Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Well-Being Factors in a Growing Community: A Multi-Attribute Vignette Approach

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is significant support for measurement and utilization of subjective well-being (SWB) as an input in the public policy process, and analyses of secondary data have provided important insight into the well-being effects of several policy-relevant variables. However, such analyses may be limited by data availability and uncertainty about causality. Analogous to stated preference approaches in economics, vignettes with researcher-defined attributes can be used to assess potential SWB responses to policy-relevant variables. This study used vignettes to understand the effect of population growth, unemployment rate, utility cost, public input process, and recreation access on SWB in a growing high-amenity community in the United States. Results varied across SWB domains, with a general finding that population growth reduced SWB. Unemployment reductions and “high involvement” public processes enhanced SWB, while utility cost increases reduced SWB. Loss of trail connectivity reduced SWB for respondents who frequently engage in outdoor recreation. Results were consistent with those from previous studies utilizing indirect methods, while the vignette approach provided greater control over the attributes and levels being evaluated. Results generally indicated that the vignette attributes affected SWB in expected ways, thereby providing an indication of construct validity. However, some unexpected patterns were found, and additional evaluation of contingent SWB is needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Overviews of Oregon’s UGB approach are presented at http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/publications/insideboundaries.pdf and https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/urban_growth_boundary/#.WouKJ2dWIWC.

  2. House price concerns have been raised in UGB expansion processes in Bend and Eugene, Oregon (e.g., Hill 2018).

References

  • Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601–4614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, C. D., Herriges, J. A., & Kling, C. L. (2003). Combining revealed and stated preferences: Consistency tests and their interpretations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(3), 525–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, D. J., Heffetz, O., Kimball, M. S., & Rees-Jones, A. (2014). Can marginal rates of substitution be inferred from happiness data? Evidence from residency choices. American Economic Review, 104(11), 3498–3528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R. C., Boyle, K. J., Carson, R. T., Chapman, D., Hanemann, W. M., et al. (2017). Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: The BP oil spill. Science, 356(6335), 253–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. (2010). The politics of happiness: What government can learn from the new research on well-being. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. E. (2017). Happiness, income and poverty. International Review of Economics, 64, 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, M., Rissel, C., Greaves, S., & Gebel, K. (2016). Correcting bias in self-rated quality of life: An application of anchoring vignettes and ordinal regression models to better understand QoL differences across commuting modes. Quality of Life Research, 25, 257–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daams, M. N., & Veneri, P. (2017). Living near to attractive nature? A well-being indicator for ranking Dutch, Danish, and German functional urban areas. Social Indicators Research, 133, 501–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaton, A. (2011). The financial crisis and the well-being of Americans: 2011 OEP Hicks Lecture. Oxford Economic Papers, 64(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2013). Theory and validity of life satisfaction scales. Social Indicators Research, 112, 497–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Lucas, R., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. (2009). Well-being for public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-W., Oishi, S., et al. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97, 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., Kudrna, L., & Stone, A. (2017). The measure matters: an investigation of evaluative and experience-based measures of wellbeing in time use data. Social Indicators Research, 134, 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R., Mellander, C., & Rentfrow, P. J. (2013). The happiness of cities. Regional Studies, 47(4), 613–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, E. (2012). Relationship between growth and prosperity in the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas. Economic Development Quarterly, 26(3), 220–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. The Economic Journal, 110, 918–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2014). Economic consequences of mispredicting utility. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 937–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. (2006). Stumbling on happiness. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. L., Gottlieb, J. D., & Ziv, O. (2016). Unhappy cities. Journal of Labor Economics, 34(2), S129–S182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harter, J. K., & Gurley, V. F. (2008). Measuring wellbeing in the United States. APS Observer, 21, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helliwell, J. F., Huang, H., Grover, S., & Wang, S. (2014). Empirical linkages between good government and national well-being. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 20686. Cambridge, MA.

  • Hill, C. (2018). Board dismisses challenge to Eugene’s decision not to expand urban growth boundary for housing. The Resister-Guard, January 12, online edition. http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/36330833-75/board-dismisses-challenge-to-eugenes-decision-not-to-expand-urban-growth-boundary-for-housing.html.csp#. Accessed 4 Mar 2018.

