summary #4

A vision for human well-being: transition to social sustainability Deborah S Rogers1,2, Anantha K Duraiappah1, Daniela Christina Antons3, Pablo Munoz1, Xuemei Bai4, Michail Fragkias5 and Heinz Gutscher6

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

The world is experiencing urgent and interconnected problems

on many social as well as environmental fronts. Resource

shortages, demographic realities, and planetary boundaries

prevent us from growing our way out of these problems. A

redirection towards sustainability and well-being may be the

most viable option for further development. Sustainability must

be defined to include meeting human physical, emotional and

social needs. Equity considerations are primary in order to have

the resources to reduce poverty and increase well-being in

developing countries. Well-being is multidimensional and

context-specific, and must be approached in a way that

preserves cultural diversity and societal autonomy while

meeting universal human needs. We must go beyond GDP,

measuring the various objective and subjective components of

well-being to monitor our progress.

Addresses 1 International Human Dimensions Programme, United Nations

University, Hermann-Ehlers-Str. 10, 53113 Bonn, Germany 2 Initiative for Equality, PO Box 1137, Rapid City, South Dakota 57709,

USA 3 Institut de hautes études internationales et du développement, Rue de

Lausanne 132, 1211 Geneva 21, Switzerland 4 Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National

University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia 5 IHDP Urbanization and Global Environmental Change (UGEC) Project,

Global Institute for Sustainability, Arizona State University, PO Box

875402, Tempe, AZ 85287-5402, USA 6 Social Psychology Division, University of Zurich, Binzmuehlestrasse

14/Box 15, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland

Corresponding author: Rogers, Deborah S

([email protected])

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

This review comes from the Open issue

Edited by Rik Leemans

Available online 17th February 2012

1877-3435/$ – see front matter

Published by Elsevier B.V.

DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.013

The world is experiencing urgent and interconnected problems on many social as well as environmental fronts The confluence of food, energy, economic and security

crises, compounded by increasing global population, cli-

mate change, and natural disasters, spell an impending

global breaking point. Many of these crises are intercon-

nected: a solution for one problem might exacerbate

www.sciencedirect.com

another problem. For example, the demand for bio-fuels

to counteract the rising cost of fossil fuels was a key factor

in increasing food prices [1]. Similarly, the present policy

of encouraging consumption to bolster economic growth

results in increasing demand for natural resources, which

in turn imposes more pressure on planetary boundaries

[2].

As planetary boundaries are crossed, social tipping points

may be reached as well. Rapid urbanization in many

developing countries has put enormous strain on the

infrastructure within cities as well as on the supporting

ecological systems. Meanwhile, over three billion people

now live on less than $2.50 a day [3]. While the percentage

of people in extreme poverty (less than $1 per day)

decreased from 40% to 21% between 1981 and 2001,

absolute numbers actually increased from 2.4 billion to

2.7 billion [4 ��

]. Moreover, the statistical gains are driven

by high levels of economic growth in China and India, but

for many other parts of the world (e.g. Europe and Central

Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Sub-Saharan

Africa), extreme poverty rates stagnated or even wor-

sened over this period [4 ��

]. Some 1.6 billion people still

live without electricity, while 1.1 billion have inadequate

access to water and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation [5].

Inequalities in socioeconomic status are increasing shar-

ply within and between societies [4 ��

,6,7]. Since 1960,

income inequality has risen in 48 of 78 countries studied

(and fallen in only 9) [8], while per capita income of the

richest 20 countries has gone from 54 times to 121 times

that of the poorest 20 countries [9]. The richest 10% of

adults now account for 85% of the world’s wealth while

the bottom 50% of the world adult population own barely

1% of global wealth [10].

Demographic trends, including rapid population growth

in some countries and aging populations in others, have

led many households, communities and countries deeper

into poverty [4 ��

]. Population growth diverts household

resources from savings to consumption, and makes gov-

ernment investment in education more difficult. Both

high fertility and aging populations produce steeper age

dependency ratios, indicating a high proportion of young

(or old) relative to those in the working-age group.

Greater dependence in turn puts pressure on the earnings

of the workforce, perpetuating poverty even among those

who are employed. Internal and international migration

forced by population increases are strongly linked to

poverty as well: sending communities become poorer,

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

62 Open issue

as they lose their most economically active members,

while migrants in receiving communities are likely to be

poorly integrated and vulnerable to poverty [11–13]. On a global scale, population trends pose a huge challenge to

sustainable development because there are no longer vast

stores of fertile land and accessible natural resources to

fuel such development.

Meanwhile, many are living with the threat or reality of

violence. According to the Geneva Declaration in 2008,

more than 740,000 people die each year as a result of

conflict-related and homicidal violence [14]. In 2009,

nearly 43.3 million people worldwide were forcibly dis-

placed due to conflict and persecution (United Nations

High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Online

Population Database; URL: http://data.worldbank.org/

news/43mil-people-worldwide-displaced-in-2009).

There is a growing privatization of security and violence,

include the increasing availability of small arms to the

public, the expansion of private security arrangements,

and the increased involvement of mercenaries in armed

conflict [15]. According to the United Nations Survey of

Crime Trends, the number of reported criminal incidents

increased from 2300 in 1980 to more than 3000 per

100,000 people in 2000 [16]. Homicide rates range from

under 3 per 100,000 inhabitants in the EU to 25 per

100,000 inhabitants in Latin America and the Caribbean.

It is estimated that between 12 and 27 million people are

trapped in forced labor or slavery today, with somewhere

from 600,000 to 4 million people trafficked across borders

each year [17–19]. International trade in human beings as a commodity is believed to generate up to USD 10 billion

per year, an amount exceeded only by the proceeds of the

illegal trade in drugs and arms [20,21]. Women and girls

represent about 80% of all trafficked persons [22], ranking

among the three top sources of income for organized

crime [23,24]. UNICEF estimates that 1.2 million chil-

dren are trafficked each year, usually for domestic labor or

sexual exploitation [25].

Mental illness may be considered a primary indicator of

diminished well-being [26]. (The topic of physical health

is the subject of another paper in this series, and thus is

not discussed here.) The World Health Organization

(WHO) World Mental Health Survey shows a large

variation in the prevalence of mental diseases worldwide,

affecting from 6% to 27% of individuals in countries

surveyed [27]. The highest prevalence of anxiety, mood

and impulse-control disorders are to be found in the

United States [27]. Depression-related disorders are the

third largest cause of combined death and disability in

the world now, and are projected to become the primary

cause by 2030 [26]. A meta-analysis of data provided by

the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

(MMPI) found a steady decline in the mental health of

American college students between 1938 and 2007, and of

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

high-school students between 1951 and 2002 [28]. World-

wide, suicide accounts for over million deaths — a

majority of intentionally caused deaths — each year [4 ��

].

Economic globalization and the proliferation of commer-

cial media and advertising has led to a spread of con-

sumerist values encouraging excessive use of energy and

material resources [4 ��

,29]. The wealthiest 20% of the

world’s population account for 86% of total private con-

sumption expenditures, and the poorest 20% account for

only 1.3% [30]. If everyone in the world adopted a

Western mode of consumption, five or six more planets

would be necessary for resources and waste disposal [29].

Ironically, studies show that consumerist values are one

causal factor in the high prevalence of unhappiness and

mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety, narcissism,

substance abuse, insecurity, poor interpersonal relation-

ships, low or contingent sense of self-esteem, and for the

tendency to ignore emotionally satisfying behaviors such

as social engagement and affiliation [31,32 ��

,33].

The compounded social, economic and political circum-

stances reflect what may well be characterized as social

breakdown. Economic changes throughout the world

have forced young working adults away from family

and local community in search of jobs, resulting in the

loss of community social structure and relationships,

value systems, and cultural practices [34]. New material

aspirations spread by the globalized economy and visual

images of Western lifestyles have replaced traditional

values and social relationships. Poverty and unemploy-

ment has forced many into precarious situations where

they fall prey to traffickers or slave-like working con-

ditions, often outside their home country. A variety of

social ills, including crime, domestic violence, prostitu-

tion, and the spread of HIV-AIDS, are linked to these

phenomena [35,36].

Meanwhile, the environment on which individuals and

communities are dependent for sustenance is increasingly

degraded. Water, air and soil pollution, hazardous wastes,

and loss of biodiversity, fertile farmland, clean water

supplies, and natural areas all contribute to a reduced

quality of life and worsened future prospects. Climate

change threatens to reduce water supplies and agricul-

tural production still further, while increasing frequency

of severe storms, droughts and floods adds more risk to

daily life.

It will not be possible to ‘grow our way out’ of these

problems. Even as the overall economy grows, worsening

inequality leads to greater numbers of people who are less

well-off, either in relative or absolute terms. Researchers

have found that well-being and life satisfaction is sub-

jectively experienced as a shrinking gap between aspira-

tions and actual achievements [37]; thus growth may

contribute to perceptions of reduced well-being if it

www.sciencedirect.com

A vision for human well-being Rogers et al. 63

increases aspirations without satisfying them. Further-

more, economic growth does not necessarily translate into

expenditures that increase the well-being of members of a

society [38]. Instead of spending on public health, edu-

cation, infrastructure and other essential components of

good lives and functioning communities, such wealth may

simply be used to increase the luxuries available to a few.

As resources (clean water, timber, farmland, oil reserves,

and others) become less abundant, continued growth in

their utilization is no longer an option. Finally, the

negative impacts to the biosphere of ever-increasing

production, consumption, and waste disposal, including

greenhouse gases, generate significant risks to human-

kind as well as to biodiversity and the environment.

For all these reasons, we need a smarter approach to

development and well-being: one that addresses the

underlying issues and root causes of inadequate human

well-being, and solves these problems within the context

of environmental limits. This will require a new focus,

fundamental societal transitions, and new metrics to

monitor our progress.

In order to move towards sustainability, we must address social as well as environmental issues What is social sustainability? While environmental sus-

tainability examines living within the limits of the natural

world, likewise, social sustainability emphasizes living in

ways that can be sustained because they are healthy and

satisfying for people and communities. This requires

providing for material, social and emotional needs, avoid-

ing behaviors that result in poor health, emotional distress

and conflict, and ensuring that we do not destroy the

social structures (such as families and communities),

cultural values, knowledge systems and human diversity

that contribute to a vibrant and thriving human com-

munity. In other words, social sustainability means meet-

ing the needs for human well-being. In order to

implement the various innovations that will transform

societies in the direction of environmental sustainability,

it is necessary to have well-functioning societies — from a

social, political and economic standpoint — that can meet

the new challenges successfully.

The cause-and-effect links between human well-being

and the environment goes both ways — see Figure 1. Key

components of human well-being are dependent on well-

functioning ecosystems and the biosphere. For example,

well-being requires clean water, fertile soil, ample food,

and adequate resources for construction and energy.

Well-being is also dependent on ecosystem services such

as pollination of crops, flood control, water filtration and

climate regulation, as well as being enhanced by the

peace of mind and sense of meaning and identity that

comes with having access to natural areas, outdoor recrea-

tion, play spaces for children, wildlife and natural beauty.

www.sciencedirect.com

Conversely, maintaining a healthy environment and mak-

ing the transition to environmental sustainability requires

human societies that function well. Healthy, happy indi-

viduals with a strong sense of place, identity and hope for

the future are more likely to make protection of their

environment a priority [39]. Good governance and

empowerment of local communities are essential to

enable legal and political protection of the environment

[40–44]. Economic resources are necessary in order to implement best environmental practices, to motivate

environmental protection, and to avoid the desperate

struggle for existence that often destroys all available

natural resources. History has shown that social, economic

and political breakdown generally lead to environmental

abuses, thus perpetuating an ever-less-sustainable way of

life [45,46].

In fact, the primary social and economic change required

to move towards environmental sustainability — altering

priorities, especially in the developed world, away from

ever-increasing material consumption and towards more

rewarding human relationships — may also be the

change that will do most to increase human well-being

[26,32 ��

].

Green Economy?

In order to meet the challenges of transitioning to social

and environmental sustainability, some have suggested

that we develop a ‘Green Economy.’ This will not

necessarily support well-being: it depends on how ‘Green

Economy’ is defined. It has been variously defined as a

shift to Green technology & materials [47,48], incorpor-

ating new economic accounting and incentives [49–51], moving from carbon-intensive technologies to labor-

intensive work [48,52], degrowth in developed countries

and a changed emphasis from goods to services

[53,54 ��

,55], or ‘improved human well-being and social

equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks

and ecological scarcities’ [56].

To the extent that Green Economy simply represents a

green technology version of business as usual, it will not

be adequate to create the social transformations necessary

to ensure well-being and sustainability. In a true Green

Economy, all relevant stakeholders such as government,

civil society and business must also address the under-

lying socioeconomic drivers of change, understand the

planetary boundaries, and embrace the key instrumental

freedoms that must be provided for all individuals. Indi-

viduals might be seen as self-organizing systems inter-

acting with other self-organizing systems including other

individuals and species all driven by their own interests

and preservation. These fundamental system interests, or

basic orientors, have emerged in response to general

environmental properties and are therefore identical

across self-organizing systems: existence, effectiveness,

freedom of action, security, adaptability, coexistence [57].

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

64 Open issue

Figure 1

Cultura l inf

lue nc

es

WELL-BEING & SUSTAINABILITY

Maintaining a healthy environment, and transitioning toward sustainability requires human societies that function well. Social, economic and political breakdown only perpetuate environmental abuses

Good governance and community empowerment are essential for the legal and political environmental protection

Healthy, happy individuals with a strong sense of place, identity and hope are more likely to make a healthy environment a priority

Nature, wild areas, natural beauty Diversity of plant and animal life Oceans and fisheries Fertile soil Rain, streams, lakes, and groundwater Energy resources Clean air Weather & climate

SUPPORTING SERVICES

Primary production, nutrient cycling, photosynthesis, soil creation

PROVISIONING SERVICES

Food, timber, fiber, fuel, genetic resources, pharmaceuticals, fresh water

CULTURAL SERVICES

Aesthetic values, spiritual values, sense of place, cultural heritage, knowledge systems, recreation

REGULATING SERVICES

Regulation of water, air quality, climate, erosion, disease, pest, and natural hazards

EMOTIONAL AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING

Political voice and agency Social relationships Work & leisure Education Health Economic security

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Key components of human well-being are dependent on the biosphere and ecosystems functioning well.

