Luxembourg stands out as the European leader in quality of life for 2025, achieving a score of 220 on the Quality of Life Index. The Netherlands follows closely behind with 211 points, while Albania and Ukraine rank at the bottom with scores of 104 and 115 respectively. This index provides a thorough assessment of living conditions across Europe, reflecting various factors that shape the overall well-being of populations and extending beyond purely economic metrics. Understanding the quality of life index The quality of life index is a multifaceted measure that incorporates factors such as purchasing power, pollution levels, housing affordability, cost of living, safety, healthcare quality, traffic conditions, and climate, to measure the overall quality of life of a Country. Higher overall index scores indicate better living conditions. However, in subindexes such as pollution, cost of living, and traffic commute time, lower values correspond to improved quality of life. Challenges affecting life satisfaction Despite the fact that European countries register high levels of life quality by for example leading the ranking of happiest countries in the world, life satisfaction across the European Union has been on a downward trend since 2018. The EU's overall life satisfaction score dropped from 7.3 out of 10 in 2018 to 7.1 in 2022. This decline can be attributed to various factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and economic challenges such as high inflation. Rising housing costs, in particular, have emerged as a critical concern, significantly affecting quality of life. This issue has played a central role in shaping voter priorities for the European Parliamentary Elections in 2024 and becoming one of the most pressing challenges for Europeans, profoundly influencing both daily experiences and long-term well-being.

According to the Digital Quality of Life Index, Singapore had the highest digital quality of life among countries in the Asia-Pacific region in 2023. In comparison, Cambodia scored the lowest among the assessed Asia-Pacific countries in 2023, reaching **** index points.

In 2023, Uruguay and Chile had the highest Digital Quality of Life index in Latin America and the Caribbean region, at **** and **** points on a scale from zero to one, respectively. In comparison, Venezuela and Honduras scored the lowest index among the presented countries. The index ranks the quality of digital wellbeing in a country.

Quality of Life Index (higher is better) is an estimation of overall quality of life by using an empirical formula which takes into account purchasing power index (higher is better), pollution index (lower is better), house price to income ratio (lower is better), cost of living index (lower is better), safety index (higher is better), health care index (higher is better), traffic commute time index (lower is better) and climate index (higher is better).

Current formula (written in Java programming language):

index.main = Math.max(0, 100 + purchasingPowerInclRentIndex / 2.5 - (housePriceToIncomeRatio * 1.0) - costOfLivingIndex / 10 + safetyIndex / 2.0 + healthIndex / 2.5 - trafficTimeIndex / 2.0 - pollutionIndex * 2.0 / 3.0 + climateIndex / 3.0);

For details how purchasing power (including rent) index, pollution index, property price to income ratios, cost of living index, safety index, climate index, health index and traffic index are calculated please look up their respective pages.

Formulas used in the past

Formula used between June 2017 and Decembar 2017

We decided to decrease weight from costOfLivingIndex in this formula:

index.main = Math.max(0, 100 + purchasingPowerInclRentIndex / 2.5 - (housePriceToIncomeRatio * 1.0) - costOfLivingIndex / 5 + safetyIndex / 2.0 + healthIndex / 2.5 - trafficTimeIndex / 2.0 - pollutionIndex * 2.0 / 3.0 + climateIndex / 3.0);

The World Happiness 2017, which ranks 155 countries by their happiness levels, was released at the United Nations at an event celebrating International Day of Happiness on March 20th. The report continues to gain global recognition as governments, organizations and civil society increasingly use happiness indicators to inform their policy-making decisions. Leading experts across fields – economics, psychology, survey analysis, national statistics, health, public policy and more – describe how measurements of well-being can be used effectively to assess the progress of nations. The reports review the state of happiness in the world today and show how the new science of happiness explains personal and national variations in happiness.

The scores are based on answers to the main life evaluation question asked in the poll. This question, known as the Cantril ladder, asks respondents to think of a ladder with the best possible life for them being a 10 and the worst possible life being a 0 and to rate their own current lives on that scale. The scores are from nationally representative samples for 2017 and use the Gallup weights to make the estimates representative. The columns following the happiness score estimate the extent to which each of six factors – economic production, social support, life expectancy, freedom, absence of corruption, and generosity – contribute to making life evaluations higher in each country than they are in Dystopia, a hypothetical country that has values equal to the world’s lowest national averages for each of the six factors. They have no impact on the total score reported for each country, but they do explain why some countries rank higher than others.

Quality of life index, link: https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/indices_explained.jsp

Happiness store, link: https://www.kaggle.com/unsdsn/world-happiness/home

As of 2024, South Africa and Morocco scored highest in the Digital Quality of Life index in Africa, with **** points each. Mauritius and Egypt followed closely with scores of **** points and **** points, respectively. African countries ranked significantly lower compared to other regions, with South Africa ranking 66th, while DR Congo came last in the 120th place.

Quality of life in a country comparison A total of 36 factors were included in the calculation of the overall index, which were divided into 7 subject areas here. The best achievable value in each division is 100, see below the table to read which individual criteria are included in each division.

Rank
Country Stability(15%) - Political and economic stability Rights(20%) -Legal system and civil rights, freedom of expression Health(15%) - Health and medical services Safety(10%) Climate(15%)
Costs(15%) - Cost of living and average annual income Popularity(10%) - Popularity of the country with foreigners TotalQuality of life(100%)

Acknowledgements- This dataset is taken from https://www.worlddata.info/quality-of-life.php I just shared it to ka kaggle for convenience. ( I will take this down at first request. I am not the owner of this dataset.)

The World Happiness Report is a landmark survey of the state of global happiness. The first report was published in 2012, the second in 2013, the third in 2015, and the fourth in the 2016 Update. The World Happiness 2017, which ranks 155 countries by their happiness levels, was released at the United Nations at an event celebrating International Day of Happiness on March 20th. The report continues to gain global recognition as governments, organizations and civil society increasingly use happiness indicators to inform their policy-making decisions. Leading experts across fields – economics, psychology, survey analysis, national statistics, health, public policy and more – describe how measurements of well-being can be used effectively to assess the progress of nations. The reports review the state of happiness in the world today and show how the new science of happiness explains personal and national variations in happiness.

The happiness scores and rankings use data from the Gallup World Poll. The scores are based on answers to the main life evaluation question asked in the poll. This question, known as the Cantril ladder, asks respondents to think of a ladder with the best possible life for them being a 10 and the worst possible life being a 0 and to rate their own current lives on that scale. The scores are from nationally representative samples for the years 2013-2016 and use the Gallup weights to make the estimates representative. The columns following the happiness score estimate the extent to which each of six factors – economic production, social support, life expectancy, freedom, absence of corruption, and generosity – contribute to making life evaluations higher in each country than they are in Dystopia, a hypothetical country that has values equal to the world’s lowest national averages for each of the six factors. They have no impact on the total score reported for each country, but they do explain why some countries rank higher than others.

This dataset shows Qatar’s score and ranking in the Quality of Life Index. The index uses an empirical formula that incorporates the following factors: purchasing power (higher is better), pollution (lower is better), house price-to-income ratio (lower is better), cost of living (lower is better), safety (higher is better), healthcare (higher is better), traffic commute time (lower is better), and climate (higher is better).

Estonia and Lithuania had the highest Digital Quality of Life index in Central and Eastern Europe in 2023, at **** and *** points on a scale from zero to one, respectively. In comparison, Bosnia and Herzegovina scored the lowest among the presented CEE countries. The index ranks the quality of digital wellbeing in a country.

Harmonized data file as the basis for comparative analysis of quality of life in the Candidate Countries and the European Union member states, based on seven different data sets, one Eurobarometer survey covering 13 Candidate Countries with an identical set of variables conducted in April 2002, the other six Standard Eurobarometer of different subjects and fielded in different years, each with another set of questions identical with the CC Eurobarometer. Selected aggregate indicators of quality of life ... describing the social situation in the EU15 and Candidate Countries. The countries are tentatively grouped according to affinities following a families of nations logic. The indicators were drawn from various sources, mainly provided by supranational organisations. They are grouped into six categories and recorded in the technical report (page 12 ff.): (1) economy and employment; (2) health; (3) population and family; (4) inequality and social problems; (5) modernisation; (6) political system. Most indicators refer to the year 2000. Deviations from this rule are explained in the list of indicators, together with definitions, coding, and sources. The indicators are added to the harmonized EB data file for all 28 countries in order to provide an opportunity for multi-level analysis. Selected comprehensive indicators and relevant indices have been defined and constructed for quality of life and subjective well-being as well as for poverty and deprivation measures. The CC-Eurobarometer contains several questions on the perceived income situation of a household and on the availability or lack of certain consumer goods. It also provides information on the perception of social integration and general acceptance. (Source: Alber, Jens; Böhnke, Petra; Delhey, Jan; Fliegner, Florian; Gauckler, Britta; Habich, Roland; Keck, Wolfgang; Kohler, Ulrich Kohler; Nauenburg, Ricarda; Schiller, Sabine: Quality of Life in the European Union and the Candidate Countries. Technical Report. Results of data inspection, establishing a harmonized data file, recoding procedure and preparation of analysis. Hand-out for the first researchers’ meeting, Brussels, 4-5 March 2003.) Persönliches Interview Face-to-face interview Population of any nationality of an European Union member, aged 15 years and over, resident in any of the Member States, respectively citizens of each Candidate Country, aged 15 and over. Multi-stage, random (probability) sampling. The sampling is based on a random selection of sampling points after stratification by the distribution of the national, resident population in terms of metropolitan, urban and rural areas, i.e. proportional to the population size (for a total coverage of the country) und to the population density. These primary sampling units (PSU) are selected from each of the administrative regions in every country. In the second stage, a cluster of addresses is selected from each sampled PSU. Addresses are chosen systematically using standard random route procedures, beginning with an initial address selected at random. In each household, one respondent is selected by a random procedure, such as the first birthday method.

The dataset presents information on life expectancy in selected countries in 10-year periods. The list covers the years 1950-2020. The dataset also includes GDP values ​​per capita in a given country in the years studied.

The Social Progress Index ranks countries based on the well-being and quality of life of their citizens, considering factors such as access to education, healthcare, human rights, and environmental sustainability.

There is more to life than the cold numbers of GDP and economic statistics. This dataset contains the 2018 data of the Better Life Index which allows you to compare well-being across countries as well as measuring well-being, based on 11 topics the OECD has identified as essential, in the areas of material living conditions and quality of life. Abstract: Your Better Life Index aims to involve citizens in the debate on measuring the well-being of societies, and to empower them to become more informed and engaged in the policy-making process that shapes all our lives. Each of the 11 topics of the Index is currently based on one to three indicators. Within each topic, the indicators are averaged with equal weights. The indicators have been chosen on the basis of a number of statistical criteria such as relevance (face-validity, depth, policy relevance) and data quality (predictive validity, coverage, timeliness, cross-country comparability etc.) and in consultation with OECD member countries. These indicators are good measures of the concepts of well-being, in particular in the context of a country comparative exercise. Other indicators will gradually be added to each topic. Notes: Data cannot be compared between different editions of the Better Life Index. For more information on change over time, please contact wellbeing@oecd.org.

Multi-stage, random (probability) sampling. The sampling is based on a random selection of sampling points after stratification by the distribution of the national, resident population in terms of metropolitan, urban and rural areas, i.e. proportional to the population size (for a total coverage of the country) und to the population density. These primary sampling units (PSU) are selected from each of the administrative regions in every country. In the second stage, a cluster of addresses is selected from each sampled PSU. Addresses are chosen systematically using standard random route procedures, beginning with an initial address selected at random. In each household, one respondent is selected by a random procedure, such as the first birthday method.

Countries where people live for a long time, as a rule, provide their citizens with high-quality medical care and help them lead a healthy lifestyle. On the contrary, in countries with low life expectancy, there are usually economic difficulties, poverty and lack of access to health services.

The European Quality of Life survey (EQLS) examines both the objective circumstances of European citizens' lives, and how they feel about those circumstances, and their lives in general. It looks at a range of issues, such as employment, income, education, housing, family, health and work-life balance. It also looks at subjective topics, such as people's levels of happiness, how satisfied they are with their lives, and how they perceive the quality of their societies. The survey is carried out every four years.The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) commissioned GfK EU3C to carry out the survey. The survey was carried in the 27 European Member States (EU27), and the survey was also implemented in seven non-EU countries. The survey covers residents aged 18 and over. For the purposes of the rankings in this report, London is treated as a 35th European country.The themes covered in the analysis below are: volunteering, community relations, trust in society, public services ratings, well-being, health, wealth and poverty, housing, and skills and employment. The tables following the analysis on page 4 show figures and rankings for: London, rest of the UK, Europe average, the highest ranked country, and the lowest ranked country. Internet use data for all European NUTS1 areas included in spreadsheet. Note figures based on low sample sizes marked in pink.

The European Quality of Life survey (EQLS) examines both the objective circumstances of European citizens' lives, and how they feel about those circumstances, and their lives in general. It looks at a range of issues, such as employment, income, education, housing, family, health and work-life balance. It also looks at subjective topics, such as people's levels of happiness, how satisfied they are with their lives, and how they perceive the quality of their societies. The survey is carried out every four years.The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) commissioned GfK EU3C to carry out the survey. The survey was carried in the 27 European Member States (EU27), and the survey was also implemented in seven non-EU countries. The survey covers residents aged 18 and over. A selection of key findings from the 2010/11 data released in July 2013 are presented in this briefing: The socio-economic position of Londoners in Europe: An analysis of the 2011 European Quality of Life Survey. For the purposes of the rankings in this report, London is treated as a 35th European country.The themes covered in the analysis below are: volunteering, community relations, trust in society, public services ratings, well-being, health, wealth and poverty, housing, and skills and employment. The tables following the analysis on page 4 show figures and rankings for: - London, - rest of the UK, - Europe average, - the highest ranked country, and - the lowest ranked country. Internet use data for all European NUTS1 areas included in spreadsheet. Note figures based on low sample sizes marked in pink.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.Wellbeing in Developing Countries is a series of studies which aim to develop a conceptual and methodological approach to understanding the social and cultural construction of wellbeing in developing countries. The Wellbeing in Developing Countries Research Group (WeD), based at the University of Bath, drew on knowledge and expertise from three different departments (Economics and International Development, Social and Policy Sciences and Psychology) as well as a network of overseas contacts. The international, interdisciplinary team formed a major programme of comparative research, focused on six communities in each of four countries: Ethiopia, Thailand, Peru and Bangladesh. All sites within the countries have been given anonymous site names, with the exception of Ethiopia where the team chose to follow an alternative locally agreed procedure on anonymisation. Data can be matched across studies using the HOUSEKEY (Site code and household number). The research raises fundamental questions both for the academic study of development, and for the policy community. The WeD arrived at the following definition of wellbeing through their research: "Wellbeing is a state of being with others, where human needs are met, where one can act meaningfully to pursue one's goals, and where one enjoys a satisfactory quality of life". Further information about the project can be found on the WeD website and the ESRC Award webpage. Wellbeing in Developing Countries: Quality of Life, 2004-2005 comprises the Quality of Life (QoL) Survey which was carried out in each of the four countries. The QoL was administered to approx 370 men and women in each country (approximately 60 per research site) in the local language by a team of interviewers selected by each of the country teams. The majority of respondents also completed the other surveys that form part of this research project and are available from the UKDA under GN 33394. The remainder were sampled proportionately according to age, socio-economic status, ethnicity and religion. For each country there is one data file at the individual level. Main Topics: Topics covered include:positive and negative affect Scale (PANAS)goalssatisfaction with goal attainmentvalues (both individual and group) satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) One-stage stratified or systematic random sample

Social scientists have been interested in measuring the prosperity, well-being, and quality of life of nations, which has resulted in a multiplicity of country-level indicators. However, little is known about the factor structure of these indicators. We explored the structure of quality of life, using country-level data on tens of subjective and objective indicators. Applying factor analysis, we identified three distinct factors that exhibited both overlap and complementarity. This structure was replicated in data from previous years and with a partially different set of variables. The first factor, ‘socio-economic progress’, is dominated by socio-political and economic indicators but also includes life satisfaction, which thus appears to reflect objective living conditions. The second factor, ‘psycho-social functioning’, consists of subjective indicators, such as eudaimonic well-being and positive affective states. The third, ‘negative affectivity’, comprises negatively-valenced affective states. The three macro-factors of societal quality of life demonstrated moderate intercorrelations and differential associations with cultural and ecological variables, providing support for their discriminant validity. Finally, country and regional rankings based on the three societal factors revealed a complex picture that cautions against over-reliance on any single indicator such as life satisfaction. The results underline the need for a broadly-based approach to the measurement of societal quality of life, and provide an empirically-derived multidimensional framework for conceptualizing and measuring quality of life and well-being at country level. This study is thus an initial empirical step towards systematizing the multiple approaches to societal quality of life.

The healthcare ranking reflects the quality of health care and access to health services in different countries. The assessment includes various factors such as life expectancy, access to medical services, healthcare funding, and technologies.