Social Indicators Research

, Volume 141, Issue 2, pp 765–789 | Cite as

Quality of Life in the European Union: A Multidimensional Analysis

  • Nicky RoggeEmail author
  • Ilse Van Nijverseel


This paper quantifies and analyses subjective quality of life in the EU countries as a multidimensional concept using subjective citizen satisfaction data on eight different life dimensions. The composite index is constructed using a geometric Benefit-of-the-doubt (BoD)-method. Results show a clear divide between the Nordic and Western European countries and the Southern and Eastern European countries, with people in the former countries experiencing quality of life as higher as compared to people in the latter countries. A correlational analysis reveals a strong relation between multidimensional and one-dimensional measures of subjective quality of life. However, results also indicate that both types of measures should be used as complementary instead of substitutes.


Composite indicators Benefit-of-the-doubt Quality of life Multiplicative aggregation European Union 



This paper is an offshoot of the Impulsproject IMP/14/011 of the KU Leuven (Belgium).


  1. Alghamdi, F. S. (2015). Another look at job and life satisfaction among employees: Evidence from a developing country. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 5, 11–19.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, R., Athanassopoulos, A., Dyson, R. G., & Thanassoulis, E. (1997). Weights restrictions and value judgements in data envelopment analysis: Evolution, development and future directions. Annals of Operations Research, 73, 13–34.Google Scholar
  3. Bjørnskov, C., Dreher, A., & Fischer, J. A. (2008). Cross-country determinants of life satisfaction: Exploring different determinants across groups in society. Social Choice and Welfare, 30(1), 119–173.Google Scholar
  4. Blancard, S., & Hoarau, J. F. (2013). A new sustainable human development indicator for small island developing states: A reappraisal from data envelopment analysis. Economic Modelling, 30, 623–635.Google Scholar
  5. Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2011). International happiness: A new view on the measure of performance. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 6–22.Google Scholar
  6. Bramston, P., Pretty, G., & Chipuer, H. (2002). Unravelling subjective quality of life: An investigation of individual and community determinants. Social Indicators Research, 59(3), 261–274.Google Scholar
  7. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.Google Scholar
  8. Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007). An introduction to ‘benefit of the doubt’ composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 82(1), 111–145.Google Scholar
  9. Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., et al. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecological Economics, 61(2), 267–276.Google Scholar
  10. Daraio, C., & Simar, L. (2005). Introducing environmental variables in nonparametric frontier models: A probabilistic approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 24(1), 93–121.Google Scholar
  11. Daraio, C., & Simar, L. (2007). Advanced robust and nonparametric methods in efficiency analysis. Methodology and applications. Series: Studies in productivity and efficiency. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Despotis, D. K. (2005a). A reassessment of the human development index via data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56(8), 969–980.Google Scholar
  13. Despotis, D. K. (2005b). Measuring human development via data envelopment analysis: The case of Asia and the Pacific. Omega, 33, 385–390.Google Scholar
  14. Despotis, D. K., Stamati, L. V., & Smirlis, Y. G. (2009). Data envelopment analysis with virtual inputs and outputs. European Journal of Operational Research, 202, 604–613.Google Scholar
  15. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34.Google Scholar
  16. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119–169.Google Scholar
  17. Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.Google Scholar
  18. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81–84.Google Scholar
  19. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
  20. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40(1), 189–216.Google Scholar
  21. Ebert, U., & Welsch, H. (2004). Meaningful environmental indices: A social choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47(2), 270–283.Google Scholar
  22. Elsinga, M., & Hoekstra, J. (2005). Homeownership and housing satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), 401–424.Google Scholar
  23. ESS (2017). Measuring progress. Retrieved 13 April 2017. Scholar
  24. Eurofound. (2013). Third european quality of life survey—Quality of life in Europe: Subjective well-being. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  25. Eurostat (2015). Quality of life: Facts and views (2015 edition). Eurostat statistical books. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Scholar
  26. Fox, K. R. (1999). The influence of physical activity on mental well-being. Public Health Nutrition, 2(3a), 411–418.Google Scholar
  27. Frisch, M. B. (1998). Quality of life therapy and assessment in health care. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 19–40.Google Scholar
  28. Fusco, E., Vidoli, F., & Sahoo, B. K. (2017). Spatial heterogeneity in composite indicator: A methodological proposal. Omega. Scholar
