DEFRA Project 3b:
Sustainable development and well-being:
relationships, challenges and policy implications
A report by the centre for well-being, nef (the new economics
foundation) for Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs)
Nic Marksa, Sam Thompsona, Richard Eckersleyb, Tim Jacksonc and Tim Kasserd.
a
Centre for Well-being, nef (the new economics foundation).
b
National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australia National University.
c
Research group on Lifestyles, Values and the Environment (RESOLVE), University of Surrey.
d
Department of Psychology, Knox College, IL.
Although Defra has commissioned and funded this study, the views expressed in it do not
necessarily reflect Defra policy.
2
Table of contents
Preface.............................................................................................................................................. 5
Executive summary........................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 12
What’s wrong with development? ............................................................................................. 12
Sustainability and well-being..................................................................................................... 13
Well-being in sustainable development policy .......................................................................... 15
Working definitions.................................................................................................................... 16
Summary................................................................................................................................... 18
Exploring the current model ............................................................................................................ 20
Well-being, Income and GDP.................................................................................................... 20
The view from economic theory ................................................................................................ 21
Consumption, needs and capabilities ....................................................................................... 22
Psycho-social aspects of consumption and status effects ........................................................ 23
Structural demand for consumption .......................................................................................... 24
Summary................................................................................................................................... 25
Pathways between environmental sustainability and well-being .................................................... 26
Transparent............................................................................................................................... 27
Environmental impacts on physical well-being.................................................................... 28
Environmental impacts on psychological well-being: Changes to local environment.......... 30
Environmental impacts on psychological well-being: Wider environmental conditions ....... 32
Summary............................................................................................................................. 34
Semi-transparent....................................................................................................................... 34
Car use................................................................................................................................ 35
Air travel .............................................................................................................................. 37
Ecological behaviours in the home ..................................................................................... 38
Environmental concern ....................................................................................................... 40
Attitudes to the future .......................................................................................................... 41
Summary............................................................................................................................. 43
Opaque ..................................................................................................................................... 44
Materialism and kinds of motivation .................................................................................... 44
Structural relationships between the economy and the individual....................................... 47
Summary............................................................................................................................. 49
3
Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 54
Identifying common causation................................................................................................... 54
The challenge of transition ........................................................................................................ 55
Getting started..................................................................................................................... 55
Levelling (and lowering) the playing field ............................................................................ 57
Resolving the tension between production and consumption ............................................. 59
Summary................................................................................................................................... 60
How would sustainable development policy change with a well-being focus? ............................... 62
Three suggestions for research ................................................................................................ 62
Proposal 1: Measuring what matters................................................................................... 62
Proposal 2: Exploring a long-term vision of a sustainable, well-being focused economy ... 63
Proposal 3: Protecting social and psychological spaces..................................................... 64
Five illustrative policies ................................................................................................................... 66
Transparent............................................................................................................................... 66
Planning for green space .................................................................................................... 66
Semi-transparent....................................................................................................................... 66
Review of taxation policy on behaviour............................................................................... 66
Environmental sustainability and well-being in the national curriculum............................... 67
Opaque ..................................................................................................................................... 68
Ban advertising aimed at children ....................................................................................... 68
Regulation of working hours................................................................................................ 69
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 70
References...................................................................................................................................... 71
4
Preface
This document forms Project 3b of DEFRA’s review of evidence for relationships between wellbeing and sustainable development, undertaken as part of the UK government’s 2005 sustainable
development strategy, Securing the Future. It was researched and written by the centre for wellbeing, nef (the new economics foundation).
The aim of the project was to develop a deeper understanding of the links between sustainable
development and well-being with a view to informing policy. Specifically, the project explored: 1)
concords and discords between the drive towards environmental sustainability and the pursuit of
well-being (two key elements of sustainable development, as outlined in Securing the Future); and
2) implications of a well-being focus for future sustainable development policy.
The research involved three distinct stages:
1.
Review of evidence regarding the relationship between current subjective well-being and
ecologically relevant behaviour.
2.
Workshop with policy customers across the main policy domains to explore possible
conflicts and complementarities between the promotion of individual well-being and
sustainable development.
3.
Internal discussion exercise to explore how sustainable development policy might change
with an explicit well-being focus.
The output of the project was an original think-piece, which forms the main part of this document.
A distinctive aspect of the project was the collaboration between nef and three leading
international experts (Richard Eckersley, Tim Jackson and Tim Kasser) undertaken during the first
stage of research. Each of these experts wrote a short paper, outlining their own understanding of
the key relationships between sustainable development and well-being. The final report is a
synthesis of nef’s research and ideas contained in the three papers.
nef would like to thank attendees at the policy workshop on July 19th. This was an extremely
stimulating day, which provided many ideas and suggestions that have influenced the final report.
5
Executive summary
This report forms Project 3b of DEFRA’s review of evidence for relationships between well-being
and sustainable development, undertaken as part of the UK government’s 2005 sustainable
development strategy, Securing the Future. It reviews a range of evidence from economics,
psychology, epidemiology and other disciplines, highlighting a number of connects and
disconnects between well-being and environmental sustainability. It further identifies key
challenges and policy implications for a transition towards one-planet living.
Context of research
In the most recent UK sustainable development strategy, Securing the Future (DEFRA, 2005),
sustainable development itself is defined in terms of two distinct, but related, components:
ƒ
Living within environmental limits (i.e. the need for environmental sustainability)
ƒ
Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society (i.e. the need to ensure well-being for all,
now and in the future).
The need for a sustainable development strategy implies that the current model of development is
unsustainable; in other words, that we are using the planet’s resources faster than they can be
replaced and that the current high levels of material throughput and resource consumption are
chiefly responsible for this.
Exploring the current development model from a well-being perspective
This report takes a broadly ‘needs-based’ approach to the concept of well-being, in which it is
assumed that well-being depends on the fulfilment of certain physical and psychological needs. In
this view, individual well-being is a function of the extent to which both physical and psychological
needs are satisfied. Hence, the relationship between well-being and environmental sustainability
hinges on whether the material conditions, actions, behaviours and attitudes promoted by the
prevailing social, economic and political situation act to support, or interfere with, the satisfaction of
these underlying needs.
The unsustainability of the existing development model looks like a significant problem for wellbeing. According to economic theory, consumer demand is a key driver of economic growth. It is
also strongly related to individuals’ well-being, because in a growing economy people are
increasingly affluent and able to purchase goods and services that enhance their quality of life. It is
conventionally assumed that standards of living, however narrowly or broadly conceptualised, have
risen in association with economic growth, and there is evidence that when national income
6
declines sharply, so does well-being. If this understanding is correct, and yet current levels of
material consumption are environmentally unsustainable, there seem to be only two possible
outcomes: compromised well-being for future generations due to environmental degradation, or
compromised well-being now due to curtailed consumption opportunities. However, careful
consideration of the evidence for relationships between well-being and environmental sustainability
suggests a third possibility, one that simultaneously acknowledges the well-being benefits of a
strong and stable economy and the negative impacts on well-being associated with unsustainable
material consumption.
Firstly, economic growth generally creates stability and stability underpins people’s well-being –
there is good evidence that serious economic instability is detrimental to well-being. Secondly, the
current economic model is characterised by productivity increases; it has conventionally been
argued that employment (with its associated well-being benefits) can only be maintained under
conditions of economic growth. Thirdly, public spending on services that explicitly support people’s
well-being is dependent on the taxation of private incomes generated by economic growth. In
short, a strong and stable economy is supportive of well-being.
However, in the current economic model, stability is structurally dependent on continuing
consumption growth. When this growth is in material consumption, it leads, in turn, to the problems
of environmental sustainability. In considering the relationships between well-being and
environmental sustainability, it is therefore essential to explore not only direct links between the
environment and people’s well-being, but also effects that are mediated through individuals’
behaviour within the context of the current economic system.
Relationships between environmental sustainability and well-being
To this end, we introduce a new classification schema of ‘pathways’ between well-being and
environmental sustainability. This is necessary to distinguish clearly between different types of
causation, and is based on the recognition that many of the relationships are complex, indirect and
mediated by people’s attitudes and behaviours. The tripartite schema moves progressively from
transparent pathways, in which the relationship between environmental sustainability and wellbeing is direct (e.g. impact of air pollution on physical well-being); through semi-transparent
pathways, in which the relationship is mediated by values and behaviours with directly attributable
environmental consequences (e.g. the decision to drive to work rather than take the bus); to
opaque pathways in which a relationship exists but is mediated through attitudes and behaviours
that do not have directly attributable environmental consequences (e.g. the well-being impact of
strongly materialist values).
7
Using this schema, we review evidence for ‘connects’ and ‘disconnects’ regarding the relationship
between environmental sustainability and well-being. A connect is a situation where there is clear
evidence that policies which have a positive impact on environmental sustainability would also
have a positive impact on well-being (or vice versa); in other words, they are mutually reinforcing.
A disconnect, by contrast, occurs where there is evidence that policies that would impact positively
on environmental sustainability would have a negative impact on well-being (or vice versa).
The category of transparent pathways includes direct relationships between well-being and the
environment, especially those relating to physical health. Clearly, many current and future effects
of climate change (which will become more severe and widespread over time) have a negative
impact on well-being by compromising the need for physical health, safety and subsistence.
However, there is also evidence for environmental impacts on psychological well-being, including
the positive effect of public access green spaces, as well negative effects caused by airborne
pollutants and localised environmental damage. Some evidence suggests that even quite minimal
access to community parks and gardens in urban areas can have significant impact on sociological
variables (e.g. reductions in crime rates).
Semi-transparent pathways, those which are mediated through attitudes and behaviours with
directly attributable environmental consequences, include many of the most obvious ‘disconnects’.
Demands for personal mobility, for instance, are satisfied through car use and air travel, and are
probably supportive of well-being through satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and – in some
instances – access to vital services. Similarly, certain resource-intensive behaviours in the home
support well-being through eliminating unpleasant tasks and promoting comfortable living spaces.
More generally, however, some evidence suggests that pro-environmental values and attitudes are
themselves associated with higher levels of psychological well-being, and that these attitudes to
some extent predict the likelihood that people will behave in environmentally responsible ways. At
the same time, perceptions of the future – in particular, the prospect of dramatic social, economic
and environmental change – may result not in pro-environmental attitudes, but in maladaptive
responses such as nihilism or fundamentalism. Whilst more research is required to understand
how pro-environmental attitudes develop, the suggestion that they might be well-being supportive
per se deserves significant attention.
Finally, recent research suggests two major opaque pathways (indirect relationships mediated
through attitudes and behaviours that do not have directly attributable environmental
consequences) – materialist values, and social change resulting from an emphasis on the
individual as consumer. Copious recent evidence suggests that increases in GDP per capita over
time have not led to overall increases in reported well-being. By implication, and contrary to the
8
expectations of economic theory, it thus appears that rising consumption has not led to
concomitant well-being gains, or that such gains as have been wrought are offset by other factors.
At least two broad explanations have been marshalled to explain this result.
Firstly, there is
compelling research evidence to suggest that strongly materialist values and motivations are
associated with dissatisfaction, anxiety and lower well-being. Some research suggests, further, that
strongly materialist values are negatively associated with pro-environmental attitudes and
behaviours. For a consumption-driven economy this is both a problem and an opportunity. On the
one hand, materialism serves a useful purpose in driving consumption demand; on the other hand,
reducing the prevalence of materialist values might actually yield well-being benefits in itself. The
second explanation is that the modern economy’s structural reliance on material consumption, with
its attendant emphasis on the needs of the individual, may actually have caused (or catalysed) the
breakdown of certain social structures (e.g. the family, the local community) that support wellbeing. This argument suggests that a less consumption-dependent economy would be more
supportive of the social conditions on which well-being depends, and as such deserves further
consideration.
The challenge of transition
Many of the well-being impacts of environmental damage have been known for some time.
Additional evidence, from a number of different disciplines, that excessive consumption can be
harmful to well-being provides further support for the transition towards a materially lighter, wellbeing led economy outlined in Securing the Future. The challenge for sustainable development
policy is to find a way of decoupling economic growth from growth in material throughput , in such
a way that: 1) the well-being benefits of a strong and stable economy can be maintained without
increasing environmental damage; and 2) the negative effects of consumption on well-being can
be lessened through changes in behaviour and attitudes. There are at least three serious
challenges to be overcome if the transition is to be managed so as to minimise the well-being
impact (and, potentially, lead to well-being gains).
Getting started
Firstly, people must accept and embrace the need for changes to their consumption behaviour if
well-being benefits are to be forthcoming. This means dealing with several significant obstacles:
ƒ
People feel threatened by anticipated losses. However, evidence on adaptation to changed
circumstances across a range of domains suggests they might adapt faster (and more
completely) than they imagine to lower impact lifestyles.
ƒ
Many of the potential gains in well-being from behaviour change are likely to be lagged –
that is, they will only be realised in the relatively long term.
9
ƒ
The problem of social dilemmas (i.e. individuals rationalising that changing their own
behaviour will not have any significant impact unless others do likewise) implies
prescriptive, enforced behavioural change. However, this risks compromising individual
autonomy and thus negating potential well-being gains.
Levelling (and lowering) the playing field
Sustainable development policy places a premium on reducing inequalities: of incomes, of
resources, of impacts and (by extension) of well-being across different sections of society. New
data from nef show not only that the level of resource consumption in the UK is currently too high
(well beyond “one-planet living”1), but also that it is unequal. To date, the well-being debate has
had relatively little to say on the subject of equity and this seems to be an area ripe for
development.
Resolving tension between production and consumption
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to a materially lighter, well-being led economy is the current
structural requirement for ever greater consumption. Whilst it is certainly feasible that consumption
patterns could become materially lighter through a combination of efficiency gains and a switch
away from material goods towards services, the growth in the scale of material consumption
means that there remains a tension between the needs of the economy and the costs associated
with the consumption that drives it. The well-being benefits provided by a strong and stable
economy are real and significant, although it is also important to recognise that these benefits are
likely to be constrained by ceiling effects – there is only so much stability or employment that can
be achieved. Meanwhile, however, the growing consumption required to sustain these economic
conditions has increasing costs, both environmental and psycho-social. From a well-being
perspective, it is not clear that these costs are offset by the benefits.
The challenge of sustainable development is to negotiate a path that dematerialises consumption
without creating a downward spiral of increasing unemployment and poverty. To achieve this aim,
consideration must be given not only to consumption patterns, but also to ways in which
productivity gains might be expressed differently (for instance, in the form of increased time for
social / leisure pursuits).
1
In a letter to the Prime Minister dated July 11, 2006, Rt Hon David Miliband wrote “So, put simply, I see
Defra’s mission as enabling a move toward what the WWF has called ‘one planet living’.“
10
Implications for Policy
Based on the foregoing review and discussion we make a number of suggestions for sustainable
development policy. Firstly, we offer three proposals for the direction of government-led research in
this area:
ƒ
Measuring what matters. Extending the current programme of work on well-being indicators
to address the complex interaction of social and economic factors that both support and
undermine well-being. This would explore how aspects of the current economic model
impact on conditions such as community cohesion and social capital, personal values and
cultural norms, attitudes to the future and so on.
ƒ
Exploring a long-term vision of a sustainable, well-being focused economy. Instigating a
wide-ranging dialogue around the need to decouple economic growth from environmental
damage, and exploring how a sustainable economy might be achieved.
ƒ
Protecting social and psychological spaces. Recognising that government is a co-creator of
the conditions on which well-being depends, and instigating a ‘working philosophy’ for
policy development that protects psychological and social spaces: the family, community,
civic trust and so on.
Secondly we outline five illustrative policies that could be implemented in the shorter term: planning
for green space, a review of the impact of taxation policy on behaviour, incorporating sustainability
and well-being into the national curriculum, curbing advertising aimed at children, and regulation of
working hours. These would – we believe, on the basis of the evidence reviewed above – have
benefits for both well-being and environmental sustainability.
Conclusions
Whilst it would be premature to suggest that a well-being perspective removes the tension between
environmental sustainability and the current model of socio-economic development, it does have
considerable potential to illuminate the debate by providing a common aim for policy – namely, the
promotion of well-being for all, now and in the future. The research reviewed in this project
highlights important relationships between environmental sustainability and well-being that could
prove useful to future policy development. However, it also identifies key challenges that any
transition towards one-planet living will have to overcome.
11
Introduction
What’s wrong with development?
In the West, economics dominates our understanding of national progress. Whilst it may be too
simplistic to say that ‘development’ is synonymous with economic growth, it is no exaggeration that
economic growth is assumed to be a necessary prerequisite for development. Economic growth
has been the key driver of advances in healthcare, increasing rates of employment and rising
levels of education. It creates the wealth necessary to increase personal freedoms and
opportunities, to meet community needs and national goals.
Of course, it is also broadly uncontroversial to suggest that the growing demand for energy, for
food, for services and for consumer goods that has characterised economic development at least
since the industrial revolution has also been the key driver of environmental change. Such material
consumption relies on the use of planetary resources – oil, gas, coal, minerals and metals, land,
water and so on. This is sustainable only if the rate at which resources are being depleted or
damaged is less than the rate at which they can be replenished or repaired by natural processes.
Implicit, then, in the call for ‘sustainable development’ is a claim that the current model of
development is unsustainable; that we are using the planet’s resources faster than they can be
replaced and that rising material throughput is chiefly responsible for this.
Ecologically-minded economists have been arguing for some time that the so-called ‘weak’
sustainability implied by neoclassical models of growth – namely that human, produced and natural
capital have an equivalence value and can in principle be substituted for one another – is
untenable, since it fails to take proper account of the finite nature of planetary resources and the
unique role that some of these resources play. ‘Strong’ sustainability, by contrast, insists that
certain forms of natural capital are non-substitutable and must be preserved for future generations.
The headline indicator of a nation’s economic progress (and hence its development, as traditionally
conceived) is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, since GDP is just the sum of all economic
transactions within a nation, it takes no account of environmental factors except to the extent that
these are factored into market prices for natural resources. From a sustainability perspective, GDP
is thus an extremely weak indicator.
Various attempts have been made to produce new indicators that address the issue of
environmental sustainability. Research in the US in the late 80s and early 90s led to a family of
indices sharing a common conceptual approach, involving the adjustment of raw economic data to
12
account for – amongst other things – expenditure incurred by negative events.2 This requires
estimation of the economic cost of many environmental externalities, such as pollution and
environmental degradation. Despite considerable research effort and the evident limitations of
existing measures, even these relatively weak3 sustainability indicators have largely failed to catchon with policy-makers as replacements – or even supplements – for GDP. Meanwhile, ‘strong’
indicators such as the Ecological Footprint (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996), which attempt to quantify
the extent of natural resource use in absolute terms rather than in terms of economic equivalence,
have made very little impact at the policy level. In both cases, it has perhaps been too easy for
critics to argue that the assumptions and estimates required in calculating the indices are
insufficiently robust.4 Another argument is that GDP, for all its faults, has had the benefit of half a
century’s practical implementation and refinement through use and is thus well-understood.5
Sustainability and well-being
From a well-being perspective, the unsustainability of development looks like a significant problem.
According to the neoclassical economic theory on which the global economy is based,
consumption growth is strongly related to individuals’ well-being. Increasing wealth at the national
level brings increased ‘utility’ at the individual level; people are more affluent and thus able to
purchase goods and services that enhance their quality of life. Moreover, most people would argue
that standards of living, however narrowly or broadly conceptualised, have risen in association with
economic growth, and there is some evidence that when national growth declines sharply, so does
well-being. If this understanding is correct, and current levels of consumption are unsustainable,
there seem to be only two possible well-being outcomes:
1. Compromised well-being for future generations, as rising material consumption leads
inexorably to serious and irreversible resource depletion.
2
Probably best-known is the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (Daly & Cobb, 1989), although
numerous variants exist that differ slightly in methodology (e.g. Anielski & Rowe, 1999; Cobb & Cobb, 1994;
Hamilton, 1999; Jackson, Laing, MacGillivray, Marks, Ralls & Stymne, 1997; Jackson, 2004; Rosenberg,
Oegema & Bovy, 1995).
3
The ISEW and others are still essentially ‘weak’ indicators because, by expressing the degradation of
natural resources in terms of their assumed economic cost (e.g. making a monetary valuation of the cost of
air pollution), they tacitly assume substitutability of capital.
4
See, for instance, Neumayer (2000). In response, critics of GDP often point out that GDP itself is not
assumption-free, and that in effect it values the costs of environmental damage at zero.
5
This commonly-heard argument was raised by a participant at the policy workshop. In one respect it is
circular, as it precludes the possibility that any measure with a short pedigree could challenge GDP, which in
turn ensures that no new measure can ever gain comparable credence. However, it belies a serious point –
until there is a will within policy circles to take alternative measures seriously by committing to research and
development work, the ‘lack of precedent’ criticism will always carry weight.
13
2. Compromised well-being now, as consumption is severely curtailed in an effort to reverse
environmental degradation.
This would be a bleak choice indeed if it were the only one. In recent years, however, this
understanding of the relationship between economic growth and well-being has come under
sustained attack. Most obviously, it has been frequently observed that brute economic growth –
that measured by GDP – is a poor indicator of welfare. This has been accepted in principle for
some time; even the economist Simon Küznets, a central figure in the development of GDP
methodology, urged the US Congress in 1934 to remember that “The welfare of a nation can
scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income” (cited in Cobb, Halstead & Rowe,
1995). More recently, in the preface to the 1999 UK Sustainable Development Strategy, the Prime
Minister acknowledged that
focusing solely on economic growth risks ignoring the impact – both good and bad – on people
and on the environment... in the past, governments have seemed to forget this. Success has
been measured by economic growth – GDP – alone. We have failed to see how our economy,
our environment and our society are all one. And that delivering the best quality of life for us all
means more than concentrating solely on economic growth. (DETR, 1999).
Against the background of this ongoing debate about GDP there has been, in the UK at least, a
surge of interest in well-being as a distinct concept. Whilst some have used it directly (e.g. Shah &
Marks, 2004), elsewhere the emerging discussion has been framed in terms of the related ideas of
‘happiness’ (Layard, 2004, 2005; Martin, 2005; Inglehart and Klingemann, 2000) or ‘quality of life’
(Jacobs, 1997; Jackson, 2001). Under a reasonably broad definition, the subject has also been
widely discussed in the media. Layard’s recent book on happiness received extensive publicity, as
did Conservative Party leader David Cameron’s suggestion to measure “gross national well-being”
alongside economic growth6 and the BBC’s Happiness Formula television series.7 Along with a
variety of other interventions, these have served to give well-being a high visibility – if not
necessarily priority – in media and policy circles.
Nonetheless, in terms of public discourse, the well-being and sustainability debates have been
held at some distance from one another. To-date, research and thinking on well-being has often
emphasised the contribution of psychological and psycho-social factors over actual material
circumstances (such as individual wealth), with very little explicit consideration of the role of
6
See, e.g.: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5003314.stm.
See www.bbc.co.uk/happiness and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/
4809828.stm.
7
14
environment or of ecological behaviour. Conversely, popular debate about sustainable
development is conducted largely at the national policy level. Where reference is made to the
impact of environment on individuals’ well-being, it is usually to ‘future generations’ rather than
those living now. This disjunction between the scope of the two debates may well be a partial
explanation for the finding that less than 10 per cent of UK residents regard global warming as an
issue that is best tackled by individual behaviour (DEFRA, 2005).
However, the potential of well-being for those promoting environmental sustainability is clear. If
unsustainable behaviours – indeed, if material consumption growth itself – were shown to be
detrimental to well-being, in addition to their negative ecological impacts, this would represent an
extremely powerful argument in favour of a move toward explicitly pro-environmental policies.
Moreover, it would be an argument with genuine marketing appeal; ‘selling’ sustainability, in these
circumstances, ought to be a good deal easier than it has been to date. If modern society
consistently delivers improvements in well-being now only at the expense of future well-being,
proponents of sustainability can expect to face a hard task convincing people to behave differently.
But if modern society is already failing in its pursuit of well-being, then persuading people to adapt
– or perhaps even abandon – their incumbent behaviours and assumptions ought to be a
considerably more plausible proposition.
A well-being perspective thus has the potential to provide a new approach to sustainable
development and in particular to the issue that dominates political debate: reconciling the
requirements of the economy – growth, and the consumption patterns that drive it – with the
requirements of the environment – conservation and sustainable resource use. A growing
understanding of the social basis of well-being can make an important contribution to addressing
the challenge of sustainable development. It provides a means of integrating different priorities by
allowing them to be measured against a common goal or benchmark: improving human well-being.
Rather than setting up the core issue as a pro-growth / anti-growth dichotomy, a well-being focus
provides a way to see beyond growth, and to understand that it is a means to an end, and not an
end in itself.
Well-being in sustainable development policy
This growing interest in the idea of well-being is reflected clearly in the UK sustainable
development strategy, Securing the Future (DEFRA, 2005). In this document, sustainable
development is conceptualised in terms of two key principles (p. 16):
15
ƒ
Living within environmental limits. Respecting the limits of the planet’s environment,
resources and biodiversity – to improve our environment and ensure that the natural
resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations.
ƒ
Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society. Meeting the diverse needs of all people in
existing and future communities, promoting personal well-being, social cohesion and
inclusion, and creating equal opportunity for all.
As such, the notion of well-being lies right at the heart of the policy. Arguably, in fact, this is not so
new – whilst sustainable development has often been conceptualised as a challenge to orthodox
economic development, it has always been a challenge to pursue a different pathway towards the
same goal: maximising human well-being. In the familiar Brundtland formulation (WCED, 1987),
this goal is cast in terms of needs satisfaction; sustainable development is that which “meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs”. In the UK’s 1999 strategy, it is expressed in terms of the quality of life; sustainable
development is “ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come”
(DETR, 1999).
In Securing the Future, however, the goal of sustainable development is cast explicitly in terms of
well-being for the first time. One of the two central principles of the strategy – “ensuring a strong
healthy and just society” – is unpacked, partially, as “promoting personal well-being, social
cohesion and inclusion” (p. 16). Moreover, the new strategy commits the UK Government to
exploring “how policies might change with an explicit well-being focus” (p. 23) and to developing
indicators of well-being alongside the other sustainable development indicators.
Working definitions
Whilst ‘sustainable development’, as understood in Securing the Future, incorporates well-being as
one of two central elements, the focus of this paper will be on the relationship between well-being
and the environmental aspects of sustainable development. To ensure clarity, then, we will use the
term ‘environmental sustainability’ to refer to the second core element of the strategy, “Living within
environmental limits”.
It should be noted that since the 2005 strategy was published, the language surrounding this
aspect of sustainable development has been slightly revisited. Rt Hon David Miliband MP8 wrote a
letter to the Prime Minister on 11 July, 2006, stating that:
8
Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
16
The challenges we now face in the environmental arena are of a different order of magnitude:
quite simply they come down to the fact that as a nation – indeed, across much of the globe – we
are living beyond our environmental means. The best illustration of this is the fact that if everyone
in the world consumed as many natural resources as we do in the UK we would need three
planets to support us. So, put simply, I see Defra’s mission as enabling a move toward what the
WWF has called ‘one planet living’. (Miliband, 2006)
In this paper, therefore, we understand environmental sustainability as synonymous with ‘oneplanet living’.
As for defining well-being, Dolan, Peasgood and White (2006) demonstrate clearly that definitions
are various and the concept is used differently by different authors. From the perspective of
developing robust measurements this presents something of a problem; for the purposes of the
present paper, however, we can be content with a looser and more inclusive understanding of wellbeing. According to Securing the Future, “The goal of sustainable development is to enable all
people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without
compromising the quality of life of future generations” (p. 16, italics added). Echoing this language,
we take a broadly ‘needs-based’ approach to the concept of well-being in this paper. In order to
both survive and thrive, plants require certain soil nutrients, atmospheric conditions, water, and
sunlight; without each of these in proper amounts, a plant will eventually wither and die. Similarly,
then, we assume that humans must have certain needs satisfied in order to survive and thrive,
both physically and psychologically (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Max Neef, 1991, Maslow, 1954). This is a
broad perspective and falls somewhere between the ‘flourishing’ and ‘objective list’ accounts
described by Dolan et al (2006). One advantage of this approach is that it becomes straightforward
to account for both physical and psychological aspects of well-being within the same framework –
something that is more difficult under a purely subjective understanding, but important given the
clear relationships that exist between environmental conditions and physical health.
What are the needs that must be satisfied to ensure well-being? Firstly, there are certain physical
needs such as subsistence and protection: well-being requires a degree of safety and security.
Worries about whether one will eat tomorrow, have a roof over one’s head, be assaulted or be
shot, bombed, or otherwise rendered dead anytime soon clearly interfere with optimal well-being,
as do problems with physical health.
Secondly are psychological needs, and here it is possible to identify three broad needs that are
paramount for determining the extent to which individuals flourish (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kasser,
17
2002). People need to feel competent and efficacious; unhappiness frequently results when people
believe that they are either not able to successfully do the things they care about or that they are
generally unworthy. They also need to feel free and autonomous, choosing their own behaviour
rather than feeling coerced or controlled by internal or external pressures. Finally, people require
relatedness or connection with other people, which stems from the fact that humans are social
animals who require love and intimacy, and struggle under conditions of loneliness, rejection, and
exclusion.9 Relatedness is not only ‘horizontal’ – individuals forming convivial bonds with other
individuals – but also ‘vertical’, in terms of shared allegiance to larger structures such as family,
neighbourhood, religion, or nation.
In this view, individual well-being is a function of the extent to which both physical and
psychological needs are satisfied.10 In turn, then, the relationship between well-being and
environmental sustainability (or, for that matter, any area of policy) hinges on the extent to which
the material conditions, actions, behaviours and attitudes promoted by the prevailing social,
economic and political situation act to support, or interfere with, the satisfaction of these underlying
needs.
Summary
The need for a sustainable development policy implies that the current model of development is
unsustainable. Sustainable development policy in the UK has most recently been defined in terms
of two distinct, but related, aspects: the need for environmental sustainability, and the need to
ensure well-being for all, now and in the future. Securing the Future describes a more-or-less
‘strong’ conception of sustainable development, in which at least some forms of natural capital are
assumed to be non-substitutable and necessary precursors to well-being for all, now and in the
future (“ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired”, p. 16).
As one leading ecological economist has recently noted, “Focusing policy on well-being rather than
per capita consumption might have important positive implications for sustainability.” (Gowdy,
2005, p. 219). The aim of the present paper is to explore the extent to which this is true. To do this,
we begin by considering how the incumbent economic system is structurally reliant on growth in
material consumption – the same consumption that drives the environmental damage sustainable
9
Relatedness is also central to the broader concepts of social well-being and capital.
It is worth pointing out that much of the evidence cited later in the report is based on subjective evaluations
of overall well-being, typically using questions such as “If you consider your life overall, how satisfied are you
nowadays?”. Dolan et al (2006) see this approach as different in kind to the needs-based model outlined
above. In our view, however, the extent to which needs are satisfied is likely to determine the extent to which
someone feels themselves ‘satisfied with their life’ overall. To this extent, then, needs satisfaction can be
thought of as the process which leads to subjective well-being as the outcome
10
18
development policy seeks to ameliorate and, according to some commentators, systematically
undermines the conditions for well-being. We then review evidence across a range of domains to
explore connects and disconnects between the brand of ecological sustainability advocated in
Securing the Future and individual well-being as understood in the growing research literature. In
doing so, we introduce a new, policy-relevant taxonomy of ‘pathways’ between the individual and
the environment.
The third section of the report offers a discussion of policy responses, drawing on themes from the
evidence review. Here, we offer two complementary approaches: 1) directions for future research
and development; and, 2) an illustration of several specific polices that might be implied by our
current understanding of the relationship between environmental sustainability and well-being.
19
Exploring the current model
Well-being, Income and GDP
As noted above, there is a sense in which contemporary debates surrounding both environmental
sustainability and well-being have converged on a similar position. The broad hypothesis is that, in
one sense or another, modern society has placed too much emphasis on economic output and
productivity, with negative results for both the environment and the individual. To an extent,
sustainable development has always been a critique of the economic model that relies on ever
more consumption. The relationship of material consumption to environmental degradation is wellunderstood; the very need for a sustainable development policy arises precisely in recognition of
the relationship, and of the problems it brings.
The well-being argument is much more recent, however, and adds a powerful new dimension. Not
only does material consumption growth damage the environment, according to this argument, it
actually fails to provide well-being reliably. Central to this argument is a growing body of evidence
from the economic literature which suggests that (at least in the ‘developed’ world) GDP is not
substantially correlated with overall levels of subjective well-being, either across countries, or
within countries over time. After a certain – surprisingly low – level of GDP has been reached, the
strength of its relationship to reported well-being at the population level declines markedly, such
that increases in GDP do not lead to overall increases in reported well-being. However, within a
country and at any given time, a correlation does exist between individual income and well-being.
This relationship is weak, and begins to break down significantly above a certain point (which is
usually rather lower than most people expect; Frey & Stutzer, 2002). Indeed, it has recently been
argued that in most Western countries the relationship is roughly logarithmic – in other words, at
any given level of income a 20 per cent increase gives rise to only a 2 per cent increase in
subjective life satisfaction (Mayraz, Layard & Nickell, 2006).
Nevertheless, it seems odd that such a correlation should exist at all when there is no apparent
relationship between wealth and well-being either within a country over time, or between countries.
This is sometimes known as the ‘Easterlin paradox’, after the US economist who first identified it
(Easterlin, 1974, 1995); however, numerous researchers have shown similar patterns of results
using a range of different data sets and over different time periods (Oswald, 1997; Frey & Stutzer,
2002; Blanchflower & Oswald, 2004; Layard, 2005).
It is worth considering in more detail why this paradox is so surprising. Modern society is organised
around a particular model of how to pursue human well-being. Baldly stated, this model contends
that increasing economic output leads to improved well-being: a higher standard of living and a
20
better quality of life across society. Economies are organised explicitly around the need to increase
GDP; business models are predicated on maximising profits to shareholders; people are inclined to
believe that the more disposable income they have – and thus the more they are able to consume
– the happier they will be.
This model of progress goes some way to explaining why the pursuit of GDP has become one of
the principal policy objectives in almost every country in the world in the last few decades. Rising
GDP traditionally symbolises a thriving economy, more spending power, richer and fuller lives,
increased family security, greater choice, and more public spending. A declining GDP, by contrast,
is bad news. Consumer spending falls, businesses fail, jobs are lost, homes are repossessed and
a government which fails to respond appropriately is liable to find itself out of office. Since GDP
rose more or less consistently in the UK over the last fifty years, the conventional view suggests
that well-being should have improved concomitantly.
The view from economic theory
Through what mechanisms is increasing wealth thought to impact on well-being? Economic theory
states that the sum of consumption expenditures is equivalent (under certain conditions) to the
value placed by consumers on the goods they consume and hence, according to the conventional
argument, GDP can be taken as some kind of proxy for the well-being derived from consumption
activities.11 However, this equivalence of consumption expenditures with consumer values is valid
only in perfect, equilibrium markets, and it is well enough known that in practice, markets are not
perfect. Moreover, it is clear that public expenditure does not take place in equilibrating markets at
all; government spending is not allocated according to market forces but according to the political
and social priorities of the day. Throughout much of the latter part of the 20th Century, the response
advocated by economic and social theorists – and in particular by liberal economic and social
theorists – to these market ‘failures’ was to strive for fewer market distortions: reduced taxation,
lower public expenditure, less government intervention; in short to pursue hands-off, laissez-faire
government. Since this strategy also has the consequence of placing more disposable income in
the pockets of the electorate, it has had a strong appeal across the political spectrum.
Conventional economic theory recognises that it is not sufficient to attend only to current levels of
consumption. Well-being, it is understood, consists at least in part in feeling secure about the
future; as the economist John Hicks pointed out in 1939, “the purpose of income calculations in
practical affairs is to give people an indication of the amount which they can consume [in the
11
This view of consumption growth as a proxy for well-being is implicit in many economics textbooks.
Elsewhere it is discussed explicitly, e.g. Beckerman (1991) and Friedman (2005).
21
present] without impoverishing themselves’ in the future” (Hicks, 1939). Under one interpretation,
being as well-off at the end of the period depends inter alia on having the same consumption
possibilities in the following period. Since these consumption possibilities flow from income
streams which are generated by capital investment, this requirement has generally been translated
into a demand to maintain capital intact. Hicksian true income is thus the income in the period less
the net depreciation of capital during the period. Though GDP may be flawed as a measure of
societal well-being, an appropriate correction for capital depreciation is (according to conventional
economic arguments12) sufficient to correct for the deficiencies.
Consumption, needs and capabilities
This still leaves open the critical question of precisely why people value consumption goods and
services; here, it is useful to consider well-being as a function of needs satisfaction. Fulfilling the
physical needs for subsistence and protection, for instance, requires access to a variety of goods
and services including food, adequate housing, shelter, clothing and so on. The value of these
commodities lies (in part) in their ability to satisfy these needs. Because consumer goods and
services play a functional role in the satisfaction of needs, greater access to goods and services
should, in principle, improve our ability to satisfy our needs; and by extension improve our wellbeing. This conceptualisation of the value of economic goods and services in the pursuit of wellbeing shares some similarities with that made by the development economist Amartya Sen (1984),
namely that society values goods and services on the basis of the capabilities they provide people
in achieving certain kinds of ‘functionings’. One of Sen’s main arguments is that the value of
different goods and services is not absolutely defined, but depends critically on what kind of society
we find ourselves in. Echoing a sentiment expressed much earlier by Adam Smith in the Wealth of
Nations (Smith, 1776), he suggests that:
To lead a life without shame, to be able to visit and entertain one’s friends, to keep track of what
is going on and what others are talking about, and so on, requires a more expensive bundle of
goods and services in a society that is generally richer and in which most people have, say,
means of transport, affluent clothing, radios or television sets, and so on... The same absolute
level of capabilities may thus have a greater relative need for incomes (and commodities). (Sen,
1984, p. 298)
12
Specifically, Hicks’ argument suggests that Net Domestic Product (NDP; calculated by subtracting the
depreciation of capital assets from GDP) provides a truer representation of national well-being than does the
GDP. In fact, in a seminal paper in welfare economics, Weitzmann (1976) showed that NDP can be regarded
as a proxy for national welfare in the sense that (under certain conditions at least) it is proportional to the
present discounted value of all future consumption. In particular, therefore, a non-declining NDP can be
taken as an indication of non-declining consumption possibilities into the future. Conversely, of course, the
pursuit of NDP growth assumes (under this interpretation) a welfare-theoretic justification.
22
The relationship between commodities and the capabilities they deliver depends on the social
context; consequently, the relationship between the consumption of commodities and well-being is
itself thus dependent. In a richer society, according to Sen, the link between consumption and wellbeing will be different than it is in a poorer society.
Psycho-social aspects of consumption and status effects
Commodities thus play important social and psychological roles in people’s lives (Jackson, 2005a,
2006). After subsistence needs have been met, the psychological needs of well-being – autonomy,
competence, relatedness – are all mediated (to a greater or lesser extent) through our relationship
to material artefacts. As Sen points out, some societies require a “more expensive bundle of goods
and services” than others to effect needs satisfaction. In Western societies, in particular, the
reliance on material goods for social and psychological functioning appears to be particularly
strong (see, e.g. Frank, 1999). But this relationship is evident in almost any society for which we
have any anthropological evidence (Douglas, 1976).
There is, however, a further psychological role played by income and consumption in modern
society. Incomes carry symbolic value; higher incomes represent higher social status. The
evidence on the relationship between income and happiness illustrates this point very clearly.
Easterlin (1974) first showed that relative income has a bigger impact than absolute income on
levels of reported life-satisfaction, a result that has been consistently borne out since (Diener &
Seligman, 2004; Layard, 2005). Indeed, income inequality has been shown to have dramatic
effects on health and education outcomes for general populations (Wilkinson, 2005). Recently,
there has been some convergence on the idea that the relatively weak, but nonetheless clear
relationship between subjective life satisfaction and income within a country is predominantly a
function of status effects. A recent review (Clark, Frijters & Shields, 2006) concludes that
The broad consensus in the literature is that the [Easterlin] paradox points to the importance of
relative considerations in the utility function, where higher income brings both consumption and
status benefits to an individual. These individual benefits can explain the positive slope found in
much of the empirical literature. However, since status is a zero-sum game, only the consumption
benefit of income remains at the aggregate level. Since the consumption benefit approaches zero
as income rises, happiness profiles over time in developed countries are flat. (p.53)13
13
One recent study provides empirical evidence that income is not correlated with daily experience of
happiness and enjoyment, and is related to slightly heightened anxiety (Kahneman et al, 2006). According to
these researchers, the apparent correlation between income and life satisfaction is the function of a
“focusing illusion”, whereby people focus on conventional (i.e. economic), status-bearing achievements when
asked how satisfied they are, rather than reflecting on their actual day-to-day experiences.
23
As famously demonstrated by Marmot (2004) in his studies of the notoriously hierarchical British
civil service, such effects are not limited to subjective psychological well-being but extend to
physical health. It is important to emphasise here that because status competitions are generally
‘zero sum games’, gain for one is usually achieved directly at another’s expense. In practice, they
may have aggregate negative effects, given that upward comparisons are more common and more
salient than downward comparisons (Layard, 2005).
Structural demand for consumption
Economic stability appears to be a pre-requisite for the pursuit of well-being. The collapse of
economies in the former Soviet Union, for example, has been shown to be strongly associated with
declining well-being (Marks, Abdallah, Simms & Thompson, 2006, pp. 24-27; see also Veenhoven,
2001). A key aspect of the well-being / sustainable development debate, therefore, is the extent to
which economic stability is structurally reliant on consumption growth. This has several important
dimensions.
Firstly, modern economies continually attempt to increase labour productivity. But if the total output
(GDP) were to remain constant as the output per employee continually increased, the number of
people who could be employed would have to fall – and high unemployment is known to have
extremely detrimental effects on well-being (Clark & Oswald, 1994), both for those who lose their
jobs and those affected by the general climate of uncertainty. Employment can only stay constant
(in an economy characterised by increasing labour productivity) by increasing the economic output.
The only way to break this cycle would be to place less emphasis on, and possibly accept
reductions in, net labour productivity (for instance, expressing marginal productivity gains from
technological advance in the form of working-hour reduction instead of increased income); this is a
course of action that no government to-date has shown willingness to embrace.
Secondly, even those who insist that we already consume too much accept the need for public
spending on health, education, transport, social security and so on. But public spending comes
from the taxation of private incomes and private incomes are generated by economic output. If
there is no growth in the economy, private incomes stagnate (or fall) and with them tax revenues.
The only way to increase public spending in these circumstances would be to increase taxation
rates. Again, this option has proved consistently unpopular with successive governments over the
last few decades.14
14
If the economy is shrunk in certain ways (e.g. less driving and flying, more walking and cycling) this could
reduce the need for some public expenditure (e.g. roads and airports, treatment of illness caused by of
sedentary lifestyles). In principle, at least, it is possible that the latter could match or exceed the former. In
other words, expenditure on public services may not always be a useful proxy for public benefits achieved.
24
Thirdly, a growing economy is – on the whole – a stable one. The virtuous circle of growth is
supposed to keep us from the vicious cycle of recession. “The alternative to expansion,” as former
Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath once remarked, “is not an England of quiet market towns linked
only by trains puffing slowly and peacefully through green meadows. The alternative is slums,
dangerous roads, old factories, cramped schools, and stunted lives” (cited in Douthwaite, 1992).
Some economist would argue that this assessment of structural instability in the absence of
consumption growth may be premature, and it may in fact be possible to devise economic systems
that avoid structural instability without relying on endless consumption growth. At the moment,
however, there is little hard evidence to suggest how this might be achieved.
Summary
This brief discussion of the nature of consumption and its relationship to the economic model
makes plain the potential scale of the issue at hand. Rising material consumption is widely
understood as the main driver of environmental degradation. If, as has long been taken for
granted, it is also a critical determinant of well-being then this is a serious problem for sustainable
development. If well-being is largely supported and promoted by consumption growth – as
neoclassical economic theory assumes – then any serious attempts to address environmental
change by reducing consumption are likely to bring concomitant reductions in well-being. If, on the
other hand, the Easterlin paradox identifies a genuine breakdown of this relationship under certain
conditions (such that material consumption growth is no longer significantly beneficial to well-being
after some, probably quite low, level has been reached), then addressing both environmental
sustainability and well-being will ultimately require making deep structural changes to the economy
(Simms, Moran & Chowla, 2006; Marks et al, 2006). Either way, the relationship between
environmental sustainability and well-being is intimately bound up with material throughput and
resource consumption and thus with the economic system as a whole; all discussion of the two
issues must be understood in the context of this wider picture.
In the section that follows, we will consider a number of ways in which environmental sustainability
and individual well-being interact. In particular, we will attempt to understand better the direction in
which these interactions operate and the processes and systems through which they are mediated.
To help elucidate these relationships, we introduce a new taxonomy that distinguishes between
different kinