Environmental satisfaction (SWB3_ENV) and environment and public services
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coef | Std.Err | Coef | Std.Err | Coef | Std.Err |
| Income group 2 | −0.027 | 0.211 | 0.234 | 0.261 | −0.560 | 0.352 |
| Income group 3 | −0.210 | 0.206 | 0.058 | 0.257 | −0.536 | 0.360 |
| Income group 4 | −0.079 | 0.203 | 0.339 | 0.249 | −0.686* | 0.367 |
| Income group 5 | −0.526** | 0.214 | 0.012 | 0.271 | −0.862** | 0.347 |
| House ownership | −0.343*** | 0.115 | −0.258* | 0.149 | −0.362* | 0.194 |
| Engagement | −0.199** | 0.098 | −0.235* | 0.123 | −0.181 | 0.167 |
| Service sport 2 | 0.671*** | 0.187 | 0.645*** | 0.225 | 0.693** | 0.301 |
| Service sport 3 | 0.826*** | 0.197 | 0.704*** | 0.235 | 0.695** | 0.310 |
| Service culture 2 | 0.608*** | 0.226 | 0.744*** | 0.284 | 0.845* | 0.453 |
| Service culture 3 | 1.001*** | 0.234 | 1.118*** | 0.291 | 1.255*** | 0.456 |
| Service transport 2 | – | – | 0.398** | 0.190 | – | – |
| Service transport 3 | – | – | 0.833*** | 0.197 | – | – |
| Environment 2 | – | – | – | – | 1.478*** | 0.206 |
| Environment 3 | – | – | – | – | 2.929*** | 0.311 |
| # Observations | 667 | 446 | 296 | |||
| # Parameters | 27 | 30 | 30 | |||
| Log-likelihood | −509.152 | −321.231 | −168.813 | |||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.094 | 0.145 | 0.325 | |||
| AIC | 1072.305 | 702.462 | 397.625 | |||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coef | Std.Err | Coef | Std.Err | Coef | Std.Err |
| Income group 2 | −0.027 | 0.211 | 0.234 | 0.261 | −0.560 | 0.352 |
| Income group 3 | −0.210 | 0.206 | 0.058 | 0.257 | −0.536 | 0.360 |
| Income group 4 | −0.079 | 0.203 | 0.339 | 0.249 | −0.686* | 0.367 |
| Income group 5 | −0.526** | 0.214 | 0.012 | 0.271 | −0.862** | 0.347 |
| House ownership | −0.343*** | 0.115 | −0.258* | 0.149 | −0.362* | 0.194 |
| Engagement | −0.199** | 0.098 | −0.235* | 0.123 | −0.181 | 0.167 |
| Service sport 2 | 0.671*** | 0.187 | 0.645*** | 0.225 | 0.693** | 0.301 |
| Service sport 3 | 0.826*** | 0.197 | 0.704*** | 0.235 | 0.695** | 0.310 |
| Service culture 2 | 0.608*** | 0.226 | 0.744*** | 0.284 | 0.845* | 0.453 |
| Service culture 3 | 1.001*** | 0.234 | 1.118*** | 0.291 | 1.255*** | 0.456 |
| Service transport 2 | – | – | 0.398** | 0.190 | – | – |
| Service transport 3 | – | – | 0.833*** | 0.197 | – | – |
| Environment 2 | – | – | – | – | 1.478*** | 0.206 |
| Environment 3 | – | – | – | – | 2.929*** | 0.311 |
| # Observations | 667 | 446 | 296 | |||
| # Parameters | 27 | 30 | 30 | |||
| Log-likelihood | −509.152 | −321.231 | −168.813 | |||
| Pseudo | 0.094 | 0.145 | 0.325 | |||
| AIC | 1072.305 | 702.462 | 397.625 | |||
Note(s): Model 1 corresponds to regression with socioeconomic, lifestyle variables and externalities from public services (Sport, Culture). Model 2 corresponds to regression with the same variables as in Model 1 and with an additional variable on public transport (Transport), reducing the number of observations from 667 to 446. Model 3 corresponds to regression with the same variables as in Model 1 and with environmental externality (Environment). If we keep public transport (Transport) in Model 3, there are only 205 observations left. All explanatory variables are exogenous based on the variable addition test (Wooldridge, 2014). Significance levels: *10%, ** 5% and *** 1%. Other nonsignificant variables used in the estimations are Median Income, Age, Female, SWB_indi_coll, Number of children, Number of children squared, Opportunities to laugh. The complete table with all variables is reported in Appendix 2 (Table A5)
Source(s): Table by the authors