IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i19p7921-d418826.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing the Relationships between Citizens’ Emotions and their Momentary Satisfaction in Urban Public Spaces

Author

Listed:
  • Minou Weijs-Perrée

    (Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Gamze Dane

    (Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Pauline van den Berg

    (Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

Abstract

It is recognized that the urban environment, and specifically better-experienced urban public space, contribute to people’s subjective well-being. However, research on people’s momentary subjective well-being (i.e., emotional state) in relation to the multiple aspects of urban public spaces is still limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze people’s emotional state and how this is influenced by the momentary satisfaction with urban public spaces, and also controlling for personal and experience characteristics. Data of 1056 momentary experiences of 161 citizens regarding the urban public space in Eindhoven, The Netherlands, were collected by means of an experience sampling method (ESM). These data were analyzed using a mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) model for each dimension of people’s momentary subjective well-being (i.e., sense of security, comfort, happiness, and annoyance). Results of this study showed that people were happier when they were satisfied with the atmosphere of the public space and felt more secure, comfortable, and less annoyed when they were more satisfied with traffic safety. Results could be used by policymakers and urban planners to create inclusive urban public spaces where people have more positive experiences, which eventually could lead to happier, comfortable, more secure and less annoyed citizens.

Suggested Citation

  • Minou Weijs-Perrée & Gamze Dane & Pauline van den Berg, 2020. "Analyzing the Relationships between Citizens’ Emotions and their Momentary Satisfaction in Urban Public Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:7921-:d:418826
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7921/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7921/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rachida Benabbou & HeeChung Lee, 2019. "Exploring the evolution of urban emotions in the City of Seoul using social media information," International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(3), pages 232-248.
    2. Michael Eid & Ed Diener, 2004. "Global Judgments of Subjective Well-Being: Situational Variability and Long-Term Stability," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 245-277, February.
    3. Li, Zhengtao & Folmer, Henk & Xue, Jianhong, 2014. "To what extent does air pollution affect happiness? The case of the Jinchuan mining area, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 88-99.
    4. Levinson, Arik, 2012. "Valuing public goods using happiness data: The case of air quality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(9-10), pages 869-880.
    5. Gamze Dane & Aloys Borgers & Tao Feng, 2019. "Subjective Immediate Experiences during Large-Scale Cultural Events in Cities: A Geotagging Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Hadi Zamanifard & Tooran Alizadeh & Caryl Bosman & Eddo Coiacetto, 2019. "Measuring experiential qualities of urban public spaces: users’ perspective," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 340-364, May.
    7. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    8. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Raluca Ignat & Marius Constantin, 2020. "Multidimensional Facets of Entrepreneurial Resilience during the COVID-19 Crisis through the Lens of the Wealthiest Romanian Counties," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-29, December.
    2. Ibrahim Mohamed Ibrahim Elassal & Ricardo David Hernandez-Rojas & Luz Arelis Moreno Quispe, 2023. "Loyalty to World Heritage Cities: A Case Study of the Historic Ibn Ṭūlūn Mosque in Cairo (Egypt)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Zelin Zhang & Xiaomin Tang & Yun Wang, 2023. "Evaluation of the Intergenerational Equity of Public Open Space in Old Communities: A Case Study of Caoyang New Village in Shanghai," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Yuwen Zhao & Pauline E. W. van den Berg & Ioulia V. Ossokina & Theo A. Arentze, 2022. "Individual Momentary Experiences of Neighborhood Public Spaces: Results of a Virtual Environment Based Stated Preference Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-22, April.
    5. Mayke van Dinter & Mieke Kools & Gamze Dane & Minou Weijs-Perrée & Kynthia Chamilothori & Eveline van Leeuwen & Aloys Borgers & Pauline van den Berg, 2022. "Urban Green Parks for Long-Term Subjective Well-Being: Empirical Relationships between Personal Characteristics, Park Characteristics, Park Use, Sense of Place, and Satisfaction with Life in The Nethe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    6. Barbara Ester Adele Piga & Nicola Rainisio & Gabriele Stancato & Marco Boffi, 2023. "Mapping the In-Motion Emotional Urban Experiences: An Evidence-Based Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-26, May.
    7. Jie Zhao & Zhenghong Peng & Lingbo Liu & Yang Yu & Zhourui Shang, 2021. "Public Space Layout Optimization in Affordable Housing Based on Social Network Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, September.
    8. Elmira Jamei & Melissa Chan & Hing Wah Chau & Eric Gaisie & Katrin Lättman, 2022. "Perceived Accessibility and Key Influencing Factors in Transportation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-22, August.
    9. Minou Weijs-Perrée & Gamze Dane & Pauline van den Berg, 2021. "Editorial for the Special Issue on “Experiencing the City: The Relation between Urban Design and People’s Well-Being”," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-6, March.
    10. Pritam Ahirrao & Smita Khan, 2021. "Assessing Public Open Spaces: A Case of City Nagpur, India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, April.
    11. You Peng & Zhikai Peng & Tao Feng & Chixing Zhong & Wei Wang, 2021. "Assessing Comfort in Urban Public Spaces: A Structural Equation Model Involving Environmental Attitude and Perception," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Yuanyuan Ma & Yunzi Yang & Hongzan Jiao, 2021. "Exploring the Impact of Urban Built Environment on Public Emotions Based on Social Media Data: A Case Study of Wuhan," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-24, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gamze Dane & Aloys Borgers & Tao Feng, 2019. "Subjective Immediate Experiences during Large-Scale Cultural Events in Cities: A Geotagging Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-19, October.
    2. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    4. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    6. Pan Zhang & Zhiguo Wang, 2019. "PM 2.5 Concentrations and Subjective Well-Being: Longitudinal Evidence from Aggregated Panel Data from Chinese Provinces," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-13, March.
    7. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    8. Meredith Fowlie, 2010. "Emissions Trading, Electricity Restructuring, and Investment in Pollution Abatement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 837-869, June.
    9. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    10. Barros, Carlos Pestana & Ferreira, Candida & Williams, Jonathan, 2007. "Analysing the determinants of performance of best and worst European banks: A mixed logit approach," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 2189-2203, July.
    11. Martínez-Pardo, Ana & Orro, Alfonso & Garcia-Alonso, Lorena, 2020. "Analysis of port choice: A methodological proposal adjusted with public data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 178-193.
    12. van Putten, Marloes & Lijesen, Mark & Özel, Tanju & Vink, Nancy & Wevers, Harm, 2014. "Valuing the preferences for micro-generation of renewables by househoulds," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 596-604.
    13. Bernard Fortin & Nicolas Jacquemet & Bruce Shearer, 2008. "Policy Analysis in Health-Services Market: Accounting for Quality and Quantity," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 91-92, pages 293-319.
    14. Juan Carlos Martín & Concepción Román & Cira Mendoza, 2018. "Determinants for sun-and-beach self-catering accommodation selection," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(3), pages 319-336, May.
    15. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    16. Zhang, Xiao & Boscardin, W. John & Belin, Thomas R., 2008. "Bayesian analysis of multivariate nominal measures using multivariate multinomial probit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(7), pages 3697-3708, March.
    17. Thai, Thao & Lancsar, Emily & Spinks, Jean & Freeman, Christopher & Chen, Gang, 2024. "Understanding Australian pharmacy degree holders’ job preferences through the lens of motivation-hygiene theory," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    18. Welsch, Heinz & Ferreira, Susana, 2014. "Environment, Well-Being, and Experienced Preference," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 7(3-4), pages 205-239, December.
    19. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    20. Cerquera Dussán, Daniel & Ullrich, Hannes, 2010. "Consumer welfare and unobserved heterogeneity in discrete choice models: The value of alpine road tunnels," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-095, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:7921-:d:418826. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.