PHYSICAL WELL-BEING

Material living standards Health Physical security Stable ecosystems

HUMAN WELL-BEING

HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS

Economic resources are required for environmental best practices, motivate its protection, and prevent the struggle for existence that depletes available natural resources

High PrioritizationEconomic Resources

Good Governance

Goods and M

ate ria

ls

Stable nat ura

l p ro

ce

ss es

S us

ta in

ab

le

U se

a nd

P ro

te ct

io n

N u trient,

W a ter and

E n e rgy C

ycling

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Links between well-being and the environment. The cause-and-effect relationships between human well-being and a healthy environment go both

directions.

The new approach must therefore acknowledge these

basic orientors, and not just incorporate technological

change within a standard neoliberal market system. In

order to monitor progress towards sustainability and

increased well-being, governments working closely with

scientists must also develop new metrics that go beyond

income and material wealth.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

What about the contradiction between the growth needed

for development, and the limitations of the environment?

The old paradigm tells us that we must have growth in

order to increase well-being, which in turn conflicts with

protection of the environment. The evidence and argu-

ments articulated in the paragraphs above suggest

that well-being (not consumerism), sustainability (not

www.sciencedirect.com

A vision for human well-being Rogers et al. 65

growth), and environment are mutually reinforcing. Thus

reduced growth does not necessarily represent the prior-

itization of the environment over human well-being.

Reduced or negative growth must be carefully defined

to contribute to a growth in well-being at the same time

that it advocates a strategic reduction in consumption by

only those who can afford to do so. This would require

close cooperation among governments, civil society and

businesses, working together with the common goal of

improving the well-being of individuals (see section on

comprehensive well-being, below) and societies through-

out the world. It will definitely require compromises by

most parties to the negotiations, but with the understand-

ing that there are benefits for all in the long run.

Equity is an essential part of the transition to sustainability Socioeconomic inequality is not just an ethical issue:

research shows that it also is a factor in many of the

problems of the world. A positive association between

lower socioeconomic status and higher mortality has been

well documented in contemporary populations [58–67]. Inequality may promote conflict within and between

ethnic groups, classes and societies [4 ��

,68–74], and drive international immigration [75–77]. It appears to raise prevalence of poor health, mental illness, crime, violence,

and other societal ills [4 ��

,58,78 ��

,79]. Inequality reduces

cultural diversity through the disempowerment of local

minority communities [80]. It may inhibit economic

growth in developing countries [81], reduce sustainability

[82–85], promote corruption [86], and play a role in destabilizing economies [87].

Inequality is at the root of unsustainable behaviors,

enabling overconsumption by making it socially accep-

table for some to have far more than others, and providing

incentives for overconsumption by tying consumption to

social status [78 ��

]. Since available resources are not

increasing, the only way to have sustainable development

among the have-nots is to ensure a more equitable global

distribution of wealth and resources. There is no con-

sensus among social scientists as to how to reach this goal.

Potential measures include: (i) progressive taxation; (ii)

redistribution of land and wealth; (iii) reduction of

unnecessary consumption in the developed world

through consumption taxes on non-essentials; (iv) a pub-

lic relations program highlighting the social and individ-

ual benefits of delinking materialism with social status

and instead promoting sustainable behavior with social

status; and (v) the return of control over economic and

natural resources to local nations and communities in the

developing world through nationalizing resources and

industries.

Finally, inequality erodes trust and blocks cooperative

solutions to urgent social, economic and political problems

[83,88–90]. It is not possible to successfully negotiate the

www.sciencedirect.com

kinds of collaborative agreements and arrangements

needed to solve the problems of the world unless the

various societies perceive that they all share common

interests, and that it is in their interest to form these

collaborations. This is especially true if people are asked

to sacrifice for the sake of sustainability — they will not be

willing to do this if they feel that others will not make an

equivalent sacrifice. This phenomenon has already been

witnessed as delegates to global multilateral negotiations

have failed to reach agreements, or have even walked out,

due to the different perspectives and agendas of the haves

and the have-nots [91]. In short, the dimension of equality

must be addressed before humankind can successfully

negotiate and implement the essential changes needed

for a transformation to sustainability.

Well-being is multidimensional and context- specific, not ‘one-size-fits-all’ There is no disagreement that improving human well-

being is a worthy objective. The dilemma arises when we

have to define what we mean by well-being.

Objective well-being (OWB)

Objective measures such as the Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) per capita and the Human Development Index

(HDI) provide metrics that can be compared across

individuals and used to evaluate progress over time.

The most common measure used by governments,

business, and society at large to measure as a direct

measure of well-being is GDP per capita. However, even

if we assume GDP per capita is a good proxy for well-

being, it is an average measure and therefore ignores the

asymmetrical distribution of wealth in a country. More-

over, the marginal return to well-being on each extra unit

of material wealth gained falls after a certain limit. Recent

studies show that monetary wealth provides improvement

of well-being, up to a level of US $10000 PPP (Purchasing

Power Parity) [92], after which many other factors enter

into the equation.

What is well-being, then, if not material wealth? Most

academics, practitioners and policymakers will agree that

the basic constituents of objective well-being include

food, housing, clean water, health, education, and

personal security. Sen was one of the most influential

pioneers in developing the concept of well-being as it

relates to development [93–95,96 ��

]. He concluded that

well-being is highly subjective and person-specific, and

thus policies should focus on making well-being possible by providing the freedoms and capabilities that allow

each person to achieve what will contribute to his or

her own well-being. Different theories have emerged

that shed light on various aspects of well-being, including

the basic human values approach, the intermediate needs

approach, the universal psychological needs approach, the

axiological categories approach, the domains of subjective

well-being approach, and the central human capabilities

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

66 Open issue

Figure 2

Material Living

Standards

Education

Human Well-being

Health

Work & Leisure

Agency & Political Voice

Social Relationships

Stable Ecosystems

Physical & Economic

Security

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Well-being as a multidimensional concept. There are many components

to well-being, both objective (e.g. material wealth and physical health)

and subjective (such as quality of social relationships or feelings of

happiness).

approach [96 ��

]. The development community takes a

broad perspective, including factors such as literacy and

mortality (e.g. the HDI). As Clark states, from an original

focus on income and utility, there is now widespread

agreement that well-being is a multi-dimensional concept

(see Figure 2) that embraces all aspects of human life

[96 ��

].

Subjective well-being (SWB)

Subjective measures such as a happiness index offer

insight into the social and emotional state of individuals

in varying circumstances, but are difficult to interpret and

compare across individuals. Recently, there has been

resurgence of using a happiness index for evaluating

well-being [97]. Peiro notes that it is important to dis-

tinguish between happiness (the emotional or affective

component) and satisfaction (the cognitive component) in

quantifying subjective well-being [98]. Research on hap-

piness has found that happiness is not always closely

associated with income or other objective indicators of

well-being such as physical health [99,100]. The role of

social and emotional constituents such as self-esteem,

identity, equity, and social relations has also been shown

to affect the happiness and health of individuals. Dolan

summarizes these findings, which include physical and

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

mental health; exercise; marriage or stable intimate

relationship; employment or lack thereof; good personal

relationships and time spent socializing; involvement in

religious activities; social trust in most other people;

degree of democracy; and safety of the area in which

one lives [100]. Other elements of human well-being have

been identified as healthy ecosystems [38]; security

[38,96 ��

], and ‘a caring society that will assist individuals

who suffer from catastrophic illnesses or indigent old age’

[38].

Equality in social relations also matters to people. Gra-

ham and Felton’s study of Latin American countries finds

that inequality matters more to well-being than do

absolute income gains, for those at the bottom of the

distribution [101]. The unemployed are less unhappy in

districts with high overall unemployment rates, which

appear to reduce social stigma. In Germany, inequality

aversion appeared to negatively affect life satisfaction, an

impact which government taxation and redistribution did

not alleviate [102]. Ballas found that unemployment in

Great Britain was less painful when others around were

also unemployed [103]. Hagarty reviewed data from eight

countries, finding a strong correlation between reduced

income inequality and subjective well-being (self-

reported happiness), apparently due to social comparisons

in which happiness is decreased when others around you

seem to be doing better than yourself [104].

Comprehensive well-being (CWB)

How do ordinary people explain well-being and happi-

ness, if asked? Clark presents the results of two surveys of

people in a rural South African village and urban township

[105]. The people interviewed indicated a concern with

(1) the practical side of survival and development in poor

countries — that is to say the need for education to

improve practical skills, the need for a safe working

environment, job security, reasonable working hours

and effective legal protection, emotional and economic

support from family and kin, as well as hygienic living

conditions and physical security; (2) the psychology of

human well-being, that is, mental functioning, pleasure,

joy, avoiding stress and frustration, self-confidence and

status; and (3) some of the ‘better things’ in life such as

recreation, time for sleep and rest, leisure, and being with

family and friends.

The elements which contribute to comprehensive well-

being, shown in Box 1, are universal in concept but

context-specific in implementation. The natural environ-

ment, as can be seen in Figure 1, provides many of the

important elements of well-being, both physical and

emotional as well as social. Cultural values and personal

circumstances also affect what leads to happiness. Thus

the elements of well-being will vary from person to

person, place to place, and culture to culture. This high-

lights the importance of Sen’s essential freedoms and

www.sciencedirect.com

A vision for human well-being Rogers et al. 67

Box 1 Elements of comprehensive well-being. Human needs

that must be met include the physical as well as the emotional

or social. Both are necessary to well-being.

Physical well-being

nutritious food

clean water

adequate shelter

health (protection from disease, provision of elements needed for

good health, health care & birth control)

security (protection from inflicted physical harm, crime, conflict,

and disasters)

material goods needed for decent life

energy source (solar, wind, water, animal, fuel)

work or means of earning a living

exercise, relaxation and rest

Emotional and social well-being

strong families

strong community and social interactions

social equality with others (non-discrimination)

ability to trust others

identity, autonomy, and self-determination

freedom to move about and choose job, home, and social

relationships

political voice and empowerment

education, knowledge

fulfillment and creative outlet

time and space for recreation

connection with nature and beauty

belief system and sense of meaning

hope for the future

capabilities [93–95,96 ��

], which allow individuals and

communities to put into place the elements of well-being

in ways which work for their lives and environments.

The Wellbeing in Developing Countries research group at the University of Bath launched an in-depth study of the

constituents of well-being in the developing world, con-

ducting extensive interviews and analyses in Peru,

Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Thailand in the first decade of

the new millennium [106–109]. The research group found that the components of well-being generally fall into three

categories: material concerns (income, wealth, jobs,

physical health, and environmental quality), relational

concerns (family and friends, support networks, laws and

politics, identity, inequalities), and subjective concerns

(values and beliefs, self-concept, religion, hopes, fears,

level of satisfaction with life). They concluded that

well-being must be thought of not as provided to or

www.sciencedirect.com

obtained by individuals, but as socially constructed and

constituted within the political and cultural context [110].

Several circumstances create major challenges to the

transition to socially sustainable societies in which com-

prehensive well-being is a priority.

Challenge 1: urbanization creates special opportunities

and challenges

Urbanization presents unique opportunities as well as

challenges for human well-being. On the one hand, urban-

ization is often associated with industrialization and

economic growth, and thus has the potential to enhance

human well-being. For example, recent study shows that

there is a positive feedback loop between landscape urban-

ization and economic growth in China [111]. In fact, the

level of urbanization shows high correlation with nations

income level [112]. One of the main drivers of urbanization

is the aspiration for a better life that cities represent,

including access to better education, more job opportu-

nities, and higher income. Yet rapid urbanization, especi-

ally in developing countries, can put enormous strain on the

infrastructure within cities as well as the social and eco-

logical systems. With more than half of world’s population

living in cities, the urban environment has become an

increasingly significant factor in the health and well-being

of population. [113,114]. In rapidly urbanizing Asia, cities

are often where the most acute health issues occur, due to a

poor level of service infrastructure, air, and water pollution

caused by industrial activity, and consumption and lifestyle

related issues [115]. The health impact of urban activities

reaches beyond urban boundary. Untreated urban residen-

tial and industrial sewage pollutes irrigation water, which

enters food system and causes serious health issues in Asian

countries [116]. How cities are planned and built affects the

well-being of its people, too. Sprawling cities tend to have

more overweight people than do compact, walkable cities

[117,118]. The presence of nature in cities fulfills the need

of humans to have contact with nature, and provides other

benefits from pollution removal to expedited recovery

from illness [119]. Despite the challenges, it is important

to recognize that cities do have the potential to move

towards sustainability pathways — especially given good

urban governance and other innovative practices [120,121].

Challenge 2: globalization spreads material

consumption as a primary goal

Globalization has the potential to greatly increase the well-

being of humanity by opening up the knowledge, oppor-

tunities, and problem-solving capabilities of the entire

world to all its nations and citizens. However, to experi-

ences globalization’s benefits, we need to be well aware of

its risks and address them head-on. Technological

advances and the rapid movement of goods and funds

make the world a much more integrated system, where

perturbations in one corner have significant impacts on

other parts of the world. The imposition of the neoliberal

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

68 Open issue

Box 2 Mechanisms of societal transition. Societies generally

undergo major change only in the presence of one or more of

these common drivers.

� exposure to new ideas (worldviews, beliefs, religion, values, information, understandings)

� exposure to new ways of learning (television, internet, film, books, arts, education, advertising)

� external control by others (political, military, economic, cultural)

� migration (emigrants learn from their new social environment, societies learn from incoming immigrants)

� socioeconomic shifts (new modes of subsistence, new economic systems, urbanization, globalization)

� environmental changes (absolute constraints on our activities, including depletion of resources, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem

services, altered ecological functioning, pollution, and changing

climate)

socioeconomic model and global competitive pressures

around the world has tended to restrict policy choices.

Social development objectives are perceived to be in

conflict with the country’s international competitiveness;

thus the prioritization of foreign direct investment and

export expansion policies in many developing countries

have led to a ‘race to the bottom’ as regards labor protec-

tion, anti-poverty programs and welfare subsidies [4 ��

].

These trends have led to worsening conditions of poverty

and inequality [4 ��

]. The intrusion of commercialized and

industrial culture, privatization, and neoliberal policies

threaten local cultures, traditional social arrangements

based on solidarity, and older agricultural practices that

are potentially sustainable [4 ��

,122]. Finally, accelerated

economic competition increases antagonisms between

societies and reduces the potential for constructive inter-

national cooperation. Much of this momentum comes from

a common belief that the global economic growth engine

and economic liberalization are the pancea for all of the

problems humanity faces.

