Please let me know if the following references/sites are useful to you:\

1.  The Price of Happiness in Cities - CityLab

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/06/the-price-of-happiness-in-cities/487823/Jun 27, 2016 ...

This leads the authors to conclude that size and density—what they call ... Of course, there are certain aspects of city life—crowds, traffic, noise, ...

2.  The Great Urban-Rural Happiness Debate - CityLab

https://www.citylab.com/design/2011/10/urban-rural-happiness-debate/290/Oct 13, 2011 ...

Some numbers say small-town folk are happier than city folk, but the ... "Urbanism as a Way of Life," [PDF] which cites "the relative absence of ...

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Thank you,  Dennis, for the useful references you've shared with me. 

Dear Selman,

I know of no literature that addresses the topic you raise. See, for this respect, Dennis Mazur's answer. To be honest, I must confess that your considerations do not make much sense to me as a psychologist. As you say, it is more than natural that people who llive in small towns take more care of one another than those who live in medium-size and big cities. However, there is accumlated evidence that shows that to take care of others generally leads us to feel  happy and satisfied  Everyday life also shows that this is the case.Thus, instead of what you say --  "Compared to those from small and big cities, people who live in medium-size cities tend to be the happiest and most satisfied with their life", I would rather say that, compared to those from médium-size and big cities, people who live in samll towns tend to be the happiest and most satisfied with their life. Note that there is a lot of evidence that shows that if we need help, we get it more easily when bystanders are only a few, not many, This is called the psychological phenomenon of responsibility diffusion. In your considerations you speak about too much care about one another's life. As I see it, however much we are concerned with others' well-being we may say that such concern is never too a much concern.

It can be the case that you think that I and being a little rude.If this is the case, I didn't intend it. In orther words, instead of being politically correct, I prefered to be honest in intellectual terms.

I hole tis helps.

Best regards,

Orlando

Orlando, thank you for your explanations and thoughts about this research area you have shared with me. I have found an interesting article on this topic: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tesg.12205/abstract

I am not sure of the answer, but I can recommend a resource that might help you figure out an answer: try the General Social Survey, online at "GSS Berkeley."  It has at least one measure of overall, self-reported happiness, and I believe it has some measures you could use as the independent variable.  It also has responses from 55,000 people, collected over the last 45 years.

The first link: Table 4

The second link: Table 1

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/43062/10902_2004_article_1278.pdf?sequence=1

Article The moderating effects of occupation, age, and urbanization ...

The study showed that areas of suburban sprawl with about 18 homes per hectare – such as poorly designed neighbourhoods near motorways, where driving is the only option – had the greatest rates of obesity and lowest rates of exercise.

Sign up for the Cityscape: the best of Guardian Cities every week

Read more

Suburban areas with few homes – often privileged communities with big gardens and open spaces – were healthier than this but lagged behind the most densely populated areas in inner cities.

Walking made the biggest difference, said Sarkar, and social interaction and physical activity thrived best in compact communities.

The study compared more than 400,000 residents of cities – including London, Glasgow, and Cardiff – and found the best health came in areas with more than 32 homes per hectare, the average density for new building in Britain.

This level, typical of developments of standalone semi-detached suburban houses, is less than a quarter of the density of Georgian terraces of London’s desirable Islington and Notting Hill neighbourhoods.

Sarkar called into question British policies – such as laws to restrict suburban houses from dividing their plots and filling in more homes in gardens – which have sought to preserve suburbia’s open and emptier spaces.

In January the government announced it would build 17 new towns and villages across the countryside in a bid to ease a chronic housing shortage. But Sarkar said policy makers should think again before building on green fields.

The pursuit of happiness: could a ‘happy city index’ end Bristol’s blues?

Read more

Despite spiralling house prices and government targets to build a million homes by 2020, Britain’s restrictive planning system has prevented high-density, urban development due to fears that it would lead to high-rise, low-quality blocks of flats, according to a government paper released in February.

London remains one of Europe’s most sparsely populated major cities, with less than half the density of Madrid, Barcelona and Paris, and below the level of Milan, Berlin and Rome.

Advertisement

The paper urged local authorities to reverse their long-standing opposition to built-up residential areas by highlighting London’s mansion blocks and terraced streets, all of which encourage a strong sense of neighbourhood.

On Wednesday the prime minister, Theresa May, said the government would lend £2bn (US$2.6bn) to local government authorities to build 25,000 homes for rental in the social housing sector, which desperately needs new properties.

The government will invest a further £10bn in a scheme that aims to boost home ownership by helping people buy a new-build home with only a small deposit.