SOCIAL DIAGNOSIS 2015

Contemporary Economics Quarterly of University of Finance and Management in Warsaw Volume 9 Issue 4 November 2015 SOCIAL DIAGNOSIS 2015 OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE QUALITY OF LIFE IN POLAND DIAGNOZA SPOŁECZNA 2015 WARUNKI I JAKOŚĆ ŻYCIA POLAKÓW Edited by: Janusz Czapiński Tomasz Panek Raport Diagnoza Społeczna 2015 finansowany przez: Warszawa: Rada Monitoringu Społecznego listopad 2015

CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS ABSTRACTED/INDEXED: ABI/INFORM Complete (ProQuest) ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest) Academic OneFile (GALE Science in Context) Business & Company Profiles (GALE Science in Context) Business and Economics Theory Collection (GALE Science in Context) Cabell s Directories Central and Eastern European Online Library CEJSH Citefactor Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI) ERIH PLUS EBSCO ECONIS EconLit EconPapers EconStor (EconBiz) GENAMICS JournalSeek General Business File ASAP (GALE Science in Context) Google Scholar GREENR - Gale Resource on the Environment, Energy and Natural Resources (GALE Science in Context) IDEAS IndexCopernicus Infotrac Custom Journals (GALE Science in Context) International Business (GALE Science in Context) JIFACTOR Library of Congress (USA) Ministry of Science and Higher Education list of scored journals (rating score 10 pts) ProQuest Central ProQuest Research Library Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) Scirus SCOPUS Social Science Research Network The British Library The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities The International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)/ProQuest Ulrichsweb WorldCat Zetoc Editor in Chief: Marcin Staniewski Deputy Editor in Chief Tomasz Szopiński Stat Editor Henryk Rosłaniec Language Editor Kurt Spurlock Technical Editors Monika Bandyszewska Karol Kowalczyk Associate Editors Zenon Biniek Wiesław Dębski Witold Jakóbik Witold Małecki Danuta Mliczewska Robert Nowacki Włodzimierz Rembisz Grażyna Rytelewska Maria Sierpińska Piotr Szczepankowski Tadeusz Szumlicz Ryszard Wilczyński EDITORIAL BOARD: Nur Adiana Hiau Abdullah (Malaysia) Ruth V. Aguilera (USA) Icek Ajzen (USA) Hrabrin Bachev (Bulgaria) Richard P. Bagozzi (USA) Richard Blundell (Great Britain) Constantin A. Bob (Romania) Udo Broll (Germany) Willem K. M. Brauers (Belgium) Tanja Broz (Croatia) Jelena Budak (Croatia) Barbara Czarniawska (Sweden) Didar Erdinç (Bulgaria) József Fogarasi (Romania) Nicolai Juul Foss (Denmark) Bruno S. Frey (Switzerland) Masahiko Gemma (Japan) Srećko Goić (Croatia) Kjell Åge Gotvassli (Norway) Adriana Grigorescu (Romania) Oliver D. Hart (USA) Roman Horvath (Czech Republic) Shelby D. Hunt (USA) Zoran Ivanovic (Croatia) Søren Johansen (Denmark) Sten Jönsson (Sweden) Lutz Kilian (USA) Judit Karsai (Hungary) Elko Kleinschmidt (Canada) Monika Kostera (Sweden) Stephen F. LeRoy (USA) Csaba Lentner (Hungary) Lena Malešević Perović (Croatia) Victor Martinez Reyes (USA) Eric Maskin (USA) Igor Matunović (Croatia) Ieva Meidute (Lithuania) Garabed Minassian (Bulgaria) Alexandru Mircea Nedelea (Romania) Anayo Nkamnebe (Nigeria) Harald Oberhofer (Austria) Boris Podobnik (Croatia) Nina Pološki Vokić (Croatia) Rossitsa Rangelova (Bulgaria) Assaf Razin (USA) Sanda Renko (Croatia) Domingo Enrique Ribeiro Soriano (Spain) Richard Roll (USA) Steven Rosefielde (USA) Yochanan Shachmurove (USA) Andrei Shleifer (USA) Eduardo Schwartz (USA) Mirosław Skibniewski (USA) Stanley F. Slater (USA) Lenka Slavíková (Czech Republic) Joel Sobel (USA) Jasminka Sohinger (Croatia) Miemie Struwig (South Africa) Guido Tabellini (Italy) Masahiro Taguchi (Japan) Josip Tica (Croatia) Joachim Wagner (Germany) John Whalley (Canada) Gary Wong (China) Shaker A. Zahra (USA) Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas (Lithuania) The original version: on-line journal ADDRESS OF EDITORS: CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS, University of Finance and Management in Warsaw, 01 030 Warszawa, 55 Pawia Str., room 219, phone: (22) 536 54 73 e-mail: editorial@ce.vizja.pl www.ce.vizja.pl PUBLISHER: Vizja Press & IT, 01 029 Warszawa, 60 Dzielna Str. phone/fax: (22) 536 54 68 e-mail: vizja@vizja.pl www.vizja.net.pl All articles published in the quarterly are subject to double-blind peer reviews ISSN: 2084-0845

Social Diagnosis 2015 518 ANNEX 5. RANK OF SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC AND PROFESSIONAL GROUPS IN RELATION TO EIGHT DIMENSIONS OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN 2015.

Social Diagnosis 2015 519 5.1. Towns and cities Civilisation level Rank City/Town Average SD N 1 Warszawa 0.68.79 942 2 Rzeszów 0.60.85 59 3 Poznań 0.55.85 262 4 Kraków 0.54.90 497 5 Zielona Góra 0.50.95 75 6 Lublin 0.46.77 158 7 Toruń 0.44.86 124 8 Wrocław 0.43.78 346 9 Gorzów Wlk. 0.42.87 68 10 Gliwice 0.42.71 115 11 Opole 0.41.84 86 12 Gdańsk 0.40.87 385 13 Gdynia 0.37.92 121 14 Olsztyn 0.27.90 120 15 Bytom 0.25.87 56 16 Bydgoszcz 0.24.97 169 17 Ruda Śląska 0.23.78 85 18 Katowice 0.21.95 261 19 Jaworzno 0.20.91 169 20 Kielce 0.19.94 105 21 Wałbrzych 0.17.93 89 22 Bielsko-Biała 0.14.91 150 23 Białystok 0.09.99 212 24 Łódź 0.03.94 427 25 Sosnowiec 0.03.95 141 26 Zabrze -0.01.83 109 27 Częstochowa -0.11 1.04 72 28 Radom -0.14.99 160 Material well-being Rank City/Town Average S D N 1 Warszawa 0.98 1.76 825 2 Gdynia 0.64 1.41 103 3 Toruń 0.55 1.37 128 4 Gdańsk 0.42 1.10 378 5 Poznań 0.40 1.09 187 6 Kraków 0.39 1.02 479 7 Gliwice 0.38 1.00 93 8 Gorzów Wlk. 0.28.96 72 9 Zielona Góra 0.27.91 76 10 Jaworzno 0.27.59 137 11 Wrocław 0.23 1.16 315 12 Zabrze 0.13.95 96 13 Lublin 0.10.90 137 14 Wałbrzych 0.09 1.10 79 15 Katowice 0.05 1.20 234 16 Olsztyn 0.04.98 118 17 Opole -0.02.96 76 18 Łódź -0.03 1.02 430 19 Sosnowiec -0.03 1.01 137 20 Bielsko-Biała -0.05.66 154 21 Kielce -0.07.98 106 22 Bytom -0.09 1.00 59 23 Rzeszów -0.10.70 58 24 Ruda Śląska -0.14.72 86 25 Białystok -0.17.89 210 26 Radom -0.23.85 164 27 Częstochowa -0.25.77 75 28 Bydgoszcz -0.28.79 174 Social well-being Rank City/Town Average SD N 1 Olsztyn 0.21.81 115 2 Bytom 0.18 1.01 57 3 Bydgoszcz 0.17.56 167 4 Poznań 0.16 1.01 255 5 Opole 0.11 1.27 88 6 Kraków 0.08.91 487 7 Gdańsk 0.07 1.25 384 8 Zabrze 0.07.76 111 9 Katowice 0.06.90 252 10 Wrocław 0.04.88 361 11 Gdynia 0.03.75 125 12 Sosnowiec 0.03.94 140 13 Zielona Góra 0.00.71 72 14 Toruń -0.01 1.20 126 15 Częstochowa -0.01.99 78 16 Gliwice -0.01.97 113 17 Bielsko-Biała -0.05.77 155 18 Rzeszów -0.07 1.02 59 19 Radom -0.07 1.05 164 20 Jaworzno -0.07 1.20 170 21 Warszawa -0.08 1.13 917 22 Lublin -0.09 1.03 163 23 Łódź -0.09.98 412 24 Wałbrzych -0.17.90 89 25 Kielce -0.23 1.04 105 26 Białystok -0.28 1.17 220 27 Gorzów Wlk. -0.32 1.07 69 28 Ruda Śląska -0.40 1.50 85 Pathologies (the higher the value. the more pathologies) Rank City Average SD N 1 Jaworzno -0.28.75 170 2 Bydgoszcz -0.18.77 176 3 Rzeszów -0.12.88 61 4 Częstochowa -0.08.74 78 5 Poznań -0.07.98 266 6 Wałbrzych -0.06.74 89 7 Zabrze -0.06.68 115 8 Kraków -0.05 1.07 507 9 Olsztyn -0.04.96 120 10 Zielona Góra -0.02.82 78 11 Radom 0.01.82 164 12 Toruń 0.02 1.11 130 13 Białystok 0.02.92 220 14 Gliwice 0.02.99 114 15 Łódź 0.03.93 435 16 Lublin 0.04.97 165 17 Gorzów Wlk. 0.05.98 69 18 Wrocław 0.10 1.07 366 19 Sosnowiec 0.10 1.22 144 20 Bytom 0.12.89 59 21 Kielce 0.14 1.28 106 22 Gdańsk 0.24 1.18 386 23 Warszawa 0.28 1.38 940 24 Katowice 0.29 1.13 261 25 Bielsko-Biała 0.44 1.79 155 26 Gdynia 0.50 1.32 125 27 Opole 0.55 1.45 90 28 Ruda Śląska 0.58 1.23 89