Many acknowledge that the global economic system

needs management and intervention in times of trouble

and perturbations. Similarly, many now see the environ-

ment as an interconnected system which requires inte-

grated management and interventions [123,124].

However, imposing one social, economic, and governance

model on the world takes away our ability to choose from

different models, can destroy local economies, and tends

to introduce global competition and a ‘race to bottom’ for

workers. Local culture may be replaced with a commer-

cialized culture of mass media and advertising, promoting

excessive consumerism which in turn feeds resource

depletion, environmental degradation, and growing socio-

economic inequality. Globalization thus not only

promises great benefits but also poses a direct challenge

to increased well-being.

Challenge 3: economic markets do not facilitate

sustainability or equity

Markets by themselves are not structured or developed to

address environmental and social issues. Instead they

generate ever-increasing levels of wealth inequality and

generally fail to cover externalities such as environmental

costs of production and waste disposal. The market was

designed to address scarcity problems in the most effi-

cient manner when certain conditions are fulfilled: full

information, zero transaction costs and free entry and

exit — many of which are in fact impossible to achieve.

In the case of equity, the market was never designed to

address fair distribution of benefits. Political and govern-

ance failures, of course, must share in the blame [125].

Furthermore, vested economic and political interests

often do not want change.

Mechanisms such as government regulation could be

implemented to ensure the market does not generate

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

harmful environmental and social impacts. Markets

might be used to guide production and consumption

behavior through the pricing mechanism, but with strong

government regulations and support from relevant civil

societies to ensure harmful impacts to the poor are

mitigated. For example, the use of taxes and payments

for ecosystem services could internalize the environ-

mental externalities of economic activities [126,127],

but in addition redistribution payment schemes to trans-

fer the receipts from taxes to the poor should also be

designed in parallel. There is no doubt that addressing

inequity and other social impacts requires a strong role

by government in the provision of a number of key

instrumental freedoms, including social opportunities,

economic facilities, transparency guarantees, protective

security, deliberative participation and ecological surety.

If market regulation is not sufficient to generate a tran-

sition towards social and environmental sustainability,

then fundamental changes to the economic system will

be needed. This will require close cooperation between

Central Banks, the International financial institutions

such as the World Bank, and the International Monetary

Fund.

Challenge 4: cultural inertia slows the transition towards

sustainability

Major transformations are needed in order to move

societies in the direction of social and environmental

sustainability. But communities and societies are inher-

ently conservative, and do not change unless something

pushes them [128–132]. As described for the challenges above, there are forces of momentum and inertia that

keep society moving on its present trajectory despite the

fact that many see disaster looming. While there is no

shortcut to sustainability, there are several important

routes by which societies can undergo significant shifts

in direction, as shown in Box 2.

www.sciencedirect.com

A vision for human well-being Rogers et al. 69

In order to influence the process in the right direction, we

need to find leverage points whose influence can ripple

through the entire system. The most powerful and influ-

ential such leverage points include the economic system

(we can generate desired incentives for relevant behavior

with an economic system that does not drive growth,

overconsumption, and inequality), new ideas (we need a

paradigm shift in knowledge and values, away from

growth, competitiveness and personal gain, and towards

shared wealth, well-being and happiness), strong political

will and commitment, and the empowerment of people to

influence outcomes (increased social, economic and

political empowerment generate hopefulness and more

effective public action).

In short, we need to avoid a one-model-fits-all approach to

well-being. Instead, we must develop measures and incen-

tives in a participatory, bottom-up manner, reflecting the

diversity of cultures, environments and circumstances, and

the multidimensionality of the concept of well-being itself.

We need a systematic effort to monitor progress towards well-being and understand its drivers We have been measuring societal success on the basis of a

production indicator for more than half a century (if not

from the industrial revolution more than two centuries

ago). Given the variety of factors that determine the state

of people’s life, production (income) does not provide an

adequate basis for the measuring of well-being, [133].

Moreover, when measuring solely the economic dimen-

sion, the link between economic output and well-being

became even poorer above certain levels of income [134].

Today, there is a wide consensus in the literature that we

should go beyond GDP to measure well-being in a more

comprehensive way [135 ��

].

Taking into account the multiple constituents of well-

being (see Figure 2), it is difficult to know how to measure

genuine societal progress. While moving away from GDP

is accepted, the challenge became how to select the right

set of yardsticks to understand changes in the various

dimensions of well-being, as needed; see Stiglitz et al., 2009 for a review of measures of societal progress [135

�� ].

Nowadays, it seems to be that the economic dimension

leads a large part of our decisions and determines how we

spend our time, assuming that the more economic

resources we have, the happier we are; but this may be

simply an illusion [99]. The importance (weight) that

each nation assigns to the distinct dimensions of measur-

ing well-being should reflect how we define our ends, our

cultural and political priorities, and the current stage of

socioeconomic development.

In addition, the unavoidable interconnections between

societies lead us to reflect on possible trade-offs in well-

being in time and space. Improvements in one person’s

www.sciencedirect.com

well-being can cause deterioration in the well-being of

others. Today’s choices about lifestyle and consumption

could affect another generation’s well-being in the future.

Improved material conditions on one side of the world

may cause a decrease in well-being on the other side of

the planet. Some export-oriented firms in the South, for

example mining activities, provide wealth and materials

for Northern economies, yet negatively impact water

resources and health in local communities. It may be

important, therefore, to use national laws and inter-

national treaties to address ethics and global responsibil-

ities when shaping well-being policies, so as to achieve

both geographical and temporal breadth in well-being.

Finally, social, environmental and economic sustainabil-

ity criteria together with equity principles should be

included in a comprehensive well-being policy, since

these are important pillars for sustaining human well-

being over time. Thus, we need systematic efforts to keep

understanding the cause-and-effect relationships be-

tween various well-being components, and to continu-

ously adjust our well-being metrics to better reflect a

genuine societal progress.

We need a global focus on growth in well- being instead of consumption Scholarly research and thinking on well-being and its

connection to the environment, sustainability, growth,

and sustainable development can be summarized as fol-

lows. Moving towards social as well as environmental

sustainability will require a focus on well-being and

meeting human needs. To do this, we will need more

research to better understand the key drivers of well-

being: what do humans really need in order to live well,

both physically and emotionally, and to feel satisfied with

their lives? What kind of societal drivers are shaping and

influencing them?

To escape the dilemma of environment versus develop-

ment, we must prioritize and monitor growth of human

well-being rather than growth in material consumption,

while acknowledging that communities currently in pov-

erty will need additional consumption in order to do well.

Well-being ‘audits’ could be required for all development

projects, to ensure the appropriate goals are being met for

the community. World Bank, International Monetary

Fund and World Trade Organization policies and prac-

tices will need to be adjusted to promote widespread

increases in human well-being, broadly defined, rather

than economic growth for certain interests and sectors.

To provide the resources necessary for sustainable de-

velopment of the communities most in need, we must

ensure a more equitable global distribution of resources

and empowerment. This will require the ‘haves’ to give

up some of their material wealth, but not their well-being.

In the developed world, shifting the economic focus from

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

�

70 Open issue

throw-away goods, consumption, and individualism to

services, recycling, and social relationships would be

one way to reduce unneeded consumption and free up

resources while maintaining (or improving) life satisfac-

tion. Business plans and government policies would need

to be directed at steady-state rather than perpetual growth

economic models.

There are a host of conflicting recommendations for

achieving a transition to a more socially and environmen-

tally sustainable society that prioritizes well-being and

relationships instead of consumption and economic

growth. These recommendations include media cam-

paigns encouraging reduced consumerism and other

behavioral change; increased regulations and taxes on

unsustainable activities (with measures taken to ensure

the burden of any new taxes does not fall on the poor);

taxes to internalize the negative social and environmental

impacts of goods and services; multilateral negotiations to

more equitably allocate the burdens and benefits of

wealth, production, and pollution between nations;

national trust funds — funded by taxation on unsustain-

able economic activity — that can be used to fund the

provision of instrumental freedoms such as food, housing,

education and health care for all who need it; nationaliz-

ing resources and industries; and the radical restructuring

of economic systems.

Unlike the natural sciences, where there is general agree-

ment, for example, on the urgent need to reduce carbon

emissions, the social sciences research community has not

reached a consensus on these recommendations. How-

ever, social sciences research does make clear the need to

replace the consumer culture with something more sup-

portive of human social and emotional needs, diminish

inequalities within and between societies, and develop

economic and political policies and institutions that serve

human well-being in all its dimensions.

Implementing all of the above will require a significant

paradigm shift, away from conventional growth, competi-

tiveness and personal gain, and towards shared wealth,

well-being and happiness. Chambers argues that ‘the

biggest challenge for development. . . is to find more ways in which those with more wealth and power will not just

accept having less, but will welcome it as a means to well-

being, to a better quality of life’ [136]. In return for these

changes, communities and societies may experience bet-

ter social relationships and less conflict within and be-

tween societies. The material demands placed on the

environment can be reduced to a sustainable level. A

commitment to addressing human well-being in an

equitable way will make possible the kinds of joint

decision-making and collaborations needed to solve the

world’s problems. Best of all, once success and happiness

are no longer defined solely in terms of material wealth,

human happiness and well-being can continue to grow

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

without exceeding sustainability limits and planetary

boundaries.

Acknowledgements Authors would like to thank the members of the Planet Under Pressure Policy Briefs Committee and the International Human Dimensions Programme Science Committee for their guidance and feedback. Funding for this work was provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Förderkennzeichen IHD0810) and the United States National Science Foundation (BCS-0810837). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the funders or others acknowledged above.

References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

�� of outstanding interest

1. Mitchell D: A Note on Rising Food Prices. World Bank; 2008.

2. Rockström J: A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009, 461:472-475.

3. World Bank: World Development Indicators 2008. The World Bank; 2008.

4. �

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: United Nations Report on the World Social Situation, 2005: the Inequality Predicament. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; 2005.

This UN report gives a comprehensive overview on economic and social inequality around the world, and the various consequences to human well-being that eminate from these dramatic disparities.

5. United Nations Development Programme: Human Development Report. Oxford University Press; 2006.

6. Kenworthy L, Pontusson J: Rising inequality and the politics of redistribution in affluent countries. Perspect Politics 2005, 3:449-471.

7. Wade RH: The rising inequality of world income distribution. Financ Develop 2001, 38:567-589.

8. Source: GA, Cornia T, Addison S, Kiiski: Income distribution changes and their impact in the post-Second World War period. In Inequality, Growth and Poverty in the Era of Liberalization and Globalization. Edited by Cornia AG. Oxford University Press/United Nations University, World Institute for Economics Research; 2004.

9. Source, World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, A Fair Globalization: Creating Opportunities for All (Geneva, International Labour Organization, February 2004).

10. Davies JB, Sandström S, Shorrocks A, Wolff EN: The World Distributions of Household Wealth. UNU-WIDER; 2008.

11. Lipton M: Migration from rural areas of poor countries: the impact on rural productivity and income distribution. World Develop 1980, 8:1-24.

12. CICRED: Path to Development or Road to Nowhere: Poverty, Labour Migration and Environment Linkages in Developing Countries. CICRED; 2007.

13. Grant S: In International Migration and Human Rights. Edited by Policy Analysis and Research Programme. Global Commission on International Migration; 2005.

14. Geneva Declaration, Global Burden of Armed Violence Report. UNDP; 2008.

15. Boutwell J, Klare MT, Reed LW (Eds): The global trade in light weapons and the international system in the post-cold war era, in Lethal Commerce. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Committee on International Security Studies; 1995.

16. Shaw M, van Dijk J, Rhomberg W: Determining trends in global crime and justice: an overview of results. Forum Crime Soc 2003, 3:35-63.

www.sciencedirect.com

A vision for human well-being Rogers et al. 71

17. Bales K: Disposable People. New Slavery in the Global Economy. University of California Press; 2000.

18. International Labour Office: A Global Alliance Against Forced Labour: Global Report Under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work 2005. International Labour Office; 2005.

19. United Nations Population Fund: Trafficking in human misery. United Nations Population Fund; 2005.

20. United Nations Children’s Fund: State of the World’s Children, 2005: Childhood Under Threat. United Nations Children’s Fund; 2005.

21. United States State Department: Trafficking in Persons Report. United States Department of State; 2004.

22. US Congress: Human Trafficking: Recent Trends. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Terrorism. 2009.

23. Heyzer N: Combating trafficking in women and children: a gender and human rights framework. Plenary address at the in Conference on the Human Rights Challenge of Globalization: Asia-Pacific-US: The Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. 13–15 November 2002.

24. United Nations Development Programme: Human Development Report, 1999: Globalization with a Human Face. Oxford University Press; 1999.

25. United Nations Children’s Fund: Factsheet: Trafficking. United Nations Children’s Fund; 2004.

26. Eckersley R: The science and politics of population health: giving health a greater role in public policy. Webmed Central Public Health 2011, 2:WMC001697.

27. WHO World Mental Health Survey Consortium: Prevalence, severity, and unmet need for treatment of mental disorders in the world health organization world health surveys. JAMA 2004, 291:2581-2590.

28. Twenge JM, Gentile B, DeWall CN, Ma D, Lacefield K, Schurtz DR: Birth cohort increases in psychopathology among young Americans, 1938–2007: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the MMPI. Clin Psychol Rev 2010, 30:145-154.

29. Haque MS: The fate of sustainable development under neo- liberal regimes in developing countries. Int Political Sci Rev 1999, 20:197-218.

30. United Nations Development Programme: Human Development Report, 1998: Changing Today’s Consumption Patterns—for Tomorrow’s Human Development. Oxford University Press; 1998.

31. Aydin N: Subjective well-being and sustainable consumption. Int J Environ Cultural Econ Social Sustain 2010, 6:133-148.

32. ��

Eckersley R: Is modern Western culture a health hazard? Int J Epidemiol 2006, 35:252-258.

This article and others by Eckersley lay out the case that an individualistic and materialistic way of life, such as that in the wealthy, developed Western countries, has many harmful emotional and social effects on individuals and communities. Eckersley is a proponent of moving away from the ‘wealth as success’ model to a model that prioritizes human emotional and social well-being.

33. Kasser T, Ahuvia A: Materialistic values and well-being in business students. Eur J Social Psychol 2002, 32:137-146.

34. Bhugra D, Becker MA: Migration, cultural bereavement and cultural identity. World Psychiatry 2005, 4:18-24.

35. Monroe J: Women in street prostitution: the result of poverty and the brunt of inequity. J Poverty 2005, 9:69-88.

36. Krueger LE, Wood RW, Diehr PH, Maxwell CL: Poverty and HIV seropositivity: the poor are more likely to be infected. AIDS 1990, 4:811-814.

37. Stutzer A: The role of income aspirations in individual happiness. J Econ Behav Organ 2004, 54:89-109.

38. Goodwin NR: Macroeconomics for the 21st Century. Global Development and Environment Institute Working Paper 03-02. Global Development and Environment Institute; 2003.

www.sciencedirect.com

39. Geller ES: Actively caring for the environment — an integration of behaviorism and humanism. Environ Behav 1995, 27:184-195.

40. Rich RC, Edelstein M, Hallman WK, Wandersman AH: Citizen participation and empowerment: the case of local environmental hazards. Am J Commun Psychol 1995, 23:657-676.

41. Spyke NP: Public participation in environmental decision- making at the new millennium: structuring new spheres of public influence. Boston College Environ Affairs Law Rev 1999, 26:263-313.

42. Heiman M: Science by the people: grassroots environmental monitoring and the debate over scientific expertise. J Plan Educ Res 1997, 16:291-299.

43. Shepherd A, Bowler C: Beyond the requirements: improving public participation. J Environ Plan Manage 1997, 40:725-738.

44. Fiorino DJ: Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values 1990, 15:226-243.

45. Stonich SC: The dynamics of social processes and environmental destruction: a Central American case study. Popul Develop Rev 1989, 15:270.

46. Haughton G: Environmental justice and the sustainable city. J Plan Educ Res 1999, 18:233-243.

47. Hoffert MI, Caldeira K, Benford G, Criswell DR, Green C, Herzog H, Jain AK, Kheshgi HS, Lackner KS, Lewis JS et al.: Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: energy for a greenhouse planet. Science 2002, 298:981-987.

48. UNEP: Green Jobs, Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low- carbon World. UNEP; 2008.

49. Pearce D: Green economics. Environ Values 1992, 1:3-13.

50. Costanza R: Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. Columbia Univ. Press; 1991.

51. UNEP: Driving a Green Economy through Public Finance and Fiscal Policy Reform. UNEP; 2010.

52. Jones AV, Conrad A: Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems. HarperCollins Publishers; 2008.

53. Daly H: Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Beacon Press; 1996.

54. ��

Victor P: Managing without Growth — Slower by Design, Not Disaster. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2008.

Peter Victor makes the case that we can find ways for communities and nations in the developed world to do well in terms of meeting needs and improving life satisfaction while reducing economic growth.

55. Kallis G: In defence of degrowth. Ecol Econ 2011, 70:873-880.

56. UNEP: Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication — A Synthesis for Policy Makers. United Nations Environment Programme, 2011.

57. Bossel G: Policy assessment and simulation of actor orientation for sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2000, 34:337-355.

58. Marmot M: Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. World Health Organization; 2008:. 247pp..

59. Marmot M, Wilkinson RG: Social Determinants of Health. Oxford University Press; 2000.

60. Marmot MG, Kogevinas M, Elston MA: Social/economic status and disease. Annu Rev Public Health 1987, 8:11-135.

61. Kitagawa EM: Differential Mortality in the United States: A Study in Socioeconomic Epidemiology. Harvard University Press; 1973.

62. Pappas G, Queen S, Hadden W, Fisher G: The increasing disparity in mortality between socioeconomic groups in the United States, 1960 and 1986. N Eng J Med 1993, 329:103-109.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

72 Open issue

63. Moser KA, Pugh HS, Goldblatt PO: Inequalities in women’s health: looking at mortality differentials using an alternative approach. BMJ 1988, 296:1221-1224.

64. Lantz PM, Golberstein E, House JS, Morenoff J: Socioeconomic and behavioral risk factors for mortality in a national 19-year prospective study of US adults. Social Sci Med 2010, 70:1558-1566.

65. Lantz PM, House JS, Lepkowski JM, William DR, Mero RP, Chen J: Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality — results from a nationally representative prospective study of US adults. JAMA 1998, 279:1703-1708.

66. Lantz PM, House JS: Socioeconomic factors and determinants of mortality — Reply. JAMA 1998, 280: 1745–1745.

67. Lynch JW, Kaplan GA, Cohen RD, Tuomilehto J, Salonen JT: Do cardiovascular risk factors explain the relation between socioeconomic status, risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and acute myocardial infarction? Am J Epidemiol 1996, 144:934-942.

68. Lichbach MI: An evaluation of does economic-inequality breed political-conflict studies. World Politics 1989, 41:431-470.

69. Ember CR, Ember M, Russett B: Peace between participatory polities — a cross-cultural test of the democracies rarely fight each other hypothesis. World Politics 1992, 44:573-599.

70. Kolb MJ, Dixon B: Landscapes of war: rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai’i (and elsewhere). Am Antiquity 2002, 67:514-534.

71. Cramer C: Does inequality cause conflict? J Int Develop 2003, 15:397-412.

72. Peters PE: Inequality and social conflict over land in Africa. J Agrarian Change 2004, 4:269-314.

73. Besancon ML: Relative resources: inequality in ethnic wars, revolutions, and genocides. J Peace Res 2005, 42:393-415.

74. Younger SM: Conditions and mechanisms for peace in precontact polynesia. Curr Anthropol 2008, 49:927-934.

75. Liebig T, Sousa-Poza A: Migration, self-selection and income inequality: an international analysis. Kyklos 2004, 57:125-146.

76. Stark O: Inequality and migration: a behavioral link. Econ Lett 2006, 91:146-152.

77. Rogers DS, Deshpande O, Feldman MW: The spread of inequality. PLoS One 2011, 6:e24683 doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0024683.

78. ��

Wilkinson R, Pickett K: The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better. Penguin 2009:331.

Husband and wife team Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett lay out the data showing that socioeconomic inequality is associated with reduced human well-being on just about every front, including physical and mental health, teen pregnancies, school dropout rates, incarceration rates, crime and violence, lack of trust, and more. Their analysis is very accessible through a series of clear graphs showing inequality levels versus other social metrics for many countries in the developed world.

79. Marmot M: Status Syndrome: How Your Social Standing Directly Affects Your Health and Life Expectancy. Bloomsbury Publishing; 2004:. 320pp..

80. Benhabib S: The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton University Press; 2002:. 216pp..

81. Easterly W: The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. MIT Press; 2002:. 356pp..

82. Dasgupta P: An Inquiry into Well-Being and Destitution. Clarendon Press; 1993:. 661pp..

83. Daily GC, Ehrlich AH, Ehrlich PR: Socioeconomic equity — a critical element in sustainability. Ambio 1995, 24:58-59.

84. Daily GC, Ehrlich PR: Socioeconomic equity, sustainability, and Earth’s carrying capacity. Ecol Appl 1996, 6:991-1001.

85. Holdren JP, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR: The meaning of sustainability: biogeophysical aspects. In Defining and measuring

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73

Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations. Edited by Munasinghe M, Shearer W. World Bank, 1995:3–17.

86. You J, Sanjeev K: A comparative study of inequality and corruption. Am Sociol Rev 2005, 70:136-157.

87. Ostry JD, Ghosh AR, Habermeier K, Chamon M, Qureshi MS, Reinhardt DBS: Capital inflows: the role of controls. in IMF staff position note. Int Monet Fund 2010:29.

