to generate the Sustainable Neighborhoods for
Happiness Distribution (SNHD) to plot future SNHI scores for comparison. The SNHI scoring methodologywas then applied by collecting data for Athens, Georgia and Ithaca, New York. Our results suggest that SanFrancisco has the highest SNHI, while Detroit has the lowest and that Athens is just below and Ithaca justabove the mean SNHI on the SNHD. The SNHI can serve as a unique tool for decision makers, communitystakeholders, engineers, developers, architects, planners and researchers to assess the relative status ofany neighborhood or community, with respect to development and happiness.© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
. Introduction
Significant changes in community retrofit and design are neededo satisfy future growth without compounding current problems,nd communities should be developed to integrate resilient andfficient economic, environmental and social systems. A poten-ial approach for community development could focus on humanappiness. Happiness, like physical and mental health, denoteshe degree to which people flourish in a society (Veenhoven,992). Studies have considered the links between our exter-al environment and human welfare and wellbeing (DePledge
t al., 2011; Thompson Coon et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2011),hile others have shown that a community rooted in happi-ess is likely to include sustainable environmental, economic∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 6032852296.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Cloutier), [email protected]
J. Jambeck), [email protected] (N. Scott).
470-160X/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.012
and social systems (Leyden et al., 2011; Florida, 2010; O’Brien,2005; O’Brien, 2001). Our work draws upon these prior studiesto develop an index rooted in happiness and community devel-opment.
Research indicates that sustainable development requires nosacrifices in happiness, but that design strategies can improvehappiness and sustainability simultaneously (Zidansek, 2007). Inaddition, positive associations have been found between happi-ness levels and sustainable development (Leyden et al., 2011;Florida, 2010; O’Brien, 2001; Schimmel, 2009; Zidansek, 2007).Other countries should take notice of Bhutan and Thailand, whichhave created and utilized happiness indices. Bhutan measures ninedomains that affect happiness for the assessment of their GrossNational Happiness: (1) psychological well-being or mental health,(2) physical health, (3) time and work-life balance, (4) education, (5)cultural vitality and expression, (6) social connection and relation-
ships, (7) environmental quality and access to nature, (8) qualityof government, and (9) material well-being (DeGraaf et al., 2005).Thailand uses the Green and Happiness Index, measuring six com-ponents: (1) health, (2) warm and loving family, (3) empowerment1 l Indicators 40 (2014) 147–152
oig
Iamd(tntbm
2
racwd2
2a(
ctR(Smbvds
otbpnotstSAatc
2I
Slade
48 S. Cloutier et al. / Ecologica
f the community, (4) economic strength and equity, (5) surround-ngs and ecological system and (6) democratic society with goodovernance (Barameechai, 2007).
The Gross National Happiness and the Green and Happinessndex are groundbreaking efforts; however, a comprehensivepproach to indexing the relationship between sustainable com-unity development and happiness does not exist. This study
evelops the Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness IndexSNHI) to measure nine community development subsystems andheir potential association with residential happiness. The SNHI isot a measure of happiness levels of residents; rather, the SNHI is aool to assess and compare how well individual cities, towns, neigh-orhoods and communities embrace sustainability, which in turnay create opportunities for their residents to pursue happiness.
. Materials and methods
The development of an index for sustainability and happinessequires scores in many areas of community development. Thus,
detailed review was conducted to establish those areas thatomprise community development and have potential associationsith happiness. The selection of the subsystems of communityevelopment for the SNHI was based on prior research (Cloutier,013) with further details described in the supplemental materials.
.1. The Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness Index (SNHI)nd the Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness DistributionSNHD) development
The Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness Index (SNHI)ombines methods and indicators from two sustainability indexes,he Green City Index (GCI) (2011) and the SustainLane US Cityankings (SL) (2007), and the Gallup Healthways Well-Being Index2009) as a surrogate for happiness scores. Data included in theNHI generation from the GCI are water management, energyanagement, urban design, waste management, transportation,
uildings & infrastructure and environmental governance. SL pro-ided scores for food management and business & economicevelopment. Scores from SL were transposed to be on a consistentcale (0–10) with the GCI (details in supplemental material).
The relationships between happiness and the nine subsystemsf community development are assumed to be linear, leading tohe development of the SNHI (Fig. 1 and Eq. (1)). The SNHI includesoth performance scores (PMi) and weighted impacts (WHi) of theseerformance scores on happiness, as well as a baseline sustainableeighborhoods score (ˇ0) indicating a city has some baseline levelf sustainability (a non-zero score). However, for the purpose ofhis study, ˇ0 = 0. The performance scores, along with the relativeubsystem weightings, were used to generate SNHI scores for six-een U.S. cities, normalized to a 0–100 scale by dividing each city’sNHI by the maximum SNHI score that can be obtained (72.08).dditionally, the performance scores were utilized to generate anpproximate distribution of 50,000 US city scenarios, titled the Sus-ainable Neighborhoods for Happiness Distribution (SNHD), whichan be used to plot future cities for comparison and assessment.
.2. Application of the SNHI and SNHD to Athens, Georgia andthaca, New York
Once the SNHI and SNHD methodology were developed, theNHI was applied to communities on a smaller scale. Data was col-
ected per the protocol developed in Table 1 for Athens, Georgiand Ithaca, New York. SNHI data collection includes both objectiveata (collected from public records, websites and community lead-rs for Athens and Ithaca) and subjective data (based on the scorer’sFig. 1. The Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness Index.
perception, as informed by a detailed search of the city and com-parison with its peers). With respect to the objective data, citieswere ranked in each category, as in the GCI methodology (2011).Athens and Ithaca were compared to the other cities measured byGCI that have a low population (<515,505), including Atlanta, Min-neapolis and Sacramento. The objective scores for each categoryfor the cities are then ranked relative to one another, with a 10 forthe best scoring city, a 0 for the worst, and a 5 for the mean of allcity raw data scores. For instance, the city that has the best scorefor energy consumption per person receives a 10, while the worstcity receives a zero. A 5 is assigned to the mean of all city energyconsumption scores. The three points (10, 5 and 0 and their respec-tive raw data) are then plotted and a linear regression formula isused to derive the other ranked scores (additional information insupplemental material).
SNHI = ˇ0 + H2Om(H2OmH) + Em(EmH) + Ud(UdH) + Fp(FpH)
+ Bed(BedH) + Wm(WmH) + Ts(TsH) + Bg(BgH) + Cg(CgH)
(1)
SNHI, Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness Index; ˇ0,Baseline Sustainability Neighborhood Score; H20mH, WaterManagement Weighted Impact on Happiness; EmH, Energy Man-agement Weighted Impact on Happiness; UdH, Urban DesignWeighted Impact on Happiness; FpH, Food Production WeightedImpact on Happiness; BedH, Business & Economic Develop-ment Weighted Impact on Happiness; WmH, Waste ManagementWeighted Impact on Happiness; TsH, Transportation SystemsWeighted Impact on Happiness; BgH, Buildings & InfrastructureWeighted Impact on Happiness; CgH, Community GovernanceWeighted Impact on Happiness; H20m, performance score forwater management; Em, performance score for energy manage-ment; Ud, performance score for urban design; Fp, performancescore for food production; Bed, performance score for business
& economic development; Wm, performance score for wastemanagement; Ts, performance score for transportation; Bg, perfor-mance score for buildings & infrastructure; Cg, performance scorefor community governance.S. Cloutier et al. / Ecological Indicators 40 (2014) 147–152 149
Table 1The sustainable neighborhoods index data collections sheet.
City/town/neighborhood Data collection researcher
Category Indicator Potential sources Collected data Actual source Notes
Energy management Electricity consumption per unit of GDP(TJ/US$m) Mayors office of sustainability;US Bureau of EconomicAnalysis; US Census
Electricity consumption per person (GJ) Mayors office of sustainability;US Bureau of EconomicAnalysis; US Census
Measure of a city’s commitment to promoting greenenergies, developing green energy projects andincreasing the amount of locally produced energy(1 = below expectations; 2 = meets expectations;3 = exceeds expectations)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Urban design Green Space as % of total land area (%) Planning Department; USCensus Bureau; Trust for PublicLand
Population density (person/mi2) US Census BureauAssessment of a city’s efforts to sustain and improvethe quantity and quality (for example, proximity andusability) of green spaces, and its tree planting policy(1 = below expectations; 2 = meets expectations;3 = exceeds expectations)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Assessment of how rigorously a city promotescontainment of urban sprawl and reuse of brownfieldareas (1 = below expectations; 2 = meets expectations;3 = exceeds expectations)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Buildings Number of LEED certified buildings (buildings/100,00persons)
USGBC
Assessment of whether a city requires energy auditsand whether energy regulations require that newbuildings satisfy energy efficiency standards (1 = belowexpectations; 2 = meets expectations; 3 = exceedsexpectations)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Assessment of a city’s incentives for retrofittingbuildings to improve energy efficiency and how widelyit promotes energy efficiency in homes and offices(1 = below expectations; 2 = meets expectations;3 = exceeds expectations)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Transportation Share of workers traveling bu public transit, bike orfoot (%)
US Census Bureau AmericanCommunity Survey
Length of public transit (mi/mi2) National Transit DatabaseAnnual vehicle revenue miles (miles/person) National Transit DatabaseMaximum public transit vehicles available per squaremile (vehicles/mi2)
National Transit Database
Average commute time from residence to work(minutes)
US Census Bureau AmericanCommunity Survey
Assessment of how extensively the city promotespublic transportation and offers incentives for lesscarbon-intensive travel (1 = below expectations;2 = meets expectations; 3 = exceeds expectations)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Assessment of a city’s efforts to reduce congestion(1 = below expectations; 2 = meets expectations;3 = exceeds expectations)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Waste management Recycled municipal waste (%) Department of Public WorksAssessment of measures to reduce waste and makewaste disposal more sustainable (1 = belowexpectations; 2 = meets expectations; 3 = exceedsexpectations)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Water management Total water consumption per person per day (gallons) USGSWater leakages in water distribution system (%) Public Works DepartmentAssessment of the level and quality of a city’s mainwater sources (1 = below expectations; 2 = meetsexpectations; 3 = exceeds expectations)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Indication of whether or not a city has a stormwatermanagement plan (zero = 1; 1 = yes)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Food management Number of farmers’ markets per 100,000 people Community Contacts &Websites
Number of community gardens per 100,000 residents Community Contacts &Websites
Easily obtained resources on presence of farmers’markets accepting Women, Infants & Children (WIC)federal program vouchers and Food Stamp vouchers(zero = no; 1 = yes)
Advisory Panel or Committee
150 S. Cloutier et al. / Ecological Indicators 40 (2014) 147–152
Table 1 (Continued)
City/town/neighborhood Data collection researcher
Category Indicator Potential sources Collected data Actual source Notes
Business & economicdevelopment
Presence of a clean technology incubator in the city(zero = 1; 1 = yes)
Community Contacts &Websites
Presence of a city or private green business directory(zero = no; 1 = yes)
Community Contacts &Websites
Number of farmers’ markets per 100,000 residents Community Contacts &Websites
Number of LEED Buildings per 100,000 residents USGBC
Communitygovernance
Measure of the rigor of a city’s green action plan(1 = below expectations; 2 = meets expectations;3 = exceeds expectations)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Measure of the extensiveness of environmentalmanagement undertaken by the city (1 = belowexpectations; 2 = meets expectations; 3 = exceedsexpectations)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Measure of the city’s efforts to involve the public inmonitoring its environmental performance (1 = belowexpectations; 2 = meets expectations; 3 = exceedsexpectations)
Advisory Panel or Committee
Table 2Subjective data scoring criteria.
Subjective score Scoring criteria
1 City has no to limited sustainability goals for the scored measure.2 City is invested in sustainable practices with respect to the scored measure, has set sustainability of the measure as a goal and strives
spect to the scored measure, includes its residents in the process and has assigned achieve/meet set goals.
et(nfiaoa
3
piswogw(w
TR
Table 4Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness Index scores for sixteen US cities.
City SNHI City SNHI
San Francisco 85.21 Philadelphia 69.24Seattle 83.80 Los Angeles 66.00Denver 76.34 Sacramento 65.06Minneapolis 75.82 Houston 62.83Boston 75.76 Dallas 54.40Washington DC 73.22 Charlotte 54.20New York City 72.43 Phoenix 52.04
Based upon the performance scores for Athens and Ithaca
to include its residents in the process.3 City has an extensive sustainability plan with re
working group (e.g. office of sustainability) to a
Subjective data were derived by comparing the performance ofach city to its peers and also by reviewing strategies and actionshat each city has or has not undertaken. Cities are either given a onerepresenting the presence of an indicator) or a zero (representingo presence) or in other cases, they are rated on a scale of 1–3
ollowing a given criteria (Table 2). The decision for this score isnformed by a detailed search of city websites, public informationnd sustainability plans. Once all objective and subjective data werebtained, the SNHI scores were derived (using Eq. (1)) and Athensnd Ithaca were plotted on the SNHD.
. Results and discussion
The Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness Index (SNHI) isroposed to serve as a means of assessing and comparing how well
ndividual cities, towns, neighborhoods and communities addressustainability issues through community design and development,hich is potentially associated with residential happiness. Results
f the constrained optimization indicate the systems with the
reatest weight are water, energy, waste, and buildings, while thoseith the least weight include urban design and transportationTable 3). The relative weightings for the SNHI indicate the areashere designers, planners, engineers and architects should focus
able 3elative weightings for nine subsystems of community development.
Subsystem Initial weight Constraint range Final weight
Water 0.8 0.70–0.90 0.90Energy 1 0.90–1.00 1.00UD 0.6 0.50–0.70 0.51Food 0.9 0.80–1.00 0.80BED 0.75 0.65–0.85 0.65Waste 1 0.90–1.00 1.00Transportation 0.6 0.50–0.70 0.50Buildings 1 0.90–1.00 1.00Governance 0.75 0.65–0.85 0.85
Chicago 69.26 Detroit 24.01
Mean = 66.23; s.d. = 14.92.
their effort to improve their overall SNHI score. Future commu-nities and the ones scored in this study (Tables 4 and 5) shouldtake notice of these subsystems to do their best to improve theirSNHI. With respect to Table 4, San Francisco has the highest SNHIand the lowest is Detroit (an extreme outlier), while Philadelphia,Sacramento and Los Angeles are distributed just around the mean.
(Table 5), Athens has a lower SNHI score than that of Ithaca as plot-ted on the SNHD (Fig. 2). The results indicate that Athens, Georgiacould improve its overall SNHI score by focusing on buildings &
Table 5Performance and SNHI scores for Athens and Ithaca.
Community development subsystem Athens Ithaca
Energy management 7.61 8.89Urban design 9.17 6.95Buildings & infrastructure 2.71 5.52Transportation 3.77 8.41Waste management 7.74 10.0Water management 9.64 7.13Food management 5.56 6.67Business & economic development 3.70 5.83Community governance 6.67 7.78SNHI 64.63 74.51
S. Cloutier et al. / Ecological Indic
FI
impebpawsaccw
3
nrpSi
all humans can relate to – happiness. The methodology requires
TC
ig. 2. The Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness Distribution with Athens andthaca Plotted.
nfrastructure, transportation and business & economic develop-ent. In particular, Athens might consider some actions such as
olicies that promote high levels of energy efficiency in buildings,ncourage an increase in the number of LEED certified or greenuildings, focus on increasing the maximum public transit vehicleser square mile and annual public transit vehicle revenue milesnd begin the process of establishing a clean technology incubatorithin the city. Ithaca, on the other hand, is well above the mean but
hould focus on improving in the areas of buildings & infrastructurend business & economic development. Specifically, Ithaca shouldonsider including policies that require high levels of energy effi-iency in buildings and establishing a clean technology incubatorithin the city.
.1. Generation of SNHI distribution
Ithaca is higher on the SNHD than Athens; however, this does notecessarily mean that the residents of Ithaca are happier than the
esidents of Athens. Nor, does this infer that there are more happyeople in Ithaca than there are in Athens. In short, the higher theNHI score for a community, the more the community has exhib-ted a commitment to sustainability, which could provide greaterable 6urrent and potential future measures for the SNHI.
Subsystem Current measures
Water management Water consumption per capita; water systeleakages; water quality policy; stormwatermanagement policy
Energy management Electricity consumption per unit of GDP; elconsumption per person; clean and efficienenergy policies
Urban design Green spaces; population density; green lapolicies; urban sprawl
Food management Farmers’ markets; community gardens; farmarkets vouchers
Business & economic development Clean technology incubator; green businesdirectory; farmers’ markets; LEED building
Waste management Percent of municipal solid waste recycled;
reduction policies
Buildings & infrastructure Number of LEED certified buildings; energyefficient building standards; energy efficienbuilding incentives
Transportation systems Share of workers traveling by public transitor foot; public transportation supply; averacommute time from residence to work; gretransport promotion; congestion reduction
Community governance Green action plan; green management; pubparticipation in green policy
ators 40 (2014) 147–152 151
opportunity for residents to pursue their own happiness. Further-more, although nine subsystems were included in the SNHI, moresubsystems and measures (Table 6) could be included in the future.Nonetheless, the nine subsystems selected were based on our priorfindings (Cloutier, 2013), a demonstrated connection to happinessthrough primary literature and the availability of data; all of whichprovide a good starting point for the analysis of community sus-tainability, and ultimately the linkages with community happiness.
This study provides a starting point for the SNHI and SNHD;however, both will be revised over time. The SNHI and SNHD canserve as powerful tools for assessing where neighborhoods andcommunities stand and where they can potentially go. The SNHIassumes a linear relationship between community developmentand happiness. While this may currently oversimplify the system,it is a starting place to begin to explore the relationships thatexist between happiness and communities. Furthermore, it emu-lates methods of many well-known sustainability and happinessindices, including the Green City Index (2011), the Gross NationalHappiness measures used in Bhutan and the Green and HappinessIndex (Barameechai, 2007). We developed the initial weightingsfor the SNHI based on previous findings, a review of primary lit-erature review, and an optimization process, but these weightingscan be refined based upon future research. For instance, the previ-ously mentioned sustainability and happiness indices assume thatall weightings are equal. However, for the time being, we suggestthat some subsystems have more of an impact on happiness thanothers. Finally, the premise of the SNHI is that sustainable devel-opment influences happiness in a positive way. There have beenstudies that demonstrate associations between happiness and sus-tainable development. However, more research is needed in thisarea to establish causality and directionality (i.e. do happy peoplemake a community more sustainable or vice versa?).
Traditionally, the majority of the sustainability focus has beenrelated to economic performance and environmental quality.The SNHI and SNHD present an increased focus on something
communities to look critically at the current state of their neigh-borhoods, while implementing systems-thinking and analysis forhow to best improve. No matter the creed, culture, background,
Potential future measures
m Gray water systems; rainwater collection; water supplywithdrawal rates; Total percent impervious; low impactdevelopment (LID) use; surface water discharge; type of watertreatment system(s)
ectricityt
Percent of total renewable energy in place – public andprivate; renewable energy projects in planning phases
nd use Walkability; orientation; Use of native vegetation; green spaceconnectivity/biodiversity; access to nature; measures of socialcapital
mers’ Composting; Ordinances allowing urban homesteading; foodco-ops; affordability; access; proximity
ss
Number of new business start-ups; jobs created; alternativeforms of exchange such as bartering and work-for-trade
waste Landfill gas-to-energy projects; reuse programs; swap shops;local bans on disposable items, e.g., plastic bags or waterbottles
tNumber of other green certified buildings; percent of greengovernment buildings; number of green building business incommunity
, bicyclegeen
policies
Car share programs; bike share programs; carpoolingprograms; percent of low emission vehicles in fleet; electricvehicle charging stations
lic Communications; quality of governmental websites andinformation promoting sustainability, high speed broadbandcapability
1 l Indic
ebts
A
f2
R
B
C
D
D
F
52 S. Cloutier et al. / Ecologica
ducational level or socioeconomic status, all humans deserve toe happy. The SNHI potentially allows communities to improvehe overall happiness of their residents through a shift towardustainability.
ppendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can beound, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.014.01.012.
eferences
arameechai, J., 2007. The Green and Happiness Index. International Conference onHappiness and Public Policy , UN Conference Center, Bangkok, Thailand.
loutier, S., (Doctoral Dissertation) 2013. The Implications of Sustainable Develop-ment for Happy Neighborhoods. Cornell University.
eGraaf, J., et al., 2005. Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic, 2nd ed. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.
ePledge, M.H., Stone, R.J., Bird, W.J., 2011. Can natural and virtual environments be
used to promote improved human health and wellbeing? Environ. Sci. Technol.45 (11), 4660–4665.lorida, R., 2010. The Happiness of Cities. Martin Prosperity Institute http://research.martinprosperity.org/papers/Florida%20Mellander%20Rentfrow%20(2010)%20The%20Happiness%20of%20Cities.pdf
ators 40 (2014) 147–152
Gallup, 2009. Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index: Methodology Report forIndexes. Resource Document. http://well-beingindex.com/files/Gallup-Healthways%20Index%20Methodology%20Report%20FINAL%203-25-08.pdf
Green City Index, 2011. Economist Intelligence Unit. US and Canada Green City Indexhttp://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.htm
Leyden, M., Goldberg, A., Michelback, P., 2011. Understanding the pursuit of happi-ness in ten major cities. Urban Affairs Rev. 47, 861–888.
O’Brien, C., 2001. Ontario Walkability Study, Trip to School: Children’s Experiencesand Aspirations, Report. York University.
O’Brien, C.,2005. Sustainable happiness: harmonizing our internal and externallandscapes. In: 2nd International Conference on Gross National Happiness.Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Schimmel, J., 2009. Development as happiness: the subjective perception of hap-piness and UNDP’s analysis of poverty, wealth and development. J. HappinessStud. 10, 93–111.
SustainLane City Rankings, Karelnzig, W., 2007. How green is your city?Thompson Coon, J., Boddy, K., Stein, K., Whear, R., Barton, J., DePledge, M.H.,
2011. Does participating in physical activity in outdoor natural envi-ronments have a greater effect on physical and mental wellbeing thanphysical activity indoors? A systematic review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (5),1761–1772.
Veenhoven, R., 1992. Happiness in Nations. RISBO Series: Studies in Socio-culturalTransformation Nr. 2. Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
Zhu, Y.G., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Li, H., Jones, K.C., Martin, F.L., 2011. Understanding and har-nessing the health effects of rapid urbanization in China. Environ. Sci. Technol.45 (12), 5099–5104.
Zidansek, A., 2007. Sustainable development and happiness in nation. Energy 32,891–897.