Social Diagnosis 2015 520 Social capital Rank City Average SD N 1 Poznań 0.48 1.39 256 2 Gorzów Wlk. 0.42 1.36 65 3 Warszawa 0.36 1.20 920 4 Kraków 0.28 1.12 487 5 Bytom 0.27 1.16 59 6 Częstochowa 0.25 1.34 77 7 Lublin 0.24 1.24 158 8 Gliwice 0.22 1.04 108 9 Katowice 0.21 1.30 246 10 Jaworzno 0.20 1.05 146 11 Toruń 0.19 1.31 129 12 Opole 0.17 1.05 90 13 Zielona Góra 0.10 1.18 73 14 Gdynia 0.10.85 125 15 Olsztyn 0.09.97 118 16 Gdańsk 0.06.92 386 17 Wrocław 0.05 1.06 361 18 Rzeszów 0.02 1.07 61 19 Radom -0.01.92 164 20 Kielce -0.01 1.25 105 21 Łódź -0.08.93 424 22 Bydgoszcz -0.09 1.11 174 23 Zabrze -0.10.98 114 24 Bielsko-Biała -0.12.82 155 25 Białystok -0.13.78 220 26 Ruda Śląska -0.14.67 88 27 Sosnowiec -0.20.66 143 28 Wałbrzych -0.32.64 89 Psychological well-being Rank City Average SD N 1 Bytom 0.48 1.01 59 2 Olsztyn 0.32.86 112 3 Zielona Góra 0.30.77 70 4 Kraków 0.23.89 482 5 Bielsko-Biała 0.21.70 144 6 Gliwice 0.21.77 100 7 Poznań 0.18.85 249 8 Wrocław 0.13.98 352 9 Gdynia 0.12.93 125 10 Bydgoszcz 0.09.94 165 11 Zabrze 0.09.98 115 12 Toruń 0.07 1.04 126 13 Jaworzno 0.06 1.05 165 14 Warszawa 0.05.96 865 15 Gdańsk 0.04 1.13 383 16 Rzeszów -0.01.95 60 17 Radom -0.05 1.01 156 18 Katowice -0.05.97 252 19 Łódź -0.06 1.03 382 20 Sosnowiec -0.09 1.03 135 21 Wałbrzych -0.10 1.13 88 22 Lublin -0.12 1.02 155 23 Częstochowa -0.12.84 75 24 Ruda Śląska -0.16 1.12 87 25 Opole -0.18.90 85 26 Białystok -0.23 1.06 214 27 Gorzów Wlk. -0.30.92 66 28 Kielce -0.45 1.22 96 Physical well-being Rank City Average SD N 1 Jaworzno 0.27.91 169 2 Olsztyn 0.26.74 116 3 Rzeszów 0.25.77 60 4 Bielsko-Biała 0.25.77 151 5 Poznań 0.20.76 246 6 Gliwice 0.19.68 113 7 Kraków 0.10.99 498 8 Toruń 0.09.97 129 9 Łódź 0.08 1.05 420 10 Zabrze 0.08 1.00 114 11 Sosnowiec 0.07 1.01 137 12 Białystok 0.05 1.05 219 13 Wrocław 0.03.90 361 14 Gdańsk 0.01 1.05 375 15 Warszawa -0.05 1.02 913 16 Zielona Góra -0.07 1.26 74 17 Gdynia -0.11.97 125 18 Ruda Śląska -0.11 1.01 88 19 Lublin -0.15 1.05 150 20 Bytom -0.19 1.22 59 21 Radom -0.21 1.02 160 22 Wałbrzych -0.22 1.01 88 23 Bydgoszcz -0.24 1.22 164 24 Katowice -0.27 1.18 251 25 Opole -0.32 1.13 90 26 Kielce -0.33 1.16 104 27 Częstochowa -0.41 1.20 77 28 Gorzów Wlk. -0.58 1.36 68 Life stress (the higher the value. the higher the stress) Rank City Average SD N 1 Łódź -0.23.92 407 2 Zielona Góra -0.14.81 64 3 Sosnowiec -0.14.97 144 4 Bielsko-Biała -0.13 1.12 155 5 Ruda Śląska -0.12.77 89 6 Zabrze -0.08.89 115 7 Jaworzno -0.05.79 169 8 Toruń -0.03.91 130 9 Gdynia -0.03.91 125 10 Bytom -0.01.89 58 11 Bydgoszcz 0.02.79 169 12 Kraków 0.02.97 502 13 Poznań 0.03.82 253 14 Katowice 0.05 1.01 254 15 Białystok 0.07 1.02 220 16 Radom 0.12 1.20 164 17 Gorzów Wlk. 0.14 1.17 69 18 Wałbrzych 0.15.97 90 19 Gdańsk 0.16 1.05 386 20 Częstochowa 0.16 1.01 78 21 Gliwice 0.16 1.00 108 22 Rzeszów 0.17 1.06 61 23 Wrocław 0.22 1.06 355 24 Olsztyn 0.23 1.02 108 25 Warszawa 0.29 1.02 924 26 Lublin 0.35 1.02 160 27 Kielce 0.45 1.13 105 28 Opole 0.69 1.27 89

Social Diagnosis 2015 521 5.2. Voivodships Civilisation level Rank Voivodship Average SD N 1 Pomorskie 0.13 0.90 1399 2 Mazowieckie 0.10 1.04 3027 3 Dolnośląskie 0.08 0.97 1547 4 Małopolskie 0.08 1.03 1883 5 Śląskie 0.06 0.94 2521 6 Lubuskie 0.05 0.99 540 7 Wielkopolskie 0.02 0.98 2087 8 Zachodniopomorskie -0.05 0.98 895 9 Kujawsko-Pomorskie -0.06 0.94 1145 10 Podlaskie -0.07 1.05 669 11 Opolskie -0.08 1.05 696 12 Podkarpackie -0.11 1.04 1125 13 Łódzkie -0.14 0.99 1355 14 Warmińsko-Mazurskie -0.16 0.99 767 15 Lubelskie -0.17 1.05 1214 16 Świętokrzyskie -0.17 1.05 674 Social well-being Rank Voivodship Average SD N 1 Opolskie 0.16 1.03 678 2 Małopolskie 0.10 0.93 1904 3 Wielkopolskie 0.06 0.96 2096 4 Lubelskie 0.05 1.00 1219 5 Pomorskie 0.05 0.97 1440 6 Kujawsko-Pomorskie 0.03 0.87 1132 7 Podkarpackie 0.03 1.01 1152 8 Dolnośląskie -0.03 0.95 1546 9 Mazowieckie -0.03 1.05 3005 10 Śląskie -0.03 1.00 2510 11 Warmińsko-Mazurskie -0.04 0.94 763 12 Lubuskie -0.08 1.00 538 13 Świętokrzyskie -0.09 1.02 670 14 Łódzkie -0.10 1.12 1332 15 Podlaskie -0.10 0.99 684 16 Zachodniopomorskie -0.11 1.13 892 Material well-being Rank Voivodship Average SD N 1 Mazowieckie 0.25 1.31 2892 2 Pomorskie 0.15 1.05 1386 3 Małopolskie 0.11 0.90 1715 4 Wielkopolskie 0.05 0.95 1829 5 Dolnośląskie 0.04 0.97 1380 6 Śląskie 0.04 0.90 2282 7 Lubuskie 0.03 1.00 552 8 Zachodniopomorskie 0.00 0.98 832 9 Podlaskie -0.07 0.91 657 10 Warmińsko-Mazurskie -0.12 0.89 782 11 Łódzkie -0.15 0.91 1303 12 Opolskie -0.16 0.87 600 13 Świętokrzyskie -0.18 0.97 648 14 Lubelskie -0.22 0.89 1183 15 Kujawsko-Pomorskie -0.24 0.90 1142 16 Podkarpackie -0.25 0.74 1137 Pathologies (the higher the value. the more pathologies) Rank Voivodship Average SD N 1 Małopolskie -0.14 0.86 1936 2 Warmińsko-Mazurskie -0.12 0.76 789 3 Kujawsko-Pomorskie -0.10 0.79 1170 4 Podkarpackie -0.10 0.88 1170 5 Lubelskie -0.09 0.80 1265 6 Wielkopolskie -0.08 0.86 2162 7 Świętokrzyskie -0.05 0.91 693 8 Podlaskie -0.02 0.92 691 9 Łódzkie -0.01 0.99 1391 10 Opolskie 0.03 1.04 709 11 Mazowieckie 0.04 1.09 3086 12 Dolnośląskie 0.07 1.00 1584 13 Śląskie 0.08 1.06 2584 14 Lubuskie 0.13 1.06 555 15 Pomorskie 0.16 1.16 1447 16 Zachodniopomorskie 0.22 1.48 908 Social capital Rank Voivodship Average SD N 1 Mazowieckie 0.09 1.02 3016 2 Podkarpackie 0.06 1.06 1161 3 Pomorskie 0.03 1.01 1448 4 Dolnośląskie 0.02 1.01 1556 5 Małopolskie 0.02 1.00 1893 6 Śląskie 0.02 1.02 2480 7 Lubelskie 0.00 0.98 1209 8 Opolskie 0.00 1.10 699 9 Wielkopolskie -0.01 1.04 2089 10 Lubuskie -0.04 1.13 537 11 Świętokrzyskie -0.05 0.89 675 12 Warmińsko-Mazurskie -0.05 0.77 770 13 Kujawsko-Pomorskie -0.08 1.00 1143 14 Zachodniopomorskie -0.08 0.96 887 15 Łódzkie -0.10 0.93 1349 16 Podlaskie -0.13 0.85 691 Physical well-being Rank Voivodship Average SD N 1 Warmińsko- 0.20 0.94 775 Mazurskie 2 Małopolskie 0.06 0.97 1886 3 Zachodniopomorskie 0.05 0.92 890 4 Mazowieckie 0.02 1.01 3024 5 Podlaskie 0.02 1.03 683 6 Śląskie 0.02 0.98 2522 7 Kujawsko-Pomorskie 0.01 1.02 1136 8 Wielkopolskie 0.01 0.96 2058 9 Łódzkie 0.00 0.98 1353 10 Pomorskie -0.03 1.04 1403 11 Podkarpackie -0.04 1.00 1126 12 Świętokrzyskie -0.04 1.03 681 13 Opolskie -0.05 0.97 697 14 Lubelskie -0.08 1.04 1162 15 Dolnośląskie -0.09 1.00 1553 16 Lubuskie -0.22 1.20 545

Social Diagnosis 2015 522 Psychological well-being Rank Voivodship Averag SD N e 1 Małopolskie 0.15 0.95 1830 2 Wielkopolskie 0.11 0.93 1842 3 Pomorskie 0.09 1.00 1435 4 Śląskie 0.02 0.97 2361 5 Kujawsko-Pomorskie 0.01 0.94 1106 6 Mazowieckie 0.01 0.99 2863 7 Zachodniopomorskie 0.00 1.09 890 8 Dolnośląskie -0.02 0.99 1472 9 Warmińsko-Mazurskie -0.03 1.08 705 10 Lubuskie -0.06 1.05 515 11 Opolskie -0.06 0.94 661 12 Podkarpackie -0.07 1.05 1100 13 Łódzkie -0.13 1.03 1236 14 Świętokrzyskie -0.13 1.11 645 15 Lubelskie -0.15 0.97 1150 16 Podlaskie -0.15 1.06 674 Life stress (the higher the value. the more stress) Rank Voivodship Average SD N 1 Dolnośląskie 0.14 1.03 1553 2 Zachodniopomorskie 0.11 1.05 884 3 Podkarpackie 0.09 1.04 1160 4 Lubuskie 0.08 0.99 531 5 Opolskie 0.08 1.09 687 6 Lubelskie 0.04 1.05 1209 7 Mazowieckie 0.04 1.01 3042 8 Śląskie 0.01 0.99 2530 9 Świętokrzyskie 0.01 1.03 683 10 Łódzkie -0.01 1.02 1342 11 Podlaskie -0.01 0.96 687 12 Pomorskie -0.07 1.00 1437 13 Wielkopolskie -0.07 0.95 2083 14 Warmińsko-Mazurskie -0.09 0.96 757 15 Kujawsko-Pomorskie -0.13 0.90 1151 16 Małopolskie -0.13 0.94 1921

Social Diagnosis 2015 523 5.3. Subregions (NUTS3) Civilisation level Rank Subregion Average SD N 1 Jeleniogórski -0.01 0.96 369 2 Legnicko-głogowski 0.02 1.02 289 3 Wrocławski -0.09 0.99 266 4 Wałbrzyski -0.02 1.01 277 5 Grudziądzki -0.15 0.87 266 6 Bydgosko-toruński 0.24 0.95 388 7 Włocławski -0.25 0.92 489 8 Bialski -0.09 1.05 180 9 Puławski -0.37 1.07 282 10 Lubelski 0.20 0.92 349 11 Chełmsko-zamojski -0.38 1.05 403 12 Gorzowski 0.15 0.88 220 13 Zielonogórski -0.02 1.05 319 14 Łódzki 0.01 0.94 601 15 Piotrkowski -0.17 1.01 350 16 Sieradzki -0.45 1.02 197 17 Skierniewicki -0.21 0.97 207 18 Krakowski 0.34 0.98 839 19 Nowosądecki -0.23 1.03 423 20 Oświęcimski 0.03 0.94 265 21 Tarnowski -0.15 1.07 357 22 Ciechanowsko-płocki -0.22 0.95 392 23 Warszawski 0.39 0.98 1570 24 Ostrołęcko-siedlecki -0.16 1.01 582 25 Radomski -0.28 1.04 483 26 Nyski -0.29 1.06 286 27 Opolski 0.07 1.02 410 28 Krośnieński -0.19 1.03 376 29 Przemyski -0.21 0.99 216 30 Rzeszowski 0.09 1.07 272 31 Tarnobrzeski 0.17 0.94 620 32 Białostocki 0.00 1.05 326 33 Łomżyński -0.11 1.03 204 34 Suwalski -0.15 1.05 140 35 Gdański 0.30 0.89 789 36 Słupski -0.20 0.90 302 37 Starogardzki 0.02 0.83 308 38 Bielski -0.05 0.97 412 39 Bytomski 0.15 0.97 220 40 Częstochowski -0.10 0.91 252 41 Gliwicki 0.17 0.87 281 42 Katowicki 0.13 0.96 446 43 Rybnicki -0.06 0.98 260 44 Sosnowiecki 0.13 0.93 440 45 Tyski 0.12 0.86 191 46 Kielecki -0.11 1.06 395 47 Sandomiersko-jędrzejowski -0.25 1.04 278 48 Elbląski -0.15 0.99 298 49 Ełcki -0.23 0.90 104 50 Olsztyński -0.15 1.01 365 51 Kaliski -0.01 0.98 496 52 Koniński -0.13 0.94 509 53 Leszczyński -0.01 0.95 412 54 Poznański 0.28 0.97 541 55 Pilski -0.35 0.97 120 56 Koszaliński -0.31 0.97 365 57 Stargardzki -0.09 1.00 209 58 Szczeciński 0.27 0.89 321 Social well-being Rank Subregion Average SD N 1 Jeleniogórski 0.00 0.90 365 2 Legnicko-głogowski 0.04 1.01 287 3 Wrocławski -0.11 0.97 262 4 Wałbrzyski -0.15 1.00 271 5 Grudziądzki 0.03 0.91 261 6 Bydgosko-toruński 0.07 0.88 388 7 Włocławski 0.00 0.84 481 8 Bialski 0.14 0.90 182 9 Puławski 0.04 1.15 279 10 Lubelski 0.02 1.00 350 11 Chełmsko-zamojski 0.05 0.94 407 12 Gorzowski -0.15 1.00 228 13 Zielonogórski -0.03 1.00 310 14 Łódzki -0.04 0.94 586 15 Piotrkowski -0.10 1.26 342 16 Sieradzki -0.37 1.28 195 17 Skierniewicki -0.02 1.13 209 18 Krakowski 0.05 0.87 828 19 Nowosądecki 0.25 0.77 430 20 Oświęcimski 0.11 0.88 268 21 Tarnowski 0.04 1.20 377 22 Ciechanowsko-płocki 0.05 1.06 392 23 Warszawski -0.08 1.09 1536 24 Ostrołęcko-siedlecki 0.05 0.85 581 25 Radomski -0.03 1.10 495 26 Nyski 0.11 0.96 274 27 Opolski 0.19 1.07 404 28 Krośnieński 0.08 1.03 388 29 Przemyski -0.09 0.91 224 30 Rzeszowski 0.03 0.97 271 31 Tarnobrzeski 0.04 0.97 643 32 Białostocki -0.18 1.08 335 33 Łomżyński -0.03 0.99 205 34 Suwalski 0.02 0.70 144 35 Gdański 0.05 1.06 802 36 Słupski 0.07 0.86 317 37 Starogardzki 0.03 0.86 322 38 Bielski -0.10 0.84 411 39 Bytomski 0.13 0.90 220 40 Częstochowski -0.08 1.06 261 41 Gliwicki 0.04 0.85 277 42 Katowicki -0.08 1.08 433 43 Rybnicki 0.03 0.97 260 44 Sosnowiecki -0.09 1.16 442 45 Tyski 0.00 0.92 188 46 Kielecki -0.13 1.07 391 47 Sandomiersko-jędrzejowski -0.04 0.93 279 48 Elbląski 0.02 0.76 303 49 Ełcki -0.17 1.17 107 50 Olsztyński -0.05 1.00 352 51 Kaliski 0.06 0.98 488 52 Koniński 0.09 0.95 503 53 Leszczyński 0.04 0.93 423 54 Poznański 0.06 1.04 546 55 Pilski 0.07 0.71 128 56 Koszaliński -0.27 1.18 371 57 Stargardzki 0.08 1.10 205 58 Szczeciński -0.06 1.05 316

Social Diagnosis 2015 524 Material well-being Rank Subregion Average SD N 1 Jeleniogórski -0.15 0.93 330 2 Legnicko-głogowski 0.05 0.95 249 3 Wrocławski 0.02 0.77 227 4 Wałbrzyski 0.03 0.89 259 5 Grudziądzki -0.33 0.67 266 6 Bydgosko-toruński 0.07 1.08 393 7 Włocławski -0.44 0.78 482 8 Bialski -0.26 0.78 191 9 Puławski -0.20 0.84 267 10 Lubelski 0.10 1.13 302 11 Chełmsko-zamojski -0.44 0.67 424 12 Gorzowski 0.04 0.95 231 13 Zielonogórski 0.02 1.05 322 14 Łódzki -0.02 0.98 607 15 Piotrkowski -0.31 0.83 318 16 Sieradzki -0.37 0.94 179 17 Skierniewicki -0.06 0.69 199 18 Krakowski 0.33 0.99 778 19 Nowosądecki -0.12 0.60 395 20 Oświęcimski 0.18 0.82 179 21 Tarnowski -0.17 0.88 363 22 Ciechanowsko-płocki -0.07 0.87 407 23 Warszawski 0.64 1.56 1441 24 Ostrołęcko-siedlecki -0.16 0.78 551 25 Radomski -0.20 0.86 494 26 Nyski -0.30 0.79 249 27 Opolski -0.06 0.91 350 28 Krośnieński -0.29 0.78 383 29 Przemyski -0.49 0.68 216 30 Rzeszowski 0.00 0.67 276 31 Tarnobrzeski -0.01 1.03 590 32 Białostocki -0.05 0.93 324 33 Łomżyński -0.03 0.90 192 34 Suwalski -0.17 0.87 141 35 Gdański 0.35 1.16 758 36 Słupski -0.04 0.79 314 37 Starogardzki -0.12 0.91 314 38 Bielski 0.05 0.65 407 39 Bytomski -0.29 1.00 189 40 Częstochowski -0.17 0.76 230 41 Gliwicki 0.22 0.97 246 42 Katowicki -0.02 1.10 418 43 Rybnicki 0.16 0.89 237 44 Sosnowiecki 0.10 0.84 392 45 Tyski 0.34 0.78 149 46 Kielecki -0.10 1.11 383 47 Sandomiersko-jędrzejowski -0.29 0.72 265 48 Elbląski -0.05 0.74 298 49 Ełcki -0.12 0.92 110 50 Olsztyński -0.18 0.98 373 51 Kaliski 0.04 0.96 509 52 Koniński 0.05 0.89 455 53 Leszczyński 0.01 0.92 329 54 Poznański 0.17 1.06 402 55 Pilski -0.13 0.78 129 56 Koszaliński -0.15 0.99 360 57 Stargardzki 0.03 0.91 192 58 Szczeciński 0.17 0.99 280 Pathologies (the higher the value. the more pathologies) Rank Subregion Average SD N 1 Jeleniogórski 0.06 0.88 374 2 Legnicko-głogowski 0.05 1.13 290 3 Wrocławski 0.10 1.04 276 4 Wałbrzyski 0.01 0.86 278 5 Grudziądzki -0.14 0.65 272 6 Bydgosko-toruński -0.07 0.91 402 7 Włocławski -0.10 0.77 494 8 Bialski -0.09 0.80 191 9 Puławski -0.13 0.80 286 10 Lubelski 0.03 0.98 364 11 Chełmsko-zamojski -0.17 0.60 424 12 Gorzowski 0.14 1.04 229 13 Zielonogórski 0.13 1.08 325 14 Łódzki -0.03 0.85 613 15 Piotrkowski 0.16 1.25 357 16 Sieradzki -0.14 1.04 204 17 Skierniewicki -0.08 0.75 217 18 Krakowski -0.11 1.01 856 19 Nowosądecki -0.27 0.62 432 20 Oświęcimski -0.12 0.65 272 21 Tarnowski -0.09 0.87 376 22 Ciechanowsko-płocki 0.01 1.02 408 23 Warszawski 0.13 1.20 1581 24 Ostrołęcko-siedlecki -0.13 0.90 601 25 Radomski -0.01 0.93 496 26 Nyski 0.04 1.05 289 27 Opolski 0.03 1.04 420 28 Krośnieński -0.04 1.07 394 29 Przemyski -0.22 0.59 225 30 Rzeszowski 0.00 0.95 281 31 Tarnobrzeski -0.02 0.92 650 32 Białostocki 0.17 1.14 336 33 Łomżyński -0.21 0.58 210 34 Suwalski -0.20 0.65 145 35 Gdański 0.23 1.18 809 36 Słupski -0.08 0.94 315 37 Starogardzki 0.20 1.30 323 38 Bielski 0.11 1.35 420 39 Bytomski 0.14 0.99 233 40 Częstochowski -0.09 0.81 261 41 Gliwicki -0.06 0.82 292 42 Katowicki 0.31 1.12 453 43 Rybnicki -0.03 0.87 268 44 Sosnowiecki 0.00 1.08 443 45 Tyski 0.11 1.12 194 46 Kielecki -0.04 0.96 404 47 Sandomiersko-jędrzejowski -0.07 0.82 289 48 Elbląski -0.17 0.80 304 49 Ełcki -0.09 0.74 109 50 Olsztyński -0.09 0.73 376 51 Kaliski -0.10 0.85 512 52 Koniński -0.09 0.81 526 53 Leszczyński 0.04 0.91 425 54 Poznański -0.07 0.93 557 55 Pilski -0.29 0.43 133 56 Koszaliński 0.41 1.93 377 57 Stargardzki 0.03 1.06 211 58 Szczeciński 0.12 0.99 319

Social Diagnosis 2015 525 Social capital Rank Subregion Average SD N 1 Jeleniogórski -0.01 0.95 372 2 Legnicko-głogowski 0.01 1.10 274 3 Wrocławski 0.15 1.04 273 4 Wałbrzyski -0.11 0.90 276 5 Grudziądzki -0.14 0.88 266 6 Bydgosko-toruński 0.02 1.18 397 7 Włocławski -0.14 0.88 478 8 Bialski -0.05 0.98 182 9 Puławski 0.02 0.93 270 10 Lubelski 0.18 1.12 346 11 Chełmsko-zamojski -0.13 0.88 411 12 Gorzowski -0.03 1.21 224 13 Zielonogórski -0.04 1.07 313 14 Łódzki -0.10 0.89 601 15 Piotrkowski 0.00 0.99 343 16 Sieradzki -0.14 0.92 192 17 Skierniewicki -0.23 0.94 212 18 Krakowski 0.14 1.05 819 19 Nowosądecki -0.21 0.81 428 20 Oświęcimski 0.05 1.06 270 21 Tarnowski 0.00 1.00 375 22 Ciechanowsko-płocki -0.08 0.83 393 23 Warszawski 0.21 1.12 1543 24 Ostrołęcko-siedlecki -0.04 0.89 585 25 Radomski -0.01 0.90 495 26 Nyski -0.27 0.89 284 27 Opolski 0.18 1.20 415 28 Krośnieński 0.24 1.16 395 29 Przemyski -0.20 0.90 225 30 Rzeszowski -0.06 1.06 278 31 Tarnobrzeski 0.07 1.01 638 32 Białostocki 0.00 0.91 336 33 Łomżyński -0.23 0.73 210 34 Suwalski -0.32 0.81 145 35 Gdański 0.18 1.08 809 36 Słupski -0.16 0.86 316 37 Starogardzki -0.14 0.92 323 38 Bielski 0.01 0.95 405 39 Bytomski 0.07 1.08 225 40 Częstochowski -0.02 1.01 254 41 Gliwicki 0.11 1.04 278 42 Katowicki 0.06 1.11 434 43 Rybnicki -0.05 0.99 262 44 Sosnowiecki -0.05 0.95 414 45 Tyski 0.08 1.00 188 46 Kielecki -0.08 0.91 393 47 Sandomiersko-jędrzejowski -0.01 0.85 282 48 Elbląski -0.08 0.70 298 49 Ełcki -0.06 0.93 107 50 Olsztyński -0.02 0.76 364 51 Kaliski -0.11 0.90 507 52 Koniński -0.16 0.90 499 53 Leszczyński 0.11 1.10 415 54 Poznański 0.21 1.23 529 55 Pilski -0.29 0.80 132 56 Koszaliński -0.24.86 377 57 Stargardzki 0.08 1.03 195 58 Szczeciński 0.02 1.00 315 Physical well-being Rank Subregion Average SD N 1 Jeleniogórski -0.08 1.02 369 2 Legnicko-głogowski -0.18 1.14 278 3 Wrocławski -0.03 0.83 268 4 Wałbrzyski -0.23 1.06 276 5 Grudziądzki 0.12 0.98 259 6 Bydgosko-toruński -0.12 1.11 388 7 Włocławski 0.06 0.95 488 8 Bialski 0.03 0.96 169 9 Puławski -0.12 1.03 268 10 Lubelski -0.08 0.99 344 11 Chełmsko-zamojski -0.10 1.13 381 12 Gorzowski -0.27 1.22 227 13 Zielonogórski -0.19 1.18 318 14 Łódzki 0.10 1.03 597 15 Piotrkowski -0.23 1.03 343 16 Sieradzki 0.07 0.79 201 17 Skierniewicki 0.06 0.86 212 18 Krakowski 0.11 0.98 832 19 Nowosądecki 0.12 0.96 429 20 Oświęcimski -0.03 0.98 262 21 Tarnowski -0.04 0.95 364 22 Ciechanowsko-płocki -0.02 1.07 398 23 Warszawski 0.01 1.00 1546 24 Ostrołęcko-siedlecki 0.12 0.99 588 25 Radomski -0.04 0.97 492 26 Nyski 0.08 0.92 281 27 Opolski -0.14 0.99 417 28 Krośnieński -0.18 1.06 367 29 Przemyski 0.10 0.95 226 30 Rzeszowski -0.03 0.95 267 31 Tarnobrzeski 0.03 0.95 641 32 Białostocki 0.03 1.02 335 33 Łomżyński -0.03 1.02 208 34 Suwalski 0.09 1.09 141 35 Gdański -0.10 1.06 791 36 Słupski 0.17 0.95 295 37 Starogardzki -0.04 1.07 317 38 Bielski 0.17 0.85 412 39 Bytomski 0.08 0.98 227 40 Częstochowski -0.09 1.05 259 41 Gliwicki 0.11 0.86 289 42 Katowicki -0.22 1.16 435 43 Rybnicki 0.03 0.81 260 44 Sosnowiecki 0.08 0.98 430 45 Tyski 0.06 0.91 191 46 Kielecki -0.08 1.09 401 47 Sandomiersko-jędrzejowski 0.03 0.93 280 48 Elbląski 0.32 0.88 305 49 Ełcki -0.01 1.09 108 50 Olsztyński 0.17 0.92 362 51 Kaliski -0.05 0.98 476 52 Koniński 0.05 0.96 499 53 Leszczyński -0.14 1.03 411 54 Poznański 0.20 0.80 532 55 Pilski -0.15 1.11 132 56 Koszaliński -0.05 1.04 376 57 Stargardzki 0.01 0.87 198 58 Szczeciński 0.19 0.78 315

Social Diagnosis 2015 526 Psychological well-being Life stress (the higher the value. the greater the stress) Rank Subregion Average SD N Rank Subregion Average SD N 1 Jeleniogórski 0.02 1.01 353 Słupski -0.53 0.78 307 2 Legnicko-głogowski -0.07 0.98 249 2 Elbląski -0.44 0.74 306 3 Wrocławski -0.11 0.96 256 3 Nowosądecki -0.37 0.86 426 4 Wałbrzyski -0.12 1.02 261 4 Pilski -0.27 0.98 131 5 Grudziądzki -0.04 0.90 259 5 Chełmsko-zamojski -0.26 0.97 407 6 Bydgosko-toruński 0.04 0.98 383 6 Ostrołęcko-siedlecki -0.24 0.90 589 7 Włocławski 0.01 0.93 464 7 Łódzki -0.23 0.92 581 8 Bialski -0.17 1.01 170 8 Włocławski -0.23 0.92 486 9 Puławski -0.18 1.04 268 9 Suwalski -0.19 0.82 145 10 Lubelski -0.12 0.98 32410 Koniński -0.17 0.95 502 11 Chełmsko-zamojski -0.13 0.90 38811 Bielski -0.16 0.94 414 12 Gorzowski -0.01 0.98 21112 Grudziądzki -0.15 0.89 270 13 Zielonogórski -0.09 1.09 30413 Kaliski -0.13 0.90 499 14 Łódzki -0.06 1.03 52914 Krakowski -0.11 0.91 849 15 Piotrkowski -0.21 1.01 33615 Łomżyński -0.09 0.91 209 16 Sieradzki -0.37 1.13 19216 Starogardzki -0.09 0.99 321 17 Skierniewicki 0.05 0.91 17817 Ciechanowsko-płocki -0.08 1.04 399 18 Krakowski 0.20 0.90 80818 Nyski -0.07 0.99 282 19 Nowosądecki 0.26 0.87 40219 Leszczyński -0.03 0.94 410 20 Oświęcimski 0.11 0.99 25220 Oświęcimski -0.02 0.92 268 21 Tarnowski -0.08 1.08 36721 Rybnicki -0.02 0.97 258 22 Ciechanowsko-płocki 0.03 1.04 35922 Sandomiersko-jędrzejowski -0.02 1.02 288 23 Warszawski 0.05 0.98 146523 Bydgosko-toruński -0.01 0.85 393 24 Ostrołęcko-siedlecki 0.04 0.99 55424 Katowicki -0.01 0.97 445 25 Radomski -0.12 1.01 48525 Stargardzki -0.01 1.19 200 26 Nyski 0.04 0.97 27226 Częstochowski 0.00 1.05 258 27 Opolski -0.12 0.91 39027 Tarnowski 0.00 1.04 377 28 Krośnieński -0.01 1.05 38228 Puławski 0.01 0.99 279 29 Przemyski -0.19 1.05 21229 Kielecki 0.03 1.04 395 30 Rzeszowski -0.03 0.97 27030 Sieradzki 0.03 1.08 201 31 Tarnobrzeski 0.02 1.05 60331 Gliwicki 0.04 0.94 284 32 Białostocki -0.20 1.07 32932 Wałbrzyski 0.04 0.94 276 33 Łomżyński -0.06 1.01 20633 Jeleniogórski 0.05 1.00 373 34 Suwalski -0.15 1.09 13934 Zielonogórski 0.05 0.96 303 35 Gdański 0.06 1.03 80135 Sosnowiecki 0.07 1.00 438 36 Słupski 0.27 0.94 31236 Skierniewicki 0.08 0.94 207 37 Starogardzki 0.01 0.93 32337 Radomski 0.09 1.05 496 38 Bielski 0.11 0.83 34838 Bialski 0.10 1.11 183 39 Bytomski 0.16 0.99 21139 Legnicko-głogowski 0.10 1.00 283 40 Częstochowski -0.19 1.13 25240 Poznański 0.11 0.96 533 41 Gliwicki 0.15 0.87 26641 Przemyski 0.11 1.15 224 42 Katowicki -0.11 1.04 42842 Białostocki 0.12 1.02 333 43 Rybnicki 0.13 0.79 25143 Bytomski 0.12 1.14 223 44 Sosnowiecki -0.06 1.03 42244 Gdański 0.12 1.02 809 45 Tyski 0.10 0.85 16345 Gorzowski 0.12 1.03 228 46 Kielecki -0.21 1.21 37646 Krośnieński 0.12 1.02 394 47 Sandomiersko-jędrzejowski -0.01 0.96 27047 Olsztyński 0.12 1.03 349 48 Elbląski 0.05 0.93 29148 Rzeszowski 0.13 1.09 278 49 Ełcki -0.30 1.15 9149 Tarnobrzeski 0.13 0.99 633 50 Olsztyński -0.02 1.16 32450 Szczeciński 0.14 0.93 312 51 Kaliski 0.22 0.87 43451 Koszaliński 0.16 1.07 372 52 Koniński 0.03 0.96 39452 Warszawski 0.16 1.01 1558 53 Leszczyński 0.06 0.97 40353 Opolski 0.19 1.14 405 54 Poznański 0.15 0.91 50854 Tyski 0.19 0.94 191 55 Pilski -0.02 0.97 9555 Ełcki 0.25 1.00 103 56 Koszaliński -0.18 1.25 36856 Piotrkowski 0.28 1.10 354 57 Stargardzki 0.16 1.06 20757 Wrocławski 0.30 1.15 265 58 Szczeciński 0.10 0.88 31458 Lubelski 0.38 1.07 340

Social Diagnosis 2015 527 5.4. Socio-demographic groups Civilisation level Rank Socio-demographic group Aver age SD N 1 Higher 0.85 0.59 5584 2 Private entrepreneurs 0.72 0.61 1036 3 Public sector employees 0.64 0.67 2850 4 Age: 25-34 0.60 0.66 4181 5 Unmarried couples without 0.60 0.82 374 6 School and university students 0.57 0.50 1313 7 Age: up to 24 0.50 0.54 2312 8 Towns with 500.000+ inhabitants. 0.49 0.88 2480 9 Age: 35-44 0.45 0.73 3865 10 Separated 0.43 0.86 320 11 Private sector employees 0.40 0.71 6315 12 Married couple with 2 0.39 0.78 3761 13 Single person 0.31 0.88 5443 14 Married couple with a child 0.27 0.87 4183 15 Town with 200.000-500.000 inhabitants 0.26 0.92 2052 16 Married couple with 3+ 0.24 0.79 2045 17 Secondary 0.20 0.73 6583 18 Unmarried couple with 0.19 0.82 333 19 Town with 100.000-200.000 inhabitants 0.18 0.93 1669 20 Man 0.10 0.93 10088 21 Husband/wife 0.07 0.93 12586 22 Town with 20.000-100.000 inhabitants 0.01 0.96 4225 23 Town with 20.000 inhabitants -0.01 0.98 2539 24 Age: 45-59 -0.04 0.87 5293 25 Multi-family without -0.06 1.01 150 26 Multi-family with -0.06 0.91 2560 27 Woman -0.09 1.05 11460 28 Unemployed -0.09 0.87 1206 29 Divorced -0.17 0.98 973 30 Occupationally passive -0.21 0.96 1647 31 Village -0.24 1.02 8577 32 Farmers -0.25 0.82 1143 33 Single-parent families -0.25 1.03 1929 34 Married couple without -0.29 1.05 3467 35 Multi-person -0.29 1.21 241 36 Vocational -0.32 0.76 6445 37 Age: 60-64 -0.43 0.92 1853 38 Single-person -0.66 1.15 2351 39 Retirees -0.79 0.93 1417 40 Pensioners -0.87 0.96 4578 41 Age: 65+ -1.08 0.93 4031 42 Widow(er) -1.17 0.88 2164 43 Primary and lower -1.39 0.76 2914 Social well-being Ran k Socio-demographic group Average SD N 1 Private entrepreneurs 0.29 1.21 675 2 Multi-family without 0.25 0.99 87 3 School and university students 0.24 1.11 726 4 Age: up to 24 0.20 1.10 1366 5 Married couple without 0.15 0.96 2478 6 Multi-family with 0.13 1.07 1784 7 Farmers 0.12 1.09 787 8 Towns with 500.000+ inhabitants. 0.10 1.14 1646 9 Higher and secondary 0.10 0.93 3612 10 Man 0.09 1.08 6757 11 Husband/wife 0.09 0.94 8762 12 Age: 25-34 0.08 0.94 2414 13 Married couple with 2 0.08 0.89 2510 14 Village 0.06 1.04 5970 15 Married couple with 1 child 0.06 0.98 2799 16 Married couple with 3+ 0.06 0.98 1397 17 Secondary 0.04 0.98 4506 18 Public sector employees 0.04 0.91 1949 19 Single person 0.04 1.08 3466 20 Age: 60-64 0.03 1.07 1396 21 Vocational 0.03 1.04 4406 22 Town with 200.000-500.000 inhabitants 0.02 0.90 1370 23 Pensioners 0.02 1.01 3452 24 Private sector employees 0.01 0.90 4145 25 Age: 35-44 -0.01 0.92 2657 26 Age: 65+ -0.01 1.05 3094 27 Towns with 100.000-200.000 inhabitants. -0.02 1.00 1058 28 Town with 20.000 inhabitants -0.02 0.92 1750 29 Age: 45-59 -0.03 0.98 3812 30 Woman -0.04 0.92 7983 31 Town with 20.000-100.000 inhabitants -0.04 0.92 2945 32 Occupationally passive -0.06 1.00 1111 33 Retirees -0.10 1.11 1075 34 Unmarried couple with -0.11 0.81 175 35 Unemployed -0.14 0.99 790 36 Primary and lower -0.15 1.05 2192 37 Separated -0.17 0.64 136 38 Widow(er) -0.18 1.05 1649 39 Unmarried couples without -0.20 0.66 161 40 Single-parent family -0.20 1.05 1386 41 single-person household -0.21 1.10 1746 42 multi-person -0.37 1.25 107 43 Divorced -0.38 0.99 678

Social Diagnosis 2015 528 Material well-being Ran Socio-demographic Average SD N k group 1 Private entrepreneurs 0.94 1.38 883 Higher and secondary 2 0.59 1.10 5013 Towns with 500.000+ 3 0.50 1.42 2240 inhabitants. 4 Public sector employees 0.43 0.97 2596 Married couple with 1 5 0.32 1.00 3919 child Unmarried couples 6 0.31 1.36 336 without 7 Age: 35-44 0.20 1.00 3557 Private sector 8 0.18 0.94 5782 employees Married couple with 2 9 0.17 0.88 3571 10 Husband/wife 0.17 0.95 11496 Married couple without 11 0.14 1.05 3229 12 Separated 0.13 1.35 302 13 Age: 25-34 0.12 0.94 3718 Town with 200.000-14 0.12 1.09 1970 500.000 inhabitants Multi-family without 15 0.11 0.68 141 16 Age: 45-59 0.09 1.09 4873 17 Secondary 0.08 0.88 6024 18 Town: 100k to 200k. 0.06 0.97 1614 School and university 19 0.06 0.97 1578 students 20 Man 0.05 1.01 9537 Multi-family 21 0.04 0.72 2246 with 22 Town: less than 20 k. 0.01 0.98 2415 23 Age: up to 24-0.03 0.94 2538 24 Town: 20k - 100k. -0.04 0.95 3940 25-0.04 0.85 2026 with 3+ 26 Woman -0.05 0.99 10784 27 Age: 60-64 -0.05 0.98 1742 Unmarried couple with 28-0.05 1.25 332 29 Single person -0.08 1.03 5440 30 Farmers -0.11 0.75 1043 31 Village -0.16 0.81 8142 32 Vocational -0.24 0.81 6368 33 Pensioners -0.25 0.88 4360 34 Occupationally inactive -0.36 0.94 1508 35 Divorced -0.36 1.04 931 36 Age: 65+ -0.38 0.89 3879 37 Single-parent families -0.47 0.86 1909 38 Retirees -0.48 0.82 1385 39 Unemployed -0.58 0.85 1141 40 single-person -0.60 1.07 2271 41 multi-person -0.61 0.97 212 42 Widow(er) -0.61 0.80 2090 Primary and lower 43-0.67 0.79 2878 Pathologies (the higher the value, the more pathologies) Ran Socio-demographic Average SD N k group 1 Age: 65+ -0.26 0.64 4105 2 Widow(er) -0.25 0.56 2203 3 Pensioners -0.22 0.66 4637 4 Woman -0.15 0.80 11782 5 Farmers -0.12 0.79 1150 School and university 6-0.10 1.07 1708 students without 7-0.10 0.86 3500 8 Village -0.09 0.85 8885 Primary and lower 9-0.06 0.94 3051 10-0.06 0.98 2185 with 3+ Multi-family 11-0.06 0.97 150 without 12 Husband/wife -0.06 0.83 12683 13 Public sector employees -0.04 0.93 2857 Multi-family 14-0.04 0.88 2615 with 15 Age: 60-64 -0.03 0.82 1866 16 Secondary -0.03 0.94 6646 17-0.02 1.08 3938 with 2 Higher and postsecondary 18-0.01 1.01 5609 19 Retirees -0.01 0.91 1451 20 0.00 0.94 4265 with 1 child 21 Town: 20k - 100k. 0.01 1.07 4297 22 Town: less than 20 k. 0.01 0.99 2621 23 Age: up to 24 0.02 1.24 2748 24 single-person 0.02 1.00 2374 25 Age: 45-59 0.04 0.89 5322 26 Age: 35-44 0.06 0.96 3892 27 Vocational 0.06 1.07 6801 Towns with 500.000+ 28 0.10 1.16 2520 inhabitants. Private sector 29 0.11 1.04 6365 employees 30 Single-parent families 0.11 1.07 1999 31 Town: 100k to 200k. 0.12 1.12 1721 32 Age: 25-34 0.14 1.27 4196 33 Town: 200k-500k 0.14 1.09 2096 34 Occupationally inactive 0.14 1.34 1677 35 Man 0.17 1.17 10363 36 Private entrepreneurs 0.17 1.14 1039 37 Single person 0.17 1.32 5897 38 Divorced 0.25 1.14 975 39 Unemployed 0.28 1.29 1212 Unmarried couple with 40 0.28 1.13 346 41 Separated 0.33 1.26 320 42 multi-person 0.46 1.62 239 Unmarried couples 43 0.55 1.51 375 without

Social Diagnosis 2015 529 Social capital Rank Socio-demographic group Average SD N 1 Public sector employees 0.46 1.22 2779 2 Higher and postsecondary 0.43 1.20 5480 3 Private entrepreneurs 0.31 1.12 1013 4 Towns with 500.000+ inhabitants. 0.23 1.15 2453 5 Age: 35-44 0.15 1.05 3793 6 Farmers 0.11 0.97 1117 7 Husband/wife 0.11 1.02 12368 8 Age: 45-59 0.10 1.02 5198 9 without 0.10 1.04 3421 10 Age: 60-64 0.09 1.06 1816 11 with 2 0.09 1.03 3846 12 Town: 200k-500k. 0.07 1.08 2071 13 with 1 child 0.07 1.01 4164 14 Multi-family without 0.05 1.02 146 15 Town: 100k to 200k. 0.04 1.02 1688 16 Secondary 0.04 0.97 6494 17 Man 0.03 1.04 10113 18 Divorced 0.00 1.07 952 19 Woman -0.03 0.97 11494 20 Town: 20k - 100k. -0.03 1.01 4176 21 Town: less than 20 k. -0.03 0.98 2567 22 Pensioners -0.04 1.00 4537 23 with 3+ -0.04 1.00 2125 24 Private sector employees -0.05 0.90 6218 25 Age: 25-34 -0.06 0.95 4086 26 Village -0.06 0.92 8647 27 Multi-family with -0.08 0.88 2541 28 single-person -0.09 1.01 2328 29 Unmarried couples without -0.10 0.89 373 30 Age: 65+ -0.12 0.96 4021 31 School and university students -0.13 0.98 1669 32 Single person -0.14 0.96 5771 33 Single-parent families -0.16 0.94 1935 34 multi-person -0.17 0.91 235 35 Separated -0.17 0.87 312 36 Age: up to 24-0.21 0.92 2680 37 Vocational -0.22 0.82 6623 38 Occupationally inactive -0.22 0.83 1629 39 Widow(er) -0.22 0.87 2138 40 Unmarried couple with -0.23 0.99 342 41 Unemployed -0.24 0.83 1187 42 Retirees -0.25 0.84 1411 43 Primary and lower -0.39 0.68 2973 Physical well-being Rank Socio-demographic group Average SD N 1 School and university students 0.58 0.57 1673 2 Age: up to 24 0.54 0.60 2692 3 Age: 25-34 0.43 0.70 4111 4 Single person 0.37 0.81 5781 5 Private sector employees 0.32 0.70 6225 6 with 2 0.28 0.78 3832 7 with 3+ 0.27 0.83 2119 8 Age: 35-44 0.26 0.75 3777 9 Unmarried couple with 0.26 0.78 331 10 Public sector employees 0.25 0.74 2779 11 Private entrepreneurs 0.25 0.79 1001 12 Unmarried couples without 0.23 0.77 358 13 Separated 0.23 0.82 306 14 Higher and postsecondary employees 0.22 0.83 5488 15 Farmers 0.21 0.69 1115 16 Unemployed 0.15 0.94 1182 17 with 1 child 0.10 0.92 4158 18 Multi-family with 0.10 0.89 2531 19 multi-person 0.10 0.99 239 20 Man 0.09 0.98 10104 21 Village 0.06 0.95 8626 22 Secondary 0.05 0.99 6453 23 Towns with 500.000+ inhabitants. 0.04 0.98 2444 24 Vocational 0.01 0.99 6599 25 Occupationally inactive 0.00 0.99 1622 26 Town: less than 20 k. -0.01 1.00 2559 27 Husband/wife -0.02 0.95 12294 28 Multi-family without -0.05 1.07 146 29 Town: 200k-500k. -0.07 1.05 2032 30 Woman -0.08 1.01 11394 31 Town: 100k to 200k. -0.08 1.03 1661 32 Town: 20k - 100k. -0.08 1.06 4171 33 Single-parent families -0.08 1.08 1954 34 Age: 45-59 -0.11 0.97 5150 35 Divorced -0.33 1.17 945 36 without -0.34 1.07 3387 37 Age: 60-64 -0.39 1.10 1811 38 single-person -0.52 1.23 2288 39 Primary and lower -0.56 1.13 2924 40 Pensioners -0.57 1.08 4459 41 Widow(er) -0.74 1.16 2117 42 Age: 65+ -0.75 1.12 3942 43 Retirees -1.28 1.23 1400

Social Diagnosis 2015 530 Psychological well-being Rank Socio-demographic group Average SD N 1 School and university students 0.54 0.82 1534 2 Age: up to 24 0.46 0.82 2502 3 Age: 25-34 0.37 0.86 3872 4 Private entrepreneurs 0.35 0.79 968 5 Higher and postsecondary 0.32 0.81 5274 6 Private sector employees 0.28 0.82 5928 7 with 2 0.28 0.88 3603 8 Unmarried couples without 0.26 0.96 359 9 Public sector employees 0.24 0.79 2644 10 with 3+ 0.24 0.90 1969 11 Age: 35-44 0.20 0.86 3655 12 Single person 0.19 1.01 5402 13 with 1 child 0.18 0.88 3938 14 Separated 0.16 0.98 303 15 Multi-family with 0.12 0.94 2417 16 Husband/wife 0.11 0.87 11735 17 Towns with 500.000+ inhabitants. 0.10 0.96 2337 18 Man 0.08 0.98 9587 19 Secondary 0.08 0.92 6196 20 Farmers 0.08 0.88 1038 21 Town: less than 20 k. 0.05 1.00 2382 22 Unmarried couple with 0.05 0.99 324 23 Multi-family without 0.05 0.96 144 24 Town: 100k to 200k. 0.04 0.93 1637 25 Village 0.00 0.99 8131 26 Town: 200k-500k. -0.04 1.02 2021 27 Vocationally inactive -0.05 1.02 6226 28 without -0.06 0.86 3253 29 Woman -0.07 1.01 10905 30 Town: 20k - 100k. -0.09 1.05 3978 31 Age: 45-59 -0.10.97 4908 32 Occupationally inactive -0.16 1.13 1565 33 Age: 60-64 -0.30 1.05 1739 34 multi-person -0.36 1.24 225 35 Unemployed -0.37 1.15 1117 36 Pensioners -0.46.99 4299 37 Single-parent families -0.46 1.14 1855 38 Age: 65+ -0.61 1.01 3801 39 single-person -0.64 1.14 2261 40 Retirees -0.67 1.13 1356 41 Primary and lower -0.68 1.12 2761 42 Divorced -0.70 1.18 935 43 Widow(er) -0.86 1.05 2053 Life stress (the higher the value, the greater the stress) Rank Socio-demographic group Average SD N 1 School and university -0.71 0.54 1602 students 2 Age: 65+ -0.55 0.63 4030 3 Widow(er) -0.54 0.67 2170 4 Age: up to 24-0.50 0.69 2612 5 Pensioners -0.50 0.67 4549-0.47 0.64 2335 6 single-person 7 Single person -0.32 0.75 5728 8 Primary and lower -0.29 0.90 2985 9 Retirees -0.26 0.85 1428 10 multi-person -0.20 0.76 240 11 without -0.16 0.86 3416 12 Multi-family -0.14 0.96 149 without 13 Age: 60-64 -0.13 0.90 1829 14 Unmarried couples -0.13 0.79 370 without 15 Single-parent families -0.12 0.86 1954 16 Village -0.08 0.98 8693 17 Woman -0.03 0.99 11500 18 Town: less than 20 k. -0.02 0.98 2560 19 Occupationally -0.02 0.94 1625 inactive 20 Vocational 0.00 1.01 6641 21 Divorced 0.01 0.94 952 22 Town: 20k - 100k. 0.02 1.01 4201 23 Secondary 0.03 1.01 6475 24 Man 0.04 1.01 10164 25 Age: 25-34 0.05 0.95 4125 26 Town: 100k to 200k. 0.07 1.06 1683 27 Multi-family 0.08 1.06 2567 with 28 Towns with 500k+ 0.11 1.00 2447 inhabitants. 29 Town: 200k-500k. 0.12 1.01 2075 30 Higher and postsecondary 0.12 1.00 5528 31 0.15 1.05 4171 with 1 child 32 0.15 1.11 2115 with 3+ 33 Unemployed 0.17 1.00 1184 34 0.19 1.10 3852 with 2 35 Separated 0.20 0.93 313 36 Husband/wife 0.24 1.07 12436 37 Private sector 0.30 1.03 6268 employees 38 Public sector 0.31 1.05 2816 employees 39 Farmers 0.34 1.02 1121 40 Age: 45-59 0.36 1.08 5211 41 Unmarried couple 0.37 1.03 338 with 42 Age: 35-44 0.43 1.05 3841 43 Private entrepreneurs 0.48 1.12 1025

Social Diagnosis 2015 531 5.5. Professional groups of occupationally active persons Civilisation level Rank Professional group Average SD N 1 Academic teachers 1.38 0.44 97 2 Creators, artists, writers, journalists 1.19 0.63 84 3 Doctors, vets, dentists 1.14 0.42 95 4 Other specialists 1.09 0.39 126 5 Lawyers 1.06 0.53 74 6 Marketing specialists 1.05 0.35 188 7 Financial specialists 1.03 0.44 180 8 IT specialists and similar professions 1.03 0.32 191 9 Engineers, architects, designers and similar 1.02 0.31 339 10 Authorities and directors 0.99 0.55 89 11 Administration and management specialists 0.97 0.35 217 12 Primary school teachers 0.96 0.40 331 13 Secondary school teachers 0.92 0.44 204 14 Managers of various specialities 0.91 0.44 505 15 Sales and business agents and brokers 0.85 0.37 228 16 Other health care specialists 0.80 0.52 202 17 Public officers 0.78 0.40 189 18 Middle-level financial specialists 0.77 0.46 288 19 Professional soldiers 0.66 0.45 53 20 Office support 0.64 0.53 558 21 Waiters, bartenders and stewards 0.63 0.40 76 22 Other middle-level staff 0.62 0.58 132 23 Technicians 0.59 0.55 181 24 Nurses and midwives 0.48 0.57 151 25 Hairdressers, beauticians 0.46 0.47 74 26 Accounting and transport specialists 0.43 0.56 232 27 Electricians and electronic technicians 0.41 0.60 176 28 Salespersons 0.38 0.57 920 29 Mechanics 0.30 0.58 219 30 Mining equipment operators 0.30 0.61 81 31 Passenger and delivery vehicle drivers 0.30 0.56 191 32 Truck and bus drivers 0.29 0.58 230 33 Personal assistance employees 0.27 0.77 75 34 Steelworkers 0.27 0.63 58 35 Machine operators 0.27 0.68 301 36 Construction workers - finishing 0.23 0.65 297 37 Blacksmiths and toolmakers 0.20 0.65 209 38 Railwaymen 0.19 0.65 49 39 Fitters 0.15 0.67 128 40 Moulders, welders 0.14 0.67 138 41 Security services employees (firefighters, policemen and similar) 0.13 0.77 183 42 Other personal services personnel 0.12 0.68 65 43 Wood processing workers, papermakers, carpenters 0.12 0.66 176 44 Painters and similar 0.07 0.73 67 45 Textile production workers 0.02 0.71 174 46 Food processing industry employees -0.01 0.60 212 47 Cooks -0.04 0.60 89 48 Construction workers - raw state -0.07 0.71 276 49 Labourers in mining and construction -0.11 0.82 122 50 Plant production farmers -0.13 0.81 295 51 Simple works employees -0.16 0.79 389 52 Workers not classified otherwise -0.26 0.83 121 53 Plant and animal production farmers -0.30 0.85 896 54 Domestic help and cleaners -0.42 0.76 316 55 Farmers producing for their own needs -0.73 0.88 112

Social Diagnosis 2015 532 Social well-being Rank Professional group Average SD N 1 Authorities and directors 0.41 0.70 89 2 Professional soldiers 0.39 0.97 54 3 Academic teachers 0.32 0.96 94 4 Doctors, vets, dentists 0.29 0.68 94 5 Sales and business agents and brokers 0.29 0.78 227 6 Passenger and delivery vehicle drivers 0.29 0.86 187 7 IT specialists and similar professions 0.27 0.69 184 8 Other specialists 0.26 0.86 127 9 Hairdressers, beauticians 0.22 0.64 75 10 Creators, artists, writers, journalists 0.20 0.84 82 11 Accounting and transport specialists 0.19 0.67 225 12 Construction workers - raw state 0.19 0.89 275 13 Railwaymen 0.19 0.64 48 14 Machine operators 0.18 0.94 286 15 Engineers, architects, designers and similar 0.17 0.99 331 16 Moulders, welders 0.17 0.82 137 17 Electricians and electronic technicians 0.17 0.64 174 18 Food processing industry employees 0.16 0.92 210 19 Wood processing workers, papermakers, carpenters 0.16 0.79 167 20 Primary school teachers 0.14 0.81 322 21 Truck and bus drivers 0.14 0.82 228 22 Managers of various specialities 0.13 0.88 486 23 Mechanics 0.13 1.03 216 24 Mining equipment operators 0.12 1.05 79 25 Construction workers - finishing 0.10 1.09 292 26 Other personal services personnel 0.09 0.88 64 27 Farmers producing for their own needs 0.09 1.05 111 28 Marketing specialists 0.08 0.92 190 29 Lawyers 0.07 0.91 74 30 Plant production farmers 0.06 1.13 285 31 Plant and animal production farmers 0.04 1.00 871 32 Workers not classified otherwise 0.04 1.18 121 33 Nurses and midwives 0.03 0.78 146 34 Blacksmiths and toolmakers 0.03 0.96 203 35 Steelworkers 0.02 1.13 56 36 Financial specialists 0.01 0.93 180 37 Painters and similar 0.01 1.19 67 38 Other middle-level staff 0.00 1.05 127 39 Office support 0.00 0.86 536 40 Other health care specialists -0.01 0.81 203 41 Cooks -0.01 0.80 88 42 Personal assistance employees -0.01 0.85 72 43 Fitters -0.01 0.99 128 44 Administration and management specialists -0.02 1.04 206 45 Salespersons -0.02 0.96 904 46 Secondary school teachers -0.03 0.89 193 47 Public officers -0.03 1.03 184 48 Waiters, bartenders and stewards -0.03 0.75 77 49 Textile production workers -0.03 1.06 176 50 Technicians -0.04 0.85 179 51 Security services employees (firefighters, policemen and similar) -0.07 1.00 188 52 Simple works employees -0.08 1.00 386 53 Middle-level financial specialists -0.11.88 285 54 Domestic help and cleaners -0.12 1.08 307 55 Labourers in mining and construction -0.21 1.20 115

Social Diagnosis 2015 533 Material well-being Rank Professional group Average SD N 1 Authorities and directors 1.98 1.78 77 2 Doctors, vets, dentists 1.98 2.16 77 3 Lawyers 1.17 1.61 67 4 Academic teachers 1.11 1.33 74 5 Creators, artists, writers, journalists 1.05 0.97 74 6 Managers of various specialities 1.03 1.19 435 7 Marketing specialists 0.97 1.11 177 8 Other specialists 0.87 0.87 120 9 Financial specialists 0.85 1.75 149 10 Sales and business agents and brokers 0.84 1.26 188 11 Engineers, architects, designers and similar 0.83 1.04 316 12 IT specialists and similar professions 0.70 1.05 176 13 Administration and management specialists 0.67 0.93 196 14 Primary school teachers 0.56 0.86 299 15 Secondary school teachers 0.55 1.01 196 16 Middle-level financial specialists 0.54 0.84 250 17 Public officers 0.52 0.77 172 18 Other health care specialists 0.39 0.78 176 19 Hairdressers, beauticians 0.35 0.61 73 20 Nurses and midwives 0.34 0.82 140 21 Office support 0.34 0.92 481 22 Passenger and delivery vehicle drivers 0.34 0.92 180 23 Truck and bus drivers 0.28 0.71 217 24 Other personal services personnel 0.24 0.92 61 25 Accounting and transport specialists 0.23 0.62 217 26 Professional soldiers 0.22 0.65 49 27 Technicians 0.22 0.98 143 28 Steelworkers 0.22 0.71 49 29 Mining equipment operators 0.20 0.69 77 30 Moulders, welders 0.19 0.81 129 31 Electricians and electronic technicians 0.19 0.80 164 32 Railwaymen 0.15 0.63 48 33 Machine operators 0.14 0.78 272 34 Cooks 0.10 0.85 80 35 Salespersons 0.09 0.77 847 36 Other middle-level staff 0.07 0.81 118 37 Mechanics 0.05 0.66 203 38 Wood processing workers, papermakers, carpenters 0.04 0.61 165 39 Plant production farmers 0.00 0.80 260 40 Construction workers - finishing 0.00 0.75 265 41 Security services employees (firefighters, policemen and similar) -0.01 0.90 175 42 Blacksmiths and toolmakers -0.01 0.83 194 43 Personal assistance employees -0.02 0.87 69 44 Fitters -0.05 0.76 115 45 Waiters, bartenders and stewards -0.08 0.64 69 46 Painters and similar -0.12 0.84 68 47 Workers not classified otherwise -0.14 1.01 112 48 Textile production workers -0.15 0.69 170 49 Plant and animal production farmers -0.16 0.72 817 50 Farmers producing for their own needs -0.18 0.78 110 51 Construction workers - raw state -0.20 0.79 249 52 Food processing industry employees -0.21 0.80 204 53 Simple works employees -0.29 0.84 373 54 Domestic help and cleaners -0.30 0.87 297 55 Labourers in mining and construction -0.35 0.75 112

Social Diagnosis 2015 534 Pathologies (the higher the value, the more pathologies) Rank Professional group Average SD N 1 Nurses and midwives -0.26 0.56 153 2 Personal assistance employees -0.23 0.61 76 3 Hairdressers, beauticians -0.21 0.66 75 4 Plant and animal production farmers -0.16 0.68 903 5 Textile production workers -0.13 0.65 177 6 Other specialists -0.11 0.93 127 7 Middle-level financial specialists -0.11 0.76 289 8 Professional soldiers -0.10 0.97 55 9 Farmers producing for their own needs -0.10 1.09 115 10 Office support -0.09 0.89 557 11 Cooks -0.09 0.74 89 12 Waiters, bartenders and stewards -0.08 0.77 77 13 Primary school teachers -0.07 1.04 334 14 Lawyers -0.07 1.10 74 15 Railwaymen -0.07 0.77 49 16 Secondary school teachers -0.03 0.89 203 17 Domestic help and cleaners -0.02 0.75 317 18 Financial specialists -0.01 1.39 179 19 Food processing industry employees -0.01 0.71 212 20 Plant production farmers 0.00 0.94 294 21 Fitters 0.01 0.67 128 22 Technicians 0.02 0.97 182 23 Salespersons 0.02 1.04 930 24 Academic teachers 0.03 1.06 97 25 Passenger and delivery vehicle drivers 0.04 0.93 192 26 Sales and business agents and brokers 0.05 0.95 232 27 Public officers 0.05 0.84 189 28 Managers of various specialities 0.06 0.99 506 29 Other personal services personnel 0.07 0.92 64 30 Administration and management specialists 0.08 1.30 217 31 Other middle-level staff 0.08 1.13 133 32 Accounting and transport specialists 0.10 1.02 237 33 Moulders, welders 0.10 0.96 139 34 Engineers, architects, designers and similar 0.13 1.12 340 35 Mechanics 0.13 0.91 222 36 Truck and bus drivers 0.13 1.01 230 37 Other health care specialists 0.14 1.10 203 38 Electricians and electronic technicians 0.14 1.02 181 39 Wood processing workers, papermakers, carpenters 0.14 1.04 176 40 Doctors, vets, dentists 0.15 1.16 95 41 Marketing specialists 0.15 1.07 191 42 Blacksmiths and toolmakers 0.15 1.02 212 43 Simple works employees 0.15 1.12 396 44 Steelworkers 0.18 1.00 58 45 IT specialists and similar professions 0.21 1.27 191 46 Authorities and directors 0.22 0.88 89 47 Construction workers - raw state 0.22 1.00 280 48 Security services employees (firefighters, policemen and 0.26 1.03 185 similar) 49 Construction workers - finishing 0.26 1.18 296 50 Painters and similar 0.27 0.98 67 51 Machine operators 0.27 1.08 301 52 Workers not classified otherwise 0.34 1.13 123 53 Mining equipment operators 0.37 1.15 81 54 Labourers in mining and construction 0.46 0.99 122 55 Creators, artists, writers, journalists 0.98 2.04 84