88. Midlarsky MI: The Evolution of Inequality: War, State Survival, and Democracy in Comparitive Perspective. Stanford University Press; 1999:. 349.

89. Uslaner EM, Brown M: Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. Am Politics Res 2005, 33:868-894.

90. Uslaner EM: The foundations of trust: macro and micro. Cambridge J Econ 2008, 32:289-294.

91. Pfetsch FR, Landau A: Symmetry and asymmetry in international negotiations. Int Negotiation 2000, 5:21-42.

92. Frey BS, Stutzer A: Happiness and Economics: How the Economy and Institutions Affect Human Well-Being. Princeton University Press; 2001.

93. Sen A: Well-being, agency and freedom: the Dewey lectures 1984. J Philosophy 1985, 82:169-221.

94. Sen A: The Quality of Life. Oxford University Press; 1993.

95. Alkire S: Why the capability approach? J Human Develop 2005, 6:115-133.

96. ��

Clark D, McGillivray M: Measuring Human Well-being: Key Findings and Policy Lessons. Policy Brief. United Nations University — World Institute for Development Economics Research; 2007.

Clark and McGillivray give a good overview of the development of thinking about well-being, from per capita income through the Gender Empower- ment Measurement. They conclude that well-being is now understood to be multidimensional, and must be quantified in ways that lead to clear policy objectives and monitoring of progress.

97. Easterlin RA: Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? J Econ Behav Organization 1995, 27:35-47.

98. Peiro A: Happiness, satisfaction and socio-economic conditions: some international evidence. J SocioEconom 2006, 35:348-365.

99. Kahneman D, Krueger AB, Schkade D, Schwarz N, Stone AA: Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science 2006, 312:1908-1910.

100. Dolan P, Peasgood T, White M: Do we really know what makes us happy: a review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. J Econ Psychol 2008, 29:94-122.

101. Graham C, Felton A: Does inequality matter to individual welfare? An initial exploration based on happiness — surveys from Latin America. CSED Working Paper 38. The Brookings Institution, 2005.

102. Schwarze J, Härpfer M: Are people inequality averse, and do they prefer redistribution by the state? Evidence from German longitudinal data on life satisfaction. Discussion Papers 285. DIW, 2005.

103. Ballas D: Exploring geographies of happiness and well-being. Economic and Social Research Council. 2009.

104. Hagerty MR: Social comparisons of income in one’s community: evidence from national surveys of income and happiness. J Personality Social Psychol 2000, 78:764-771.

105. Clark DA: Concepts and perceptions of human well-being: some evidence from South Africa. Oxford Develop Stud 2003, 31:173-196.

106. Camfield L: The Why and How of Understanding ‘Subjective’ Wellbeing: Exploratory Work By the WeD Group in Four Developing Countries. Working Paper 26, ESRC Working Group on Wellbeing in Developing Countries, 2006.

www.sciencedirect.com

A vision for human well-being Rogers et al. 73

107. Coulthardt: Poverty, sustainability and human wellbeing: a social wellbeing approach to the global fisheries crisis. Global Environ Change 2011, 21:453-463.

108. Gough I: Social Policy for Sustainable Wellbeing. Briefing Paper 4/ 08, ESRC Working Group on Wellbeing in Developing Countries, 2008.

109. McGregor JA, Wellbeing: Poverty and conflict. Briefing Paper 1/08, ESRC Working Group on Wellbeing in Developing Countries, 2008.

110. Deneulin McGregor JA: The capability approach and the politics of a social conception of wellbeing. Eur J Social Theory 2010, 13:501-519.

111. Bai XM, Chen J, Shi PJ: Landscape urbanization and economic growth: positive feedbacks and sustainability dilemmas. Environ Sci Technol 2012, 46:132-139.

112. Bloom DE, Canning D, Fink G: Urbanization and the wealth of nations. Science 2008, 319:772-775.

113. Kjellstrom T, Friel S, Dixon J, Corvalan C, Rehfuess E, Campbell- Lendrum D, Gore F, Bartram J: Urban environmental health hazards and health equity. J Urban Health 2007, 84(Suppl 1):86-97.

114. McMichael AJ: The urban environment and health in a world of increasing globalization: issues for developing countries. Bull World Health Organization 2000, 78:1117-1126.

115. Bai X, Imura H: A comparative study of urban environments in East Asia: a stage model of urban environmental evolution. Int Rev Environ Strategies 2000, 1:135-158.

116. Bai X, Shi P: Pollution control: In China’s Huai River Basin: what lessons for sustainability? Environ Sci Policy Sustain Develop 2006, 48:22-38.

117. Garden F, Jalaludin B: Impact of Urban sprawl on overweight, obesity, and physical activity in Sydney, Australia. J Urban Health 2009, 86:19-30.

118. Ewing R, Schmid T, Killingsworth R, Zlot A, Raudenbush S: Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. Am J Health Promotion 2003, 18:47-57.

119. Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kaźmierczak A, Niemela J, James P: Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green infrastructure: a literature review. Landscape Urban Plan 2007, 81:167-178.

120. Bai XM, Roberts BH, Chen J: Urban sustainability experiment in Asia: patterns and pathways. Environ Sci Policy 2010, 13:312-325.

121. Seto KC, Sanchez-Rodrguez R, Fragkias M: The new geography of contemporary urbanization and the environment. Annu Rev Enviorn Res 2010, 35:167-194.

www.sciencedirect.com

122. Korovkin T: Commodity production and ethnic culture: Otavalo, Northern Ecuador. Econ Develop Cultural Change 1998, 47:125-154.

123. Biermann F: Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environ Change 2007, 17:326-337.

124. Colby ME: Environmental management in development: the evolution of pradigms. Ecol Econ 1991, 3:193-213.

125. Besly T: Principled Agents? The Political Economy of Good Government. Oxford Univ Press; 2006.

126. Spangenberg JH, Settele J: Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecol Complexity 2010, 7:327-337.

127. John A, Pecchenino R, Schimmelpfennig D, Schreft S: Short-lived agents and the long-lived environment. J Public Econ 1995, 58:127-141.

128. Guglielmino CR, Viganotti C, Hewlett B, Cavalli-Sforza LL: Cultural variation in Africa — role of mechanisms of transmission and adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1995, 92:7585-7589.

129. Hewlett B, Cavalli-Sforza LL: Cultural transmission among Aka Pygmies. Am Anthropologist 1986, 88:922-934.

130. Hewlett BS, de Silvestri A, Guglielmino CR: Semes and genes in Africa. Curr Anthropol 2002, 43:313-321.

131. Richerson PJ, Boyd R: Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. University of Chicago Press; 2005:. 332.

132. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Feldman M: Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton University Press; 1981:. 388pp..

133. McGillivray M, Clarke M: Understanding Human Well-being. United Nations University Press; 2006.

134. Layard R: Happiness. Penguin Books; 2005.

135 ��

. Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi JP: Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress; 2009.

This report provides the most current information and analysis on mea- suring economic and social progress and development. It is essential reading for policy-makers concerned with monitoring progress towards well-being on a national level.

136. Chambers R: Editorial: responsible well-being — a personal agenda for development. World Develop 1997, 25:1743-1754.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:61–73