Findings on happiness in Ferre (2008): study UY 2007

Publication
Author(s)Ferre, Z.
TitleQuality of Life in Montevideo.
SourceWorking Paper: #R-561, i.o.o. Inter American Development Bank, 2008, Washington D.C., USA
URLhttp://www.iadb.org/research/pub_desc.cfm?language=English&PUB_ID=R-561
Investigation
Public18+ aged, general public, Montevideo, Uruguay, 2007
Collect periodOct .2007
Last collect period March 2008
Survey nameISSP 2007
 Data from a second survey, the 2006 Household Survey. A third survey was conducted with national coverage. Combining the Household Survey with this last survey all households in the 62 neighborhoods of Montevideo were assigned one of 4 socio-economic strata (see p.4-5).
SampleProbability systematic sample
 Randomly selected members of the dwelling to avoid self-selection bias. Population selection of 3 geographic areas of Montevideo:1 poor lowQOL-area, 1 rich highQOL-area and a comparison group composed of surveys conducted in the rest of the city.
Respondents N =801
 308 respondents in low QOL-area, 328 in the high QOL-area and 93 in the rest of the city.
Non Response35.1 %
 Response rate was defined as the number of completed interviews divided by the number of eligible reporting units in the sample. Nonresponse in low QOL-area 22.5 %, in high QOL-area 45.3%, in the control area nonresponse not mentioned. In the high QOL-area the male nonresponse is especially higher.
AssesmentInterview: face-to-face
Happiness measure(s) used
Full textSelfreport on single question: If you were to consider your life in general these days, how happy or unhappy would you say you are, on the whole...? 4 very happy 3 fairly happy 2 not very happy 1 not at all happy
ClassificationO-HL-c-sq-v-4-f
Author's labelOverall Happiness
Page in publication28
Finding used in
nation ranks
Yes
 On original range 1 - 4On range 0 - 10
Mean3.086.73
Standard deviation0.752.10

Scores in1234
%2.915.751.229.7

Correlational findings

Author's labelSubject Code
Finding
Subject description
Access to draining pipeH22ab03aQuality of house
Access to private health careP12ab04Insurances
Access to running water systemH22ab03aQuality of house
Access to sewerageH22ab03aQuality of house
AgeA04abCurrent age (in years)
BathroomsH22ab03aQuality of house
Body Mass IndexB03ac01cWeight
Distance to citycentreL14ab06Remoteness
Family sizeH20ab03Number of persons in household
Floor not in good conditionH22ab03aQuality of house
Gangs in neighborhoodL17ac03Perceived safety in community
Garbage problems in neighborhoodL14ab03abLocal pollution
High-medium and high stratum areaL12abCurrent local economic conditions
Hours of leisureL03abCurrent leisure time
Kitchen exclusive for the householdH22ab03Quality of current dwelling
Many trees in blockL14ab04Local nature
Monthly home incomeI01ab03Household income
PartnerM02aaMarried state (compared to non-married states)
Pollution in neighborhoodL14ab03abLocal pollution
Practice sportsS12ab01aActive involvement in sports
Public street lightingL12ab02alLocal street maintenance
Roof not in good conditionH22ab03aQuality of house
RoomsH22ab03aQuality of house
Satisfaction with public parks and green areasL12ac02acSatisfaction with local recreation
Satisfaction with public sports infrastructureL12ac02acSatisfaction with local recreation
Satisfaction with public transportationL12ac02ahSatisfaction with local transport facilities
Sidewalks in OK conditionL12ab02alLocal street maintenance
SociableS06SOCIAL PARTICIPATION: PERSONAL CONTACTS
Vandalism in neighborhoodL17ac03Perceived safety in community
Vandalism in neighborhoodL12ac02agSatisfaction with neatness of local streets, also classified as above ↑
Walls not in good conditionH22ab03aQuality of house
WomanG01aaSex (male vs female)
Work hoursW04ab17Work hours
WorkaholicW04ab17Work hours
Years of educationE01ab01Years schooling