Author
Abstract
Studies of quality of life have developed into a major field of academic research that examines the determinants of subjective well-being beyond traditional economic measures. The link between environmental quality and quality of life (also known as subjective well-being, usually measured by happiness) has been studied in different settings. However, the heterogeneity of the levels of development and of the policy settings in OECD countries offer an interesting environment to study this relationship. This study is the first to offer a complete analysis of the environmental quality–quality of life nexus across OECD member nations, with a special focus on developmental differences within the organization. We analyzed 38 OECD nations using panel data methods for the period 2010–2022, and also classify them into developed and developing subgroups according to income thresholds and United Nations development classifications. Our findings suggest a positive and significant correlation between environment quality (as evaluated by the Environmental Performance Index (EPI)) and subjective quality of life in developed OECD countries. However, this association was statistically insignificant in developing OECD countries, where economic concerns like unemployment and inflation have a more prominent influence on quality of life. Specifically, a 10-point increase in the EPI is associated with a 0.24-point increase in quality of life in developed OECD countries—an effect comparable to a one-percentage-point reduction in unemployment. In contrast, no significant association was found for developing OECD countries. These conclusions have substantial implications for the design of differentiated environmental policies in the OECD framework, and add to the broader knowledge of how sustainable development increases well-being at different phases of economic progress.
Suggested Citation
Çağlar Yurtseven, 2026.
"The Impact of Environmental Quality on Quality of Life: Evidence from Developed and Developing OECD Countries,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-20, June.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:12:p:6077-:d:1966321
Download full text from publisher
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:18:y:2026:i:12:p:6077-:d:1966321. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address
(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.