  29. Giambona, F., & Vassallo, E. (2014). Composite indicator of social inclusion for European countries. Social Indicators Research, 116(1), 269–293.Google Scholar
  30. Guardiola, J., & Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. (2014). Building weighted-domain composite indices of life satisfaction with data envelopment analysis. Social Indicators Research, 117(1), 257–274.Google Scholar
  31. Lovell, C. K., Pastor, J. T., & Turner, J. A. (1995). Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: A comparison of European and non-European countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 87(3), 507–518.Google Scholar
  32. Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2004). Unemployment alters the set point for life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15(1), 8–13.Google Scholar
  33. Mahlberg, B. & Obersteiner, M. (2001). Remeasuring the HDI by data envelopment analysis. In Interim Report IR-01-069. IIASA, Laxenburg (Austria).Google Scholar
  34. Mariano, E. B., Sobreiro, V. A., & do Nascimento Rebelatto, D. A. (2015). Human development and data envelopment analysis: A structured literature review. Omega, 54, 33–49.Google Scholar
  35. Matarrita-Cascante, D. (2010). Changing communities, community satisfaction, and quality of life: A view of multiple perceived indicators. Social Indicators Research, 98(1), 105–127.Google Scholar
  36. Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2012). A non-compensatory approach for the measurement of the quality of life. In F. Maggino & P. Nuvolati (Eds.), Quality of life in Italy (pp. 27–40). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Mellor, D., Stokes, M., Firth, L., Hayashi, Y., & Cummins, R. (2008). Need for belonging, relationship satisfaction, loneliness, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(3), 213–218.Google Scholar
  38. Munda, G., & Nardo, M. (2005). Non-compensatory composite indicators for ranking countries: A defensible setting (p. 21833). EUR: EUR Report.Google Scholar
  39. Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. (Eds.). (1993). The quality of life. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137–152.Google Scholar
  41. Pichler, F. (2006). Subjective quality of life of young Europeans. Feeling happy but who knows why? Social Indicators Research, 75(3), 419–444.Google Scholar
  42. Potter, J., Cantarero, R., & Wood, H. (2012). The multi-dimensional nature of predicting quality of life. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 781–790.Google Scholar
  43. Prescott-Allen, R. (2001). Wellbeing of nations: A country-by-country index of quality of life and the environment. Ottawa: Island Press.Google Scholar
  44. Robeyns, I. (2005). Selecting capabilities for quality of life measurement. Social Indicators Research, 74(1), 191–215.Google Scholar
  45. Rogge, N. (2012). Undesirable specialization in the construction of composite policy indicators: The environmental performance index. Ecological Indicators, 23, 143–154.Google Scholar
  46. Siglitz, J.E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress.Google Scholar
  47. Somarriba, N., & Pena, B. (2009). Synthetic indicators of quality of life in Europe. Social Indicators Research, 94(1), 115–133.Google Scholar
  48. Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2008). Stress that doesn’t pay: The commuting paradox. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 110(2), 339–366.Google Scholar
  49. Tofallis, C. (2014). On constructing a composite indicator with multiplicative aggregation and the avoidance of zero weights in DEA. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 65(5), 791–792.Google Scholar
  50. Van Puyenbroeck, T., & Rogge, N. (2017). Geometric mean quantity index numbers with benefit-of- the-doubt WEIGHTS. European Journal of Operational Research, 256(3), 1004–1014.Google Scholar
  51. Veenhoven, R. (1997). Advances in understanding happiness. Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 18(2), 29–74.Google Scholar
  52. Verschelde, M., & Rogge, N. (2012). An environment-adjusted evaluation of citizen satisfaction with local police effectiveness: Evidence from a conditional data envelopment analysis approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 223(1), 214–225.Google Scholar
  53. Vidoli, F., Fusco, E., & Mazziotta, C. (2015). Non-compensability in composite indicators: A robust directional frontier method. Social Indicators Research, 122(3), 635–652.Google Scholar
  54. Vidoli, F., & Mazziotta, C. (2013). Robust weighted composite indicators by means of frontier methods with an application to European infrastructure endowment. Italian Journal of Applied Statistics, 23(2), 259–282.Google Scholar
  55. White, M. P., Alcock, I., Wheeler, B. W., & Depledge, M. H. (2013). Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychological Science, 24(6), 920–928.Google Scholar
  56. Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Zhou, D. Q. (2010). Weighting and aggregation in composite indicator construction: A multiplicative optimization approach. Social Indicators Research, 96(1), 169–181.Google Scholar
  57. Zuzanek, J., & Zuzanek, T. (2015). Of happiness and of despair, is there a measure? Time use and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(4), 839–856.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Business, Onderzoeksgroep Economie (ECON)Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KULeuven)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations