Archive:Quality of life in Europe - facts and views - material living conditions
This article has been archived. For updated data, see Quality of life indicators - material living conditions. The paper format and the PDF format latest edition, ISBN 978-92-79-43616-1, doi:10.2785/59737, Cat. No KS-05-14-073-EN-N are still available.
,_by_country,_2008_versus_2013.png)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_di03)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw05)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw01) and (ilc_pw05)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw01) and (ilc_pw05)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw01) and (ilc_pw05)
Source: Eurostat (EU SILC)
Source: Eurostat (EU SILC)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw01) and (ilc_pw05)
Source: Eurostat (EU SILC)
_status,_EU-28,_2013.png)
Source: Eurostat (EU SILC)
Source: Eurostat (EU SILC)
Source: Eurostat (EU SILC)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw01) and (ilc_di03)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw05) and (ilc_li02)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw05) and (t2020_53)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw05) and (ilc_mdes09)
This article focuses on material living conditions in the European Union (EU) and is the first in a series of nine articles forming the publication Quality of life in Europe - facts and views.
The article presents the material living conditions of people across the EU and covers both the financial situation and the housing conditions of EU residents. The financial situation relates to the standard of living as expressed through income. Disposable income provides the financial resources available for spending (or saving) and determines ownership of (or access to) material goods and services.
Main statistical findings
Material living conditions in a quality of life perspective
On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is the lowest satisfaction level and 10 is the highest, nearly half of EU residents (49.2 %) reported a medium level of satisfaction with their financial situation in 2013 (6–8 out of 10), 37.6 % reported a low satisfaction level (0–5 out of 10) and only 13.2 % a high satisfaction level (9–10 out of 10). This represents an average (mean) satisfaction of 6.0, with values ranging from 3.7 in Bulgaria to 7.6 in Denmark and Sweden.
The scale (from 0 to 10) and the three levels of statisfaction
Where 0 means not at all satisfied and 10 completely satisfied; low satisfaction refers to 0–5 ratings, medium satisfaction refers to 6–8 and high satisfaction to 9–10.
Women and men were equally satisfied whereas older and younger EU residents appeared more satisfied than the rest of the age groups. The employed and those before and after their active/productive years (in education, training or retired) appeared on average more satisfied than the other groups.
The objective living conditions are strongly related to the subjective assessment of the financial situation, both at country and individual level. Being in a situation of severe material deprivation or not being able to make ends meet is especially damaging. Nevertheless, some countries do deviate from this pattern and show higher or lower levels of satisfaction than could be expected given their objective living conditions.
How are material living conditions and quality of life linked?
Individuals and households use material resources, according to their own values and priorities, to pursue their own self-defined well-being. Quality of life is, therefore, fundamentally constrained by an individual’s own access to the material resources he or she needs or wishes even if only as material means to be transformed into well-being. In this perspective, economic conditions and, in particular, material living conditions, while not reflecting quality of life per se, provide a framework for the measurement of the potential of individuals and households to achieve it.
Material living standards
Household income development since 2008
As illustrated in Figure 1, purchasing power of the median equivalised household income has grown since 2008 in most EU Member States. Significant differences exist between countries with a median equivalised income ranging from 3 936 purchasing power standard (PPS) in Romania to 28 030 PPS in Luxembourg in 2013. The onset of the economic crisis in 2008 led to severe purchasing power losses in Greece (– 24.8 %), Ireland (– 12.1 %), Latvia (– 9.5 %) and the United Kingdom (– 9.3 %). The strongest increases were observed in Slovakia (+ 41.5 %), Poland (+ 36.0 %), Romania (+ 28.5 %) and Bulgaria (+ 23.8 %) between 2008 and 2013, which are all among the countries with the lowest median income in the EU. In the Nordic EU Member States (Sweden, Denmark and Finland), but also in Austria, Belgium, France and Germany, the purchasing power of the median income has grown between 8.2 % (Germany) and 16.8 % (Belgium).
Overall satisfaction with the financial situation of the household
Figure 2 presents the overall satisfaction with the financial situation of the household, as reported by the EU-28 population. Almost half of the population (49.2 %) reported a medium level of satisfaction with the financial situation of their household in 2013, 37.6 % reported a low level of satisfaction whereas only 13.2 % reported a high level of satisfaction. The overall level of satisfaction with the financial situation averaged 6.0 for EU-28 Member States (on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 corresponds to the lowest and 10 to the highest grade of satisfaction). However, as can be seen in Figure 3, values ranged from 3.7 (in Bulgaria) to 7.6 (in Denmark and Sweden).
The highest levels of satisfaction were recorded in the northern EU Member States (Figure 3). In Denmark and Sweden, 37.4 % and 35.5 % of the population rated their satisfaction with a score of 9 or 10 out of 10, followed by Finland (28.6 %), Austria (26.1 %), the Netherlands (22.0 %) and Luxembourg (21.5 %). The mean satisfaction level in these EU Member States was very close to or exceeded 7 on a scale of 0 to 10. In contrast, only a small proportion (below the EU average) of the population of all eastern or southern EU Member States was highly satisfied with their financial situation. In some of these countries the highest proportions of low levels of satisfaction (0–5) were recorded. The countries with the highest proportions of low levels of satisfaction were Bulgaria (78.5 %), Portugal (67.0 %), Greece (65.9 %) and Croatia (64.5 %). Additionally, Bulgaria reported the lowest mean satisfaction level of 3.7, followed by Greece and Portugal, at 4.3 and 4.5 respectively.
Among the EU population, 13 % reported a high level of satisfaction with their financial situation, while 38 % reported a low level of satisfaction.
How is the socio-demographic background associated to satisfaction with the financial situation?
The next section examines how individuals’ perception of their financial situation may vary depending on a set of socio-demographic factors/variables which may lead to different expectations and preferences, as well as objective differences in earnings which are related to age, sex, labour status and educational attainment. The relationship between the subjective and the corresponding objective indicators of financial satisfaction measuring material deprivation and income levels (income tercile, ability to make ends meet), is also described. The analysis below considers how such factors relate to the level of satisfaction of EU Member State residents.
Financial satisfaction was highest among younger and older people
As can be seen in Figure 4 financial satisfaction is highly associated with age. The mean satisfaction was highest among the elderly population and the younger population. In particular, the mean satisfaction was 6.3 for age groups 75+, 65–74 and 65+ and 6.2 for age group 16–24. The intermediate age groups (25–34, 35–49 and 50–64) had an average satisfaction of 5.9–6.0. Although the means are quite similar for the intermediate age groups, in the youngest among them (age group 25–34) a lower percentage of low level of satisfaction was encountered (36.9 % compared to 39.4 % for age groups 35–49 and 50–64). The reasons for the higher level of satisfaction of the youngest and the oldest age groups may be quite different. In the case of the first category it may be related to the fact that many still depend on their parents for financial support (79.5 % of adults aged 18–24 were living with their parents in 2013 of which 29.3 % were employed, while for the latter it may be related to their objective situation; in particular a higher wealth accumulation and lower consumption needs. The older (60 years or over) and younger (less than 30 years) age groups had the lowest consumption expenditure. Their mean consumption expenditure per adult equivalent was EUR 15 283 for the former and EUR 14 632 for the latter group, while for the middle aged groups it was higher than EUR 16 000.
Young (16–24) and elderly (65+) EU residents were more satisfied with their financial situation than the middle-aged group, probably because of lower consumption needs.
Slight gender effect on financial satisfaction
As shown in Figure 5, the mean level of financial satisfaction of males was comparable to that of females although slightly higher (6.1 as opposed to 6.0). Although in these terms the two genders are very similar, some differences are visible when analysing the low levels of satisfaction. The percentage of women who reported a low level of financial satisfaction was 2.5 points higher than that of men.
Financial satisfaction was highest amongst (older) couples without children
As can be seen in Figure 6, the average financial satisfaction was highest amongst two-adult households without children (regardless of their age), in particular at 6.6 for those in which at least one partner was over 65 years old and 6.4 for those younger than 65. The lowest financial satisfaction was observed in single-person households with at least one dependent child (5.0) followed by younger one-adult (male or female) households without children (both groups averaging at 5.6). This may reflect diverging financial situations across these groups. Two adult households without dependent children (many of which are dual earners) were at the lowest risk of poverty (10.4 % for the older two-adult households and 11.2 % for two-adult households younger than 65). Accordingly, the groups with the lowest financial satisfaction levels were at the highest risk of poverty, at 31.8 % for single persons with dependent children and 27.5 % for one-adult households aged less than 65 years in 2013.
It is worth noting that even though the average financial satisfaction of single person households was the same for males and females younger than 65, the proportion of women declaring a low level of financial satisfaction was higher by 0.8 percentage points in general. For older single person households the gender-related difference was larger, as 7.1 percentage points more women reported having a low level of financial satisfaction. This probably reflects the existing differences between the income levels.
Persons in education or training and full-time employees were the most satisfied with their financial situation
Figure 7 highlights a clear relationship between labour status and financial satisfaction.
People before or after their active years (in education, training or in retirement) were more satisfied with their financial situation than the other groups. Being in employment is also a source of satisfaction.
The lowest level of financial satisfaction was reported by the unemployed (average rating of 4) and the highest by respondents in education and training (6.5). Within the group of employed, the overall mean was lower for employees working part-time (6.2) than their full time counterparts (6.4). However, a higher percentage of part-time employees was very satisfied (15.1 %) than full-time employees (13.6 %). This may be due to different household situations, as the income referred to in terms of satisfaction is that of the household and not solely the individual. This observation is also to be taken into account when analysing satisfaction with the financial situation of people in education or training, as they most likely do not have their own source of income. With an average of 6.1, the self-employed appeared less satisfied with their financial situation than employees.
Strong effect of education on financial satisfaction
There is a clear relationship between educational attainment and satisfaction with one’s financial situation, as indicated in Figure 8. As education is also linked to income levels, this finding is not unexpected. People whose highest educational attainment is lower secondary education had an average satisfaction of 5.5, whilst those with upper secondary education reported an average satisfaction of 6.0 and those with tertiary education (and above) reported an average satisfaction of 6.8. This pattern was also reflected in the analysis of the population with high and low levels of satisfaction.
Satisfaction with the financial situation of the household was quite strongly related to income terciles
Figure 9 illustrates the relationship between income level (measured through the income tercile that the person belongs to on the basis of the distribution at the country level) and satisfaction with the financial situation. It shows that higher income (relative to the country’s average) leads to higher satisfaction levels. The average level of satisfaction hence progressed by tercile from 5.1 in the lowest to 6.1 and 7.0 in the second and third tercile. 55.4 % of the population in the lowest income tercile had a low financial satisfaction and only 6.8 % of them declared to be very satisfied with their financial situation, whilst this was true for 21.9 % of the people in the highest income tercile. In the top tercile most people (57.9 %) declared a medium level of satisfaction with their financial situation. The income levels associated with the terciles vary considerably by country.
Income, material conditions and consumption
Within the framework of quality in life, the material living conditions dimension is split into three sub-dimensions: income, material conditions and consumption. ‘Income’ covers income levels, monetary poverty, and the distribution of income within the same country. ‘Material conditions’ refer to material deprivation and housing conditions. Indicators on the topic ‘consumption’ are collected both at micro level (from Household Budget Survey) and macro level (Actual individual consumption, a National Accounts aggregate). These objective indicators are supplemented by a subjective one, which measures the satisfaction with the financial situation of the household, collected for the first time through the 2013 so-called ‘ad-hoc module’ of EU-SILC on subjective well-being.
A very high proportion of the severely materially deprived EU residents had a low level of satisfaction with the financial satisfaction of their household
In contrast to the income terciles, which refer to the position of the individual on the income scale of the country, severe material deprivation refers to the ability of individuals to pay for a series of goods or services that are the same for all EU Member States. Severe material deprivation translates into bad living conditions severely constrained by a lack of resources. It is the second most prevalent form of poverty and social exclusion in Europe in 2013, after monetary poverty and before low work intensity.
As shown in Figure 10, there is a clear connection between being severely materially deprived and satisfaction with financial resources, with a mean almost twice as high for the non-deprived population (6.3) than for those severely deprived (3.4). This difference is due to the particularly low proportion of very satisfied population (1.3 %) and the very high proportion of those with a low level of satisfaction (80.9 %) among the group of deprived people.
The ability to make ends meet was strongly related to financial satisfaction
Living conditions may also be measured through more subjective indicators such as the ability to make ends meet, which is the expression of households’ self-perceived financial hardship. The analysis in Figure 11 illustrates the relationship between capacity to face expenses and satisfaction with income, with a tendency for satisfaction to decline as difficulties grow. As a result the mean was more than twice as high in the upper group (8.8) than for the lowest group (3.3). Therefore, self-perceived financial hardship (or the absence of it) is strongly related to the levels of financial satisfaction.
How are the objective material conditions in EU countries connected to the financial satisfaction of their residents?
Subjective well-being and income are closely related. On average, the richest individuals were more satisfied with their income and life in general (see article 9 on overall life experience) than the poorer ones, in most countries. Table 1 aims at comparing the share of people who declared a low satisfaction with their financial situation in 2013 with the share of people facing the risk of poverty, severe material deprivation and the share of households making ends meet with difficulty or great difficulty.
As expected, the countries with a higher risk of poverty and worse material conditions also had a higher proportion of their populations declaring a low level of financial situation. Some exceptions will be analysed below.
Median equivalised incomes were associated with average levels of satisfaction with the financial situation, with some exceptions
The median disposable income of households increased in most EU countries since 2005 (Figure 1). Big differences exist across countries, with a median more than seven times higher in Luxembourg (28 030 PPS) than in Romania (3 936 PPS) in 2013. Figure 12 compares the median equivalised net income to the mean satisfaction with the financial situation.
A country analysis shows that Denmark and Sweden recorded the highest mean satisfaction rates (7.6 on the scale from 0 to 10) and were among the countries with the highest median income levels (19 349 PPS and 20 516 PPS respectively) in Europe in 2013. Following the pattern, Bulgaria — among the EU Member States with the lowest income levels (5 900 PPS) — also had the lowest mean satisfaction (3.7).
In spite of its top-position in terms of income, Luxembourg was not at the top of the ladder in terms of satisfaction with financial situation, with a mean of 6.9. On the other hand, Romania had one of the EU’s lowest median incomes, but is far from having the lowest financial satisfaction, with a mean of 6.2, almost equal to the EU average (6.0) (analysis in Figures 2 and 3).
Low poverty risk was associated with higher financial satisfaction in Northern EU Member States
Monetary poverty was the most widespread form of poverty in 2013, affecting 83.5 million people in the EU (that is 16.7 % of the EU-28 population), followed by material deprivation and low work intensity, which affected 48.2 and 40.2 million people respectively. Generally, there is an association between the rate of people at risk of poverty in a country and the corresponding proportion of people with low satisfaction with the financial situation. As illustrated in Figure 13, in countries which experience a relatively low poverty risk a smaller share of people reported a low satisfaction with their financial situation. This is the case in the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and Denmark, i.e. mainly northern EU Member States. On the other hand, the populations of countries with the highest monetary poverty rates (above 20 %) such as Bulgaria, Greece and Croatia, were to a lesser degree satisfied with their financial situation. Romania is an exception, as despite its high rate of poverty risk (22.3 %) the proportion of its population which declared a low level of financial satisfaction was 30.2 %, which is well below the EU average (37.6 %).
However, the opposite is also true in some cases. In particular, approximately half the population of Hungary, Cyprus, Slovakia, Ireland and Slovenia had a low level of financial satisfaction despite the fact that their poverty risks are below the EU average.
Furthermore, although the Czech Republic had the lowest poverty risk (9.6 %) in the EU, its share of people with a low satisfaction exceeded the EU average by 3.5 percentage points.
The Czech Republic had the lowest share of people at risk of poverty. However, more than 40 % of Czech residents had a low level of satisfaction with their financial situation.
Material deprivation negatively impacted financial satisfaction in most countries
Severe material deprivation is the second most prevalent form of poverty, with 9.6 % of the EU population (or one in eleven people) being affected by it. The country analysis in Figure 14 presents the relationship between the rate of severely materially deprived people and their reported financial situation.
The countries with a significantly higher share of severely materially deprived people such as Bulgaria (43 %), Hungary (26.8 %) and Latvia (24 %) also recorded the highest proportion of people least satisfied with their financial situation (78.5 %, 53.2 % and 58.5 % respectively). Romania is an exception, as it recorded a relatively low proportion (30.2 %) despite its high rate of deprived population (28.5 %); Hungary, which recorded a fairly similar deprivation rate, had a much higher share of poorly satisfied people. On the other hand, countries least affected by severe material deprivation such as Sweden (1.4 %), Finland and the Netherlands (2.5 % each) also reported the smallest shares of people with low levels of satisfaction The proportion of the population with a low level of satisfaction ranged from 10.9 % in the Netherlands to 15.8 % in Sweden.
Financial satisfaction also connected with ability to make ends meet
In 2013 almost 30 % of the EU population reported that their household was not able to face unexpected expenses and approximately 12 % of them expressed great difficulties in making ends meet. Figure 15 presents this subjective measure of self-perceived impression of the household’s financial situation and its link to self-perceived financial satisfaction.
In most countries, a clear relationship between ability to make ends meet and satisfaction with financial situation can be established. The countries which reported fewer difficulties in making ends meet generally were among the countries with low shares of low satisfied people (and vice-versa): this is the case for the northern EU Member States, such as the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. In the same vein, in several eastern and southern EU Member States such as Greece, Bulgaria, and to a lesser extent, Cyprus, Hungary and Portugal, high percentages of people with great difficulties in making ends meet were associated with low levels of satisfaction expressed by their population. With its high proportion of residents facing difficulties in making ends meet and a relatively modest proportion of low satisfied people (7.4 percentage points below the EU average), Romania remains a special case.
Housing conditions
Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvho05a) and (ilc_lvho50a)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvho05a)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvho50a)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw05)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw01) and (ilc_pw05)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw01) and (ilc_pw05)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw01) and (ilc_pw05)
Source: Eurostat (EU SILC)
Source: Eurostat (EU SILC)
Source: Eurostat (EU SILC)
_status,_EU-28,_2013.png)
Source: Eurostat (EU SILC)
Source: Eurostat (EU SILC)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw01) and (ilc_di03)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvho07a)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw05) and (ilc_lvho05a)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw05) and (ilc_mdho01)
Source: Eurostat (ilc_pw05) and (ilc_lvho05a)
In 2013, 17.2 % of EU residents were living in over-crowded dwellings, a decrease of 2.3 percentage points compared to 2005. Over the same time period 34.4 % of EU residents were living in under-occupied dwellings, an increase of 3.1 percentage points compared to 2005.
Based on these figures, it is not surprising that more than eight in ten Europeans were relatively satisfied with the dwelling in which they lived. In particular, on a scale of 0 to 10, 51.8 % of EU residents reported a medium satisfaction (6–8 out of 10), 32.5 % of EU residents reported a high satisfaction (9–10 out of 10) and only 15.7 % reported a low satisfaction (0–5 out of 10) with the dwelling they lived in. This is a much better situation compared with the satisfaction levels of EU residents regarding their financial situation, which is the other aspect of material living conditions just being analysed.
In terms of mean satisfaction, this translates into an average of 7.5 with values ranging from 6.0 in Bulgaria to 8.4 in Finland. Significant gender-specific patterns of housing satisfaction were not observed, although women reported a slightly higher share of low and high satisfaction. Belonging to the older age groups and owning one’s housing led to significantly higher housing satisfaction.
Whilst national specificities exist, countries tend to follow patterns of housing satisfaction in which high proportions of dwellings affected by housing problems tend to be associated with low satisfaction levels, and vice-versa. This however does not apply to structural problems. Thus, a relationship between the presence of structural problems and the level of housing satisfaction cannot be established in most EU Member States.
Major developments of housing conditions since 2005
As illustrated in Figure 16, the prevalence of overcrowded dwellings amongst the EU population has declined by 2.3 percentage points since 2005 (from 19.5 % in 2005 to 17.2 % in 2013) while that of under-occupied dwellings has increased by 3.1 percentage points (from 31.3 % in 2005 to 34.4 % in 2013)
Although most EU Member States have followed this pattern over time, there exist significant differences between countries. In particular, more than half of dwellings in Romania are overcrowded while this is the case for a mere 2.0 % of dwellings in Belgium, followed by Cyprus and the Netherlands (2.4 % and 2.6 % overcrowded dwellings respectively).
The most considerable declines in overcrowded dwellings between 2005 and 2013 (above 20 percentage points) were observed in some eastern EU Member States such as Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. In cases where increases in overcrowded dwellings between 2005 and 2013 were observed, they remained moderate. For instance, Italy reported an increase in overcrowded dwellings between 2005 and 2013 of 3.1 percentage points.
Comparing Figures 17.a and 17.b which display the population living in overcrowded and under-occupied dwellings by country almost opposite situations can be observed with more or less the same countries displayed above and below the EU average. Again Romania and Belgium appear at each end of the scale as Romania recorded 4.9 % under-occupied dwellings and Belgium reported 72.7 % under-occupied dwellings in 2013. The highest increase in under-occupied dwellings between 2005 and 2013 was recorded by Slovenia with an increase of 17.9 percentage points followed by Estonia, Lithuania and Portugal all of which recorded an increase of 12.0 percentage points. On the contrary, the sharpest declines were recorded in the Netherlands (– 7.6 percentage points) and Italy (– 2.6 percentage points).
Housing conditions and satisfaction with accommodation
Housing is a major component in household budget, often representing the largest expenditure item. In 2012, 11 % of Europeans were living in households allocating more than 40 % of their disposable income to housing, hence being sometimes overburdened by such costs[1]. This situation can lead modest households to live under poor housing conditions, obliging them to possibly give up other basic needs, and preventing them from achieving a decent standard of living.
Similar to satisfaction with financial situation, self-reported housing satisfaction may be based on both objective and subjective criteria. The assessed home may be judged alongside objective criteria such as type of tenure, sufficiency or lack of space[2], quality of housing (availability of certain amenities and existence of structural problems such as rot or damp in accommodation etc.). The subjective criteria depend on people’s different needs and values (for example, a big house, which was necessary for the household when it needed to accommodate a larger family, can become a disadvantage at an older age).
How satisfied were EU residents with their housing?
Figure 18 displays the satisfaction levels of EU residents regarding the dwelling in which they lived in 2013. On a scale of 0 to 10, overall 84.3 % of EU residents reported a medium or high level of satisfaction. Particularly, 51.8 % of EU residents reported a medium satisfaction (6–8 out of 10), 32.5 % of EU residents reported a high satisfaction (9–10 out of 10) while only 15.7 % appeared to be little satisfied (0–5 out of 10).
A third of the EU population was very satisfied with their dwelling, while only 16 % reported a low level of satisfaction.
The overall mean housing satisfaction was higher compared to the mean overall financial satisfaction of EU residents (averaging 7.5 versus 6.0)
The mean housing satisfaction of EU residents was 7.5 with values ranging from 6.0 in Bulgaria to 8.4 in Finland followed by 8.3 in both Austria and Denmark (Figure 19).
Housing satisfaction follows a model opposing eastern/southern EU Member States to western/northern parts of the EU as was the case for financial satisfaction (see Figure 19). Of the 12 countries with a mean below the EU average, all were located in the eastern and southern EU. At the other end of the spectrum, of the 16 countries with a mean above the EU average the majority were located in the western and northern part of the EU, except for Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Cyprus and Malta. The relatively low housing costs, compared to the total income of the household, which prevail in these countries, seemed to play an important role in regards to this. Especially in Malta and Cyprus the percentage of residents overburdened by housing costs was extremely low, at 2.6 % and 3.3 % respectively in 2013 (compared to an EU-28 average of 11 %).
The highest percentages of people with a low housing satisfaction were found in Bulgaria (46.2 % of the population), followed at a distance by other eastern or southern EU Member States such as Latvia (30.6 %), Greece (29.7 %) and Croatia (28.5 %). High satisfaction was reported by approximately half of the residents in Finland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Ireland. Specifically, Finland, Denmark and Sweden were among the countries in which less than 10 % of the population reported a low level of satisfaction with accommodation.
How does satisfaction with accommodation vary in different socio-demographic/economic groups?
The satisfaction with accommodation may be influenced by different socio-demographic characteristics such as age, sex, household composition, tenure status, and income/monetary poverty or material deprivation.
The analysis below examines the relation between such factors and the level of satisfaction of EU residents with their home.
The older population groups were more satisfied with their home
As Figure 20 illustrates, similarly to financial satisfaction, housing satisfaction increases with age, with the exception of the youngest age group (which in most cases are still living with their families). Therefore, the average housing satisfaction was highest, at 7.8, within the groups of persons aged 65 years and more followed by the population aged 50–64 (7.6) and the youngest age group (7.5). The remaining two age groups were the least satisfied, especially those aged 25–34 (7.1).
Overall, the difference in the average rating of satisfaction of the individual age groups varies by a maximum of merely 0.7 percentage points. However a larger variation between the percentages of age groups for the various levels of satisfaction exists. A striking example is the difference between the proportions of persons with a high level of satisfaction which varied by 9.3 percentage points between persons aged 16–24 (35.0 %) and persons aged 25–34 (25.7 %).
One explanation could be that the group aged 25–34 is the age group in which many people start to live apart from their families (79.5 % of those aged 18–24 live with their parents, while for those aged 25–34 the proportion is 28.8 % and they may find it more difficult to afford good housing conditions in the beginning.
No specific gender patterns of housing satisfaction
Figure 21 does not highlight any clear relationship between gender and housing satisfaction, with an equal average satisfaction reported by the two genders. This is not surprising given the fact that the majority of the population (59.8 %) lived as a couple (with or without children) sharing the same accommodation and therefore the same objective housing conditions. A similar trend was observed for satisfaction with the financial situation of the household, however with a more moderate mean of around 6. Despite the above, it should be noted that the percentage of women which were either highly or little satisfied was slightly higher than the respective percentages of men (which are more numerous in the “medium” category).
Housing satisfaction was highest in the older households
According to Figure 22 housing satisfaction was lowest for younger persons living by themselves (averaging 7.0 for singles with dependent children and males aged less than 65 and 7.3 for females in the same age group). Satisfaction with accommodation was highest amongst those aged over 65 (averaging 7.9 for two adult households, 7.7 for females and 7.6 for males). This does not come as a surprise as older age groups are expected to be able to provide themselves with better housing conditions compared to younger age groups (as a result of more years of spending on housing during their life), explaining their higher degree of housing satisfaction.
Two adult households aged less than 65 without children were marginally more satisfied with their accommodation than those with children (7.6 as compared to 7.5 for two adult households with 1 or 2 children and 7.4 for those with 3 or more children). Overall these three age groups averaged higher than one adult households belonging to the same age group, which may be partially ascribed to the availability of double income within the household and therefore its ability to afford better housing conditions.
Owners had a much higher level of satisfaction with their housing conditions
Figure 23 explores the link between tenure status and housing satisfaction. The average degree of satisfaction was about 1 percentage point higher for owners than for tenants, at respectively 8.0 and 7.7 for owners with or without a mortgage versus 6.9 for tenants living in dwelling rented at reduced rate and 6.8 for tenants occupying dwellings rented at market rate. The differences were more striking between the proportions of people with a low level of satisfaction which vary by a factor of three between owners with a mortgage (8.5 %) and tenants at market or reduced rates (25.5 % and 25.4 % respectively). These differences may be related to the much higher feelings of housing insecurity among the latter group[3]. In addition, when making the decision to buy a house (as opposed to renting one) people may be more selective and more willing to invest in good housing conditions.
The difference between owners with or without a mortgage should be interpreted with caution. For historical and cultural reasons, the people who own their house without having a mortgage are probably located to a larger extent in eastern and southern European countries[4], and in these geographical regions people are less satisfied on average with their accommodation.
People in the top income tercile were more likely to be highly satisfied with their accommodation
As one could expect there is a relationship between income and housing satisfaction, more precisely differences between the average satisfaction of people in the highest and lowest income terciles (Figure 24). Overall, the mean satisfaction with housing varied by almost 1 percentage point among the three income groups, ranging from 7.1 in the lowest tercile to 7.9 in the highest. In between, the 2nd tercile reported an average satisfaction of 7.6. The contrasts between the three groups are starker if the proportions of people with a low level of satisfaction are analysed. This amounts to 22.9 % for the lowest income tercile, as opposed to 9.6 % for the highest. The majority of those belonging in the lowest income tercile (50 %) nonetheless reported a medium level of satisfaction with accommodation, this also being the case for the other two income terciles. However, people in the top tercile were much more likely to report a high level of housing satisfaction than those in the medium and bottom terciles.
The severely materially deprived had a much lower housing satisfaction
As indicated in Figure 25, severely materially deprived people had a much less favourable assessment of their housing, with a mean rating of 5.9, which is 1.8 percentage points lower than the non-deprived people.
Only 14.4 % of them were highly satisfied with their home versus 34.4 % of the residents not affected by severe deprivation. On the other hand the share of little satisfied persons was approximately three times higher for the deprived compared with non-deprived persons. The differences between the two groups are much less pronounced than for satisfaction with the households’ financial situation: as many as 82.4 % of severely materially deprived people declared a low level of satisfaction with their financial resources.
Satisfaction with accommodation was lower in households affected by housing problems
Figure 26 compares the housing satisfaction of the population affected by various housing problems in 2013 with that of the total EU population.
As expected, the population living in dwellings affected by housing problems had a much lower average satisfaction with their dwelling than average EU residents. Europeans lacking bath or shower inside a dwelling had the lowest average housing satisfaction (6.2), followed by those whose dwellings had structural problems (6.4) and those living in an overcrowded dwelling (6.5). Overall, these figures were much lower than the average housing satisfaction of the total EU population, which was 7.5. The lack of decent bathroom equipment also generated comparatively higher shares of people reporting low satisfaction with housing than the other two problems. It must be said that it is rather common that the same household experienced different types of housing problems at the same time, and that their prevalence varied at EU level between 2.5 % for lacking bathroom amenities to 17.4 % for the overcrowding rate.
How are objective conditions connected to subjective assessments of one’s accommodation, at country level?
The analysis below focuses on the relationship between satisfaction with accommodation and objective housing (for example structural problems, space adequacy and availability of some basic amenities like shower or bath) and economic conditions reported at country level.
Disposable income related to housing satisfaction in most EU Member States
Figure 27 shows the relationship between income and housing satisfaction and underlines big differences in median annual income levels which vary by a factor of 7 across EU Member States, ranging from 3 936 PPS in Romania to 28 030 PPS in Luxembourg, together with big differences in average assessments of housing satisfaction which varies from 6.0 in Bulgaria to 8.4 in Finland.
A relationship between income and housing satisfaction can be established. Indeed, the 5 EU Member States with the lowest mean housing satisfaction of below 7, Bulgaria, Greece, Latvia, Hungary and Croatia, also had some of the most modest income levels in the EU.
Additionally, some national specificities can be observed. Although Romania had the lowest median income (3 936 PPS) its mean satisfaction was 7.4, which is very close to the EU average (7.5). In spite of quite similar average satisfaction degrees (7.8 and 7.9), Luxembourg and Malta displayed very uneven income levels (28 030 and 15 056 PPS respectively). In the same way, with an average satisfaction of 7.7, Cyprus and the Czech Republic had a slightly lower mean than Luxembourg but completely different median income levels (17 165 and 10 802 PPS). The highest mean satisfaction ratings of above 8.0 (and high satisfaction shares, between 34.7 % and 54.2 %), were unsurprisingly found in some of the highest income countries (with median income close to or above 20 000 PPS in 2013). These are countries located mainly in the northern and central EU; Finland (8.4), Denmark and Austria (both at 8.3), Sweden (8.2) and the Netherlands (8.1).
On average, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands recorded satisfaction with housing conditions of over 8.0 (on the scale from 0 to 10).
How were the objective housing conditions found in EU Member States connected with the satisfaction with accommodation of their residents?
Table 2 compares the share of the population living in a dwelling affected by some of the most commonly identified housing problems that people may experience in Europe (i.e. various types of housing deficiencies, problems related to the adequacy of space) to the share of people who declared a low housing satisfaction in 2013. As can be seen, housing deficiencies affected EU residents to various extents, as merely 2.8 % of them reported living in a dwelling with neither a bath, nor a shower, nor indoor flushing toilet and 15.7 % reported living in a dwelling with structural problems. Space availability, which was examined under the prism of overcrowded or under-occupation of a dwelling, was also experienced quite differently by EU residents, as almost twice as many of them were living in an under-occupied home (34.2 %>, see Figure 13) rather than in an overcrowded one (17.4 %).
EU residents were living in better quality housing compared to 2005
The proportion of the EU population facing overcrowding and other housing problems has continuously decreased. Yet in spite of the improved situation, not all EU residents today are living in a decent accommodation[5]. In particular, approximately one quarter (23.5 %) of the population at risk of poverty reported living in dwellings with structural problems like leaking roof or damp walls, floors or foundation, or rot in window frames of floor in 2013.
The share of people living in dwellings without a bath, shower or indoor flushing toilet has also decreased from 3.7 % in 2005 to 2.8 % in 2013. However, big differences still remain between countries. This issue was most evident in eastern EU countries, such as Romania (32.2 %), and to a less extent Latvia (13.5 %), Bulgaria (13.0 %) and Lithuania (12.0 %).
Under-occupation has increased by approximately 3 percentage points since 2005, a trend which is to be examined in conjunction with the increasing number of single-person households (+ 1.3 percentage points since 2005). It is by far those with income above 60 % of median equivalised income who benefited from under-occupied dwellings (37 %). The corresponding share of people at risk of poverty (earning less than 60 % of median equivalised income) occupying such dwellings was merely 2.5 %. On the contrary, overcrowding is a long-standing issue affecting 17.3 % of EU residents in 2013, but declining from 19.5 % in 2005[6]. It is more widespread amongst the population at risk of poverty, twice as much touched by it (30.4 % as compared to 14.8 % in the general population). In addition, people living in larger households (three or more adults with dependent children) were the most affected by overcrowding (46.5 % of them were living under such conditions in 2013).
The presence of problems affecting dwellings is not always directly related to the percentage of people who declared a low level of satisfaction in the countries, but may also depend on the importance individuals give to the quality of their housing, on the degree of seriousness of these problems within a household and other factors which are not described in this article. The analysis below will focus on space adequacy, from both the perspective of overcrowding and under-occupation, and the presence of structural problems such as leaking roof, damp walls, floors or foundation, or rot in window frames or floor. The absence of toilets situated inside the dwelling only affects a moderate proportion of the population from a few countries and is hence not further analysed.
Overcrowding was associated with low housing satisfaction in most countries
Alongside housing deficiencies, the availability of ‘sufficient’ space for each member of a household in a dwelling is a key factor in assessing the quality of housing conditions.
Overcrowded and under-occupied dwellings
Based on the total number of rooms available to a household and a minimum number of rooms needed per household, an individual can assess objectively whether a dwelling is overcrowded, or not, or even under-occupied, and more subjectively, assess the adequacy of this available space[7].
Figure 28 presents the relationship between the share of people living in overcrowded dwellings which is the most prevailing problem of those observed above, (reported by 17.4 % of the EU population, see Table 2) and housing satisfaction as declared by EU residents.
A clear link between overcrowding and housing satisfaction can be deduced from Figure 28, as low satisfaction is most often declared by the population living in countries with a high share of overcrowded dwellings such as Bulgaria (46.2 % low satisfaction versus 44.2 % overcrowding rate), and at a distance Latvia, Greece, Croatia and Hungary. At the other end of the spectrum, countries with low shares of little satisfied residents, such as the Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Malta (close to or below 10 %), also recorded low percentages of overcrowded dwellings (reaching a maximum of 11.2 % in Sweden). Romania is an outlier again, with both the highest share of overcrowded dwellings (52.9 %) and comparatively low percentages of low satisfaction (14.5 %, which is 1.2 percentage points below the EU average). Spain and Germany to some extent also display particular satisfaction patterns. Although they reported one of the lowest proportions of overcrowded dwellings (5.2 % and 6.7 % respectively), their corresponding shares of residents who declared a low housing satisfaction exceeded the EU average. In the case of Germany it could be due to the very large percentage of persons who do not own their house.
The prevalence of structural problems had no real impact on housing satisfaction
The presence of structural problems such as leaking roof, damp walls, floors or foundation, or rot in window frames or floor in accommodation was reported by 15.7 % of the EU population, which is 1.7 percentage points less than overcrowding and much lower than under-occupation (34.2 %) (Table 2 and Figure 30). As Figure 29 reveals, the prevalence or absence of these structural housing problems is in most countries not related to the level of housing satisfaction. Hence, 46.2 % of Bulgarians reported a low housing satisfaction while only 12.9 % of them were living in dwellings presenting structural problems. Only Latvia, Hungary and more moderately Portugal reported some of the highest shares of structural problems and low housing satisfaction. In the countries where smaller proportions of the population were affected by structural problems, only Finland and Sweden also displayed the lowest shares of little satisfied people. Cyprus displayed a pattern almost opposite to that of Bulgaria, with a low share of residents with low housing satisfaction (13.6 %) and a relatively high proportion of dwellings with structural problems (31.1 %). This may be explained to some extent by the extremely low percentage of Cypriot residents overburdened by housing costs (3.3 % in 2013 compared to an EU-28 average of 11 %).
Living in an under-occupied dwelling was slightly related to high housing satisfaction in most countries
Figure 30 shows that in most countries where a high proportion of the population was living in under-occupied dwellings there was also a high proportion of high housing satisfaction reported. This is particularly visible in Finland where more than half of the population was in such a situation. To a lesser extent, this is also true in Austria, Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Ireland and Malta could be expected to have even higher satisfaction rates than reported (48.0 % and 39.3 % respectively), as they had by far the highest shares of under-occupied dwellings (close to or exceeding 70.0 %). However, the opposite pattern prevails too. In countries where a small proportion of the population was living in under-occupied dwellings a smaller proportion of the population also reported high housing satisfaction. This is especially the case in Latvia, Bulgaria, Greece and Hungary. These four countries displayed percentages of highly satisfied residents reaching a maximum of 20.7 % and of under-occupied dwellings not exceeding 13.2 %. Nonetheless, some countries did not follow this pattern. Spain, France and Belgium had shares of under-occupied dwellings well above the EU average, however the shares of people with a high housing satisfaction were well below it. Additionally, 71 % of Cypriots were living in under-occupied dwellings but only about one third of them (35.1 %) reported a high level of housing satisfaction. However it should be noted that these countries (except Spain) displayed high levels of average housing satisfaction.
Data sources and availability
An ad-hoc module on subjective well-being was implemented in the EU-SILC 2013. This module contains subjective questions (e.g. How satisfied are you with your life these days?) which complement the mostly objective indicators from existing data collections and social surveys.
The "GDP and beyond" communication, the SSF Commission recommendations, the Sponsorship on measuring progress, and the Sofia memorandum all underlined the importance of collecting high quality data about people's quality of life and well-being and the central role that statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) have to play in this improved measurement. The collection of micro data related to well-being therefore is a key objective. In May 2010 both the Living Conditions Working Group and the Indicators Sub-Group of the Social Protection Committee supported Eurostat's proposal to collect micro data related to well-being within the 2013 module of SILC in order to better respond to this request.
For more information please visit: Eurostat - GDP and beyond - Quality of life
Within the framework of quality in life, the material living conditions dimension is split into three sub-dimensions: income, material conditions and consumption. ‘Income’ covers income levels, monetary poverty, and the distribution of income within the same country. 'Material conditions' refer to material deprivation and housing conditions. Indicators on the topic ‘consumption’ are collected both at micro level (from Household Budget Survey) and macro level (Actual individual consumption, a National Accounts aggregate). These objective indicators are supplemented by a subjective one, which measures the satisfaction with the financial situation of the household, collected for the first time through the 2013 so-called “Ad-Hoc Module” of EU-SILC on Subjective Well-Being.
Context
EU policies related to material living conditions
EU policies put a high emphasis on various types of social issues, including in the field of material living conditions which are important determinants of well-being in that they affect individuals and households daily lives. The EU Sustainable Development Strategy[8] dedicates one of its seven key challenges to social inclusion, demography and migration, with the overall objective of ‘creating a socially inclusive society’ and ‘to secure and increase the quality of life of citizens’. The Europe 2020 strategy is targeting particularly the risk of poverty, including material poverty (or so-called ‘material deprivation’), and social exclusion. It has namely set itself the goal of ‘lifting at least 20 million people out of the risk of poverty and social exclusion’ by 2020[9]. To support this ambitious objective, the European Commission has launched the two flagship initiatives ‘Agenda for new skills and jobs’ and the ‘European platform against poverty and social exclusion’ which will also contribute to reaching the EU’s employment and education targets for 2020.
The analysis first presents the subjective indicators available on the topic also taking into consideration different socio-economic factors such as age, gender, labour status, etc. and evaluate their impact on self-assessed satisfaction levels. This evaluation is followed by an examination of the relationship between assessment indicators and objective measurements belonging to the same domain. By analysing objective situations together with their subjective assessments, this article underlines that quality of life is influenced by an individual’s/household’s objective material (such as housing) and economic (such as income) conditions as well as the subjective perception one has of them. From this perspective, material living standards should not only be viewed in quantitative monetary terms, but also in a wider quality of life context. The influence of material living conditions on one’s overall perception of life is the subject of a separate article.
In times of crisis, it is of interest to examine how the residents of the European Union perceive their material living conditions, which is only one in a whole set of factors determining an individual’s well-being. This publication takes an innovative approach and uses data on subjective evaluations of different domains, collected for the first time in European official statistics, through the 2013 ad-hoc module of EU statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) on subjective well-being. Objective indicators belonging to the same area are used to complement and analyse this type of information.
See also
- All articles on living conditions and social protection
- Quality of life indicators (online publication)
Further Eurostat information
Main tables
- Income distribution and monetary poverty (t_ilc_ip)
- Monetary poverty (t_ilc_li)
- Monetary poverty for elderly people (t_ilc_pn)
- In-work poverty (t_ilc_iw)
- Distribution of income (t_ilc_di)
- Material deprivation (ilc_md)
- Material deprivation by dimension (t_ilc_mddd)
- Housing deprivation (t_ilc_mdho)
- Environment of the dwelling (t_ilc_mddw)
Database
- Income distribution and monetary poverty (ilc_ip)
- Monetary poverty (ilc_li)
- Monetary poverty for elderly people (ilc_pn)
- In-work poverty (ilc_iw)
- Distribution of income (ilc_di)
- Material deprivation (ilc_md)
- Material deprivation by dimension (ilc_mddd)
- Economic strain (ilc_mdes)
- Economic strain linked to dwelling (ilc_mded)
- Durables (ilc_mddu)
- Housing deprivation (ilc_mdho)
- Environment of the dwelling (ilc_mddw)
- EU-SILC ad hoc module (ilc_ahm)
Dedicated section
Methodology / Metadata
- Income and living conditions (ESMS metadata file — ilc_esms)
Source data for tables and figures and maps (MS Excel)
Notes
- ↑ European Commission. Eurostat statistical books, Living conditions in Europe, 2014 edition, p. 50
- ↑ See Figures 16 and 17 on overcrowded and under-occupied dwellings above
- ↑ European Commission, Eurofound (2013). Quality of life in Europe, Subjective well-being, 3rd European quality of life survey, p.56
- ↑ 96.1 % of people in Romania own their house, while the same is true for 51.9 % of those living in Germany, source: EU-SILC [ilv_ilc_lvps15]
- ↑ European Commission (2014). Living conditions in Europe, 2014 edition, p. 55
- ↑ EU-28 data for 2013, but EU-27 data for 2005.
- ↑ European Commission, Document for point 3A of the agenda, Housing conditions, 6th meeting of the expert group on quality of life indicators, Luxembourg 20-21 November 2013
- ↑ Council of the European Union, 2009 Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy — Presidency report, 16818/09
- ↑ European Commission, Taking stock of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2014) 130 final, Brussels, 2014