Table 4 Regression results on the relationships between perceptions of living-environment crises and quality of life
From: Exploring the relationship between life quality and the perceptions of living-environment crises
Main variables | Model 1: employment crisis | Model 2: public safety crisis | Model 3: infectious disease crisis | Model 4: pollution crisis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | Robust S.E. | Coefficient | Robust S.E. | Coefficient | Robust S.E. | Coefficient | Robust S.E. | |
Subjective well-being | −0.087*** | (0.013) | −0.063*** | (0.017) | −0.054*** | (0.015) | − 0.062*** | (0.012) |
Quality of life compared with neighbours | −0.120** | (0.049) | 0.007 | (0.053) | 0.012 | (0.049) | 0.026 | (0.046) |
Subjective social status | −0.114*** | (0.020) | −0.078*** | (0.024) | −0.089*** | (0.023) | −0.098*** | (0.019) |
Personal sense of neighbourhood security | −0.148*** | (0.048) | −0.321*** | (0.067) | −0.220*** | (0.054) | −0.336*** | (0.049) |
Social trust of neighbours | −0.075* | (0.044) | −0.100 | (0.061) | −0.118** | (0.049) | −0.046 | (0.038) |
Control variables | ||||||||
(log) Annual personal income | −0.002 | (0.011) | −0.003 | (0.014) | 0.001 | (0.013) | 0.008 | (0.011) |
Level of education | −0.025* | (0.014) | 0.040** | (0.018) | 0.089*** | (0.018) | 0.102*** | (0.015) |
Female (ref: male) | −0.199*** | (0.051) | −0.092 | (0.064) | −0.067 | (0.050) | −0.134*** | (0.044) |
Age | −0.006** | (0.003) | −0.004 | (0.003) | −0.003 | (0.003) | −0.004* | (0.003) |
Married status (ref: single) | ||||||||
Married | −0.101 | (0.087) | −0.127 | (0.098) | −0.054 | (0.093) | 0.137 | (0.095) |
Divorced or widowed | −0.306* | (0.170) | − 0.221 | (0.175) | −0.080 | (0.181) | 0.130 | (0.153) |
Job type (ref: government department) | ||||||||
Business employee | 0.705*** | (0.106) | 0.292*** | (0.112) | 0.178 | (0.122) | 0.140 | (0.091) |
Self-employed and other | 0.288** | (0.124) | 0.160 | (0.120) | 0.054 | (0.118) | 0.068 | (0.097) |
Urban neighbourhood (ref: rural neighbourhood) | 0.470*** | (0.113) | 0.486*** | (0.137) | 0.521*** | (0.131) | 0.666*** | (0.150) |
cut1 | −1.553*** | (0.324) | −0.318 | (0.398) | −0.085 | (0.340) | −0.839*** | (0.306) |
cut2 | −0.351 | (0.327) | 2.234*** | (0.415) | 1.958*** | (0.350) | 0.383 | (0.308) |
cut3 | 1.050*** | (0.337) | 4.172*** | (0.442) | 3.904*** | (0.364) | 2.064*** | (0.314) |
County-level variance | 0.452*** | (0.114) | 0.378*** | (0.124) | 0.479*** | (0.122) | 0.540*** | (0.169) |
Neighbourhood-level variance | 0.386*** | (0.082) | 0.689*** | (0.133) | 0.589*** | (0.122) | 0.997*** | (0.193) |
Number of counties | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | ||||
Number of neighbourhoods | 401 | 401 | 401 | 401 | ||||
Number of individuals | 10,849 | 10,849 | 10,849 | 10,849 | ||||
Log likelihood | − 8944.318 | − 5168.108 | − 6402.683 | − 9380.726 | ||||
Chi-squared | 396.477 | 145.051 | 200.957 | 255.080 | ||||