  • Hopkins, D. J., & King, G. (2010). Improving anchoring vignettes: Designing surveys to correct interpersonal incomparability. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(2), 201–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., et al. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2), 319–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489–16493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., & Schkade, D. (1999). Economic preferences or attitude expressions?: An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1–3), 203–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Sugden, R. (2005). Experienced utility as a standard of policy evaluation. Environmental & Resource Economics, 32, 161–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karimi, M., Brazier, J., & Paisley, S. (2017). How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation. Social Science and Medicine, 172, 80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling, C. L., Phaneuf, D. J., & Zhao, J. (2012). From Exxon to BP: Has some number become better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopmann, A., & Rehdanz, K. (2013). A human well-being approach for assessing the value of natural land areas. Ecological Economics, 93, 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krekel, C., Kolbe, J., & Wüstermann, H. (2016). The greener, the happier? The effect of urban land use on residential well-being. Ecological Economics, 121, 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, C., & Delhey, J. (2013). A happy nation? Opportunities and challenges of using subjective indicators in policymaking. Social Indicators Research, 114, 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, A. B., & Mueller, A. I. (2012). Time use, emotional well-being, and unemployment: Evidence from longitudinal data. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 102(3), 594–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, A. B., & Stone, A. A. (2014). Progress in measuring subjective well-being: Moving toward national indicators and policy evaluations. Science, 346(6205), 42–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavergne, K. J., Sharp, E. C., Pelletier, L. G., & Holtby, A. (2010). The role of perceived government style in the facilitation of self-determined and non self-determined motivation for pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 169–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, N. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2011). Predictors of regional wellbeing: A county level analysis. Social Indicators Research, 101, 341–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyden, K. M., Goldberg, A., & Michelbach, P. (2011). Understanding the pursuit of happiness in ten major cities. Urban Affairs Review, 47, 861–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Frederick, S. (1997). Predicting reactions to environmental change. In M. H. Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, & K. A. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.), Environment, ethics, and behavior: The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation (pp. 52–72). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Schkade, D. (1999). Wouldn’t it be nice? Predicting future feelings. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E. (2014). Life satisfaction of U.S. counties predicts population growth. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 383–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, M., Hofmann, W., Eid, M., & Lucas, R. E. (2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 592–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyssenko, N., & Martínez-Espiñera, R. (2012). Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: The case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador. Applied Economics, 44, 1911–1930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global Environmental Change, 23, 992–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noll, H.-H. (2013). Subjective social indicators: Benefits and limitations for policy making. Social Indicators Research, 114, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, G., Deaton, A., Durand, M., Halpern, D., & Layard, R. (2014). Wellbeing and policy. London: Legatum Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. (2015). Happiness and place: Why life is better outside of the city. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, D., & Cloutier, S. (2016). Planning for happy neighborhoods. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(3), 267–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponocny, I., Weismayer, C., Stross, B., & Dressler, S. G. (2016). Are most people happy? Exploring the meaning of subjective well-being ratings. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 2635–2653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Population Research Center, Portland State University. (2015). Coordinated population forecast 2015 through 2067: Deschutes county. Oregon: Portland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Requena, F. (2016). Rural-urban living and level of economic development as factors in subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 128, 693–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 88–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schüler, J., Sheldon, K. M., Prentice, M., & Halusic, M. (2014). Do some people need autonomy more than others? Implicit dispositions toward autonomy moderate the effects of felt autonomy on well-being. Journal of Personality, 84(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, A. A., & Mackie, C. (Eds.). (2013). Subjective well-being: Measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 107–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2005). Disability and sunshine: Can hedonic predictions be improved by drawing attention to focusing illusions or emotional adaptation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(2), 111–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winters, J. V., & Li, Y. (2017). Urbanisation, natural amenities and subjective well-being: Evidence from US counties. Urban Studies, 54(8), 1956–1973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolsko, C., & Lindberg, K. (2013). Experiencing connection with nature: The matrix of psychological well-being, mindfulness, and outdoor recreation. Ecopsychology, 5(2), 80–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, C., & Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Validating a comprehensive model of environmental concern cross-nationally: A U.S.-Canadian comparison. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 471–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oregon State University – Cascades, 1500 SW Chandler Avenue, Bend, OR, 97702, USA

    Kreg Lindberg & Christopher Wolsko

Authors
  1. Kreg Lindberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher Wolsko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kreg Lindberg.

Appendix

Appendix

The change vignette task included the following content:

We are interested in how people’s quality of life is affected by development in Bend. We use future expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB) as a case study. The effects on you may be positive, negative, or neutral.

The case study details are hypothetical, and they may not seem logical. However, please treat them as realistic. Your responses provide insight into public values and preferences.

Bend is proposing to expand its urban growth boundary (UGB) in order to provide additional land for housing and industrial development. The result will be conversion of land that currently is undeveloped. This may facilitate new jobs and housing. It also may reduce open space and affect utility bills.

Two options are presented. Each contains a set of features indicating what will hypothetically happen over the next 20 years with the UGB expansion. Each feature may vary.

  • Unemployment rate The unemployment rate in Bend is currently about 9%. UGB expansion may affect population and job creation, and thus the unemployment rate.

  • Population Approximately 80,000 people currently live in Bend. UGB expansion may facilitate population growth.

  • Utility cost per year UGB expansion may change your utility bills, as growth affects infrastructure costs and the number of utility customers. Assume your annual utility cost (all bills combined) goes up or down as noted in each scenario.

  • Trail connectivity Several walking / biking trails start in Bend and connect to trails on national forest, BLM, or other lands around Bend. Depending on how development occurs, it may reduce these connections—which may lead people to drive to trailheads rather than access them close to home.

  • Public input process UGB expansion includes a public input processes. The process could involve

    • low public involvement, in which the public simply comments on a proposal created by the City of Bend, working with land owners and environmental groups

    • or

    • high public involvement, in which the public is actively engaged in the creation and evaluation of the proposal.

Consider whether the change shown in Option 1 would affect your satisfaction positively, negatively, or not at all. NB: The levels for each feature varied across options.

Features

Option 1

Unemployment rate (current is about 9%)

9% (no change)

Population (current is about 80,000)

160,000

Total utility costs per year

Increase by $150

Trial connectivity

Maintain connectivity (no change)

Public involvement

Low involvement

You previously indicated your current satisfaction, on a 0–100 scale, is as follows. For your:

NB: Current SWB values, reported earlier in the survey, were carried forward and presented for each domain.

  • Life overall:

  • Community:

  • Recreation opportunities:

  • Natural environment:

  • Mental/emotional well-being:

  • Financial situation:

If the Option 1 change shown in the table above occurred, would it affect your satisfaction with your life overall or with any specific aspect?

If yes, please move the relevant bars below to indicate what your new ratings would be for any satisfaction affected by Option 1.

If no, please proceed to the next question without moving any bars.

The task was then repeated with a second option.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lindberg, K., Wolsko, C. Assessing Well-Being Factors in a Growing Community: A Multi-Attribute Vignette Approach. Soc Indic Res 144, 315–335 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2040-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2040-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation