Y COMPROMISO CRISTIANO
P. Lic Alberto G Bochatey, O.S.A.
This section draws together the discussion presented so far to explain how sustainable well-being is positioned in this dissertation. This is important, as the principal research question is: “Does understanding the relationships between indicators add value and progress sustainable well-being?” Table 2-3 summarises the sustainable well-being principles discussed in Chapter 2. The bolded and highlighted principles are considered more closely in the next chapter.
Table 2-3: Sustainable well-being principles discussed in Chapter 2
Characteristic Principle There is no such thing as a single list of what well-being
incorporates. Both material (e.g. housing, clothing food) and non-material factors (e.g. affection, clean air to breath, ability to participate) contribute to well-being.
Well-being is multidimensional.
Achieving well-being requires access to sufficient resources to satisfy basic human needs (food, shelter, education, freedom).
Some well-being factors can be measured objectively. Achieving well-being requires personal satisfaction with the
outcomes of opportunities provided.
There are sources of well- being that can only be measured subjectively. Well-being requires all desired attributes be met. An over-
fulfilment in one area cannot compensate for a loss elsewhere (e.g. more food cannot make up for poor air quality).
Weak well-being is an additive measure. Strong well-being satisfies all individual well-being requirements.
There is a private/public component to well-being. Satisfying objective and subjective well-being is the responsibility of both the individual and
community/state. Sustainable well-being is forward looking, aimed at ensuring
access to similar (not necessarily the same) resources and opportunities in the future for both present and future generations.
Requires future orientation and planning ahead.
Concern with how current lifestyles impact future lifestyles. Both the positive and negative actions of past generation as well as our current actions impact on our well-being and the well-being of future generations and the other species dependent on humans for their existence.
Humans can
control/influence sustainable well-being by their day-to- day behaviour.
Well-being is impacted by how the four capitals are maintained. The demands our current lifestyles put on the four capitals determines how well they are maintained to provide for the future.
Four capitals need to be tracked. Sustained well-being given current knowledge is best achieved by maintaining or growing (through new investment) the four capitals so they continue to produce dividends.
Requires resilience and adaptive capacity. Recognises uncertainty and change. Need to improve understanding of interconnections and complexity. Needs to be astute enough not to destroy the on-going system on which we depend.
There are links between the different well-being
components. As such, they are characterised by many parts with relationships and interdependencies between them.
Societal well-being involves value judgements as to what is a fair and equitable distribution of the benefits and costs (including risks) both intra and inter-generations.
Sustainable well-being has an equity aspect.
As it is not possible to maximise a function with more than one variable (Daly, 2003), it is not possible to maximise all well-being components simultaneously.
Sustainable well-being is a system. There will be flux in the well-being system, and progress in sustainable well- being is best achieved by providing flexibility within established thresholds. The establishment of thresholds is problematic because
knowledge of appropriate thresholds within which we must live is limited. We do not know what uses particular ecological goods and services may provide in the future when combined with additions to current social, built, and human capital assets.
When establishing
thresholds, account must be taken of: (1) Humility principle that recognises the limitations of human
knowledge; (2) Precautionary principle that advocates caution when in doubt; (3) Reversibility principle that requires us not to make irreversible changes (Viedermans, 1995). To stay within an ecological sustainable scale, economic
activity must be kept within the capacity of natural capital to renew itself and absorb wastes.
The emphasis must be on developmental change rather than on biophysical growth. The way subjective well- being needs are met needs to change.
Bolded principles are those the research in this dissertation follows up.
2.5 SUMMARY
This chapter first discussed the various definitions and conceptualisations of well-being and the distinction between individual and societal well-being. Well-being was shown to be multi-dimensional, combining physical, social, and psychological needs. Both subjective and objective measures/indicators are required to assess the degree to which we are progressing in terms of well-being. A framework for well-being as a system was then provided and the different components of the framework described. The discussion covered subjective well-being and how it is assessed; the various ways basic human needs are defined and can be determined; how sustainable development
connects to, and is different from, sustainable well-being; and the four capital assets that need to be maintained. It was advanced that achieving sustainable well-being depends on an integrative system of natural, social, human, and built capitals, all working together to build long-term resilience. Due to the importance of their role in achieving sustainable well-being, each capital was discussed in detail. For each capital a definition was provided, what causes an increase or decrease described, the links to others capitals discussed, and ways to measure the capital stock considered.
As sustainable well-being is a key concern of this dissertation, the final section summaries the principles identified and what is meant by ‘sustainable well-being’. The next chapter appraises well-being measures. It first discusses GDP as a proxy for measuring societal well-being. This is followed by a review of a subset of the many different well-being measures that have been developed in response to the recognised inadequacy of using GDP as a measure of societal well-being. As this dissertation views well-being as a system, the alternative measures are evaluated according to the following criteria: (1) whether they are a strong or weak well-being measure; (2) whether they cover all four capitals; (3) whether they are forward or retrospective in orientation; and (4) whether indicators are interlinked.