Subjective wellbeing at different spatial scales for individuals satisfied and dissatisfied with life

Abstract

Indicators that attempt to gauge wellbeing have been created and used at multiple spatial scales around the world. The most commonly used indicators are at the national level to enable international comparisons. When analyzing subjective life satisfaction (LS), an aspect of wellbeing, at multiple spatial scales in Australia, variables (drawn from environmental, social, and economic domains) that are significantly correlated to LS at smaller scales become less significant at larger sub-national scales. The reverse is seen for other variables, which become more significant at larger scales. Regression analysis over multiple scales on three groups (1) all individuals within the sample, (2) individuals with self-reported LS as dissatisfied (LS ≤ 5), and (3) individuals self-reporting LS as satisfied (LS > 5), show that variables critical for LS differ between subgroups of the sample as well as by spatial scale. Wellbeing measures need to be created at multiple scales appropriate to the purpose of the indicator. Concurrently, policies need to address the factors that are important to wellbeing at those respective scales, segments, and values of the population.

Keywords: Australia; Global progress; Life satisfaction; Spatial scales; Wellbeing.

Figure 1. Average life satisfaction with the region at various spatial scales.

This figure shows the spatial scale distribution of life satisfaction within Australia over five different spatial scales. It also shows how aggregation to larger scales loses information about individuals below a certain average life satisfactions. The five different spatial scales are: (A) SA1, (B) SA2, (C) SA3, (D) SA4, and (E) state and territory.