A recent study found that people have strong preferences for residential locations. These preferences were related to age, amenities, and attributes of different cities. The main factors influencing people’s choice of a residential area were cost and size of housing. While proximity to the workplace was the number one factor, cost and size of housing were also important. This suggests that a majority of respondents are willing to trade some space for convenience.
The research also showed that people with conflictual values are not happy. The opposite is true for people with conflictual values. The people with low prosocial and materialistic values are the happiest. Their levels of stress are also similar. Researchers found that these two groups are similar but do not share the same lifestyle choices. Moreover, the results of these two groups did not indicate a correlation between age and social connectedness.
Researchers have also shown that the older population gives higher answers to the questions about life satisfaction. The average respondent was willing to live for over 91 years. This is higher than the average life expectancy in Norway. However, the older people who participated in the survey gave higher responses than younger ones. In contrast, single people are more likely to rent smaller houses. Meanwhile, married couples are more likely to have children and require larger homes.
In addition to comparing values, researchers have compared people’s overall happiness. In general, those with high materialistic and prosocial values are happier. Those with low levels of life stress are unhappier. While the differences are not large, most researchers agree that there is a continuum between the two. The best way to live is to find out what makes a person happy and what makes them unhappy.
Age is not the only factor that affects life satisfaction. The research on the way people like to live explains the difference in life satisfaction. The young, single, and elderly population are more likely to live in cities with higher levels of environmental awareness. They also place more importance on the proximity of cultural institutions and leisure activities, as well as proximity to employment opportunities. They do not prioritize the importance of proximity to the workplace.
Men and women have different values and preferences. The younger group tends to be more materialistic, while the older group values more prosocial and materialistic. For both groups, a close proximity to the workplace is important. It is important to be in a neighborhood that offers good transport access and good schools. If you have a young family, proximity to culture and recreation facilities will likely be very important. Most people like to live close to work will make it easier to maintain a healthy relationship with their boss.
The oldest group tends to live in urban areas. Those aged 25 to 34 years are the most likely to live in cities, whereas single people tend to live in the suburbs. They are more likely to rent small houses and choose a location that is near their workplace. The younger population is also more materialistic. It is also more likely to live in an area with cultural facilities. This group is more materialistic, with higher cost and less opportunity for socializing.
As you can see, there are a variety of different ways to live in an urban environment. In fact, there are no absolute rules on what is the right way to live. As a result, it’s largely down to the individual. Whether they want to be a student, a professional, or a parent, all of these factors influence their decisions. But while the differences between the types of values are small, the results are significant.
As we grow older, our values change and so do our preferences. While younger generations are more focused on their job and the workplace, the older generation is more focused on the environment and a sense of community. In fact, the happiest people are those with high materialistic values. A young family is more likely to choose a rural area, a suburban area, or a rural hinterland.