The Effect of Ageing, Gender and Environmental Problems in Subjective Well-Being

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper provides results of modelling life satisfaction indicators for 33 European countries. A large number of explanatory variables is included. Depending on how indicator is constructed, the regressions are estimated either as logit models, or standard linear regression models. The OLS method is used for estimating linear regression models.

I have following comments concerning econometric methodology.

1. The issue of possible endogeneity is neglected. As far as I know, in this type of literature it is discussed whether some of the explanatory variables are in fact influenced by subjective well-being.  If this is the case, the instrumental variable estimation should be employed. This issue deserves additional investigation.
2. Results in Table 3 are invalid, because relevant explanatory variables that appear in Table 1 are excluded. They should be kept as control variables. Otherwise, models in Table 3 are misspecified. On Page 6 it is written that all models contain same set of control variables, but it is not clear if this applies for models reported in Table 3.
3. No diagnostic tests have been provided for estimated models. Only R2 is given for the linear regression models. At least tests for heteroskedasticity and the presence of specification error should be added within OLS models, and McFadden R2 within logit models.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for your input, we have taken it into account in all the changes we have made to the article. We hope to have corrected all the suggestions and recommendations you had indicated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Recommendation to manuscript are highlithen in attached file.

I recommend also to evaluate and present results by using method of gradient analysis, provide more figures and scheme of mehtodological approach.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for the indications in the review. We hope that the corrections made will be in line with them. We have modified quite a lot of the article. We have also revised the English language and style.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear all,

the work is interesting; nevertheless, in my opinion, I m not 100% sure it falls under the journal main scope. 

Yet, my recommendations for this manuscript improvement are:

• the materials and methods section should contain a methodologycal scheme to easily follow the used methods
• the discussion section should have more references of similar researches to foster the thematic discussion
• the conclusion should be a separate section
• the study limitations and future research lines should be emphatized

best,

Author Response

Thank you very much for the indications given in the revision. We hope that the corrections made will be in line with these. We have modified quite a lot of the article, taking into account your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

English proofreading required, some sentences incomplete or too long. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf