A society in which more people experience a higher quality of life—essentially, a greater wellbeing—is an important policy goal. This ambition is increasingly recognised across Europe, as reflected, for example, in the European Commission’s Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas (European Commission 2021), which places wellbeing, fairness and quality of life at the centre of rural development through to 2040. Yet the drivers of wellbeing remain complex, going well beyond traditional measures such as GDP. This report (Deliverable D4.4 - GRANULAR project) contributes to the evidence base by exploring how subjective wellbeing (SWB) varies across rural and urban contexts in Europe. It builds on new opportunities afforded by large-scale, high-quality survey data and their geographical linkages. Using three major datasets—the European Social Survey (ESS), the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS/Understanding Society), and the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)—we examine how settlement type, socio-ecological context, and environmental exposures shape different dimensions of wellbeing. The analysis proceeds in four main steps: Systematic review (Chapter 2): Across the literature, a consistent but nuanced rural subjective wellbeing advantage emerges, particularly for evaluative life satisfaction measures. However, results vary strongly depending on how “rural” and “urban” are defined. Respondent-based definitions (e.g., “farm/countryside”) yield clearer rural advantages than administrative or density-based definitions. Wellbeing dimensions (Chapter 3): Rural life is associated with higher social wellbeing and mental resources (e.g., resilience, optimism), while advantages in life satisfaction and affective wellbeing often diminish once individual and country characteristics are controlled for. Differences also vary by welfare state grouping: Nordic, Central European, Mediterranean and Eastern European settlement types each show distinct wellbeing profiles. Neighbourhood and context effects (Chapter 4): Rurality remains positively linked to life satisfaction, but the effect weakens once neighbourhood characteristics are included. Area deprivation has a consistently negative impact in all settings. Contextual influences, such as access to health services and environmental quality, explain some—but not all—of the observed rural advantage in life satisfaction. Environmental exposures (Chapter 5): A case study of onshore wind turbines in Germany illustrates the complexity of local environmental impacts. Fixed-effects models suggest that proximity has a negative effect on physical health-related quality of life (as measured by the SF-12). At the same time, quasi-experimental designs reveal that larger turbines can be associated with improved physical wellbeing—likely reflecting community benefits. However, turbine density undermines mental wellbeing, highlighting the importance of careful siting and engagement strategies. Policy implications: - Acknowledge the heterogeneity of rural experiences by recognising that rural living influences different dimensions of wellbeing in diverse ways across contexts and populations. - Move beyond simplistic rural–urban binaries by adopting more nuanced, fine-grained definitions of place. - Mitigate contextual risks, including socioeconomic deprivation, limited-service provision, and cumulative environmental pressures. - Embed wellbeing considerations into rural policy frameworks, ensuring that initiatives—such as renewable energy deployment and other forms of development—are responsive to residents’ lived experiences and perceptions. Taken together, the analysis demonstrates that subjective wellbeing offers a valuable perspective for understanding rural–urban differences. By integrating conceptual, empirical, and methodological insights, the report identifies both opportunities and challenges in advancing wellbeing in rural Europe, thereby providing evidence in support of the European Commission’s aim to foster thriving, resilient, and inclusive rural areas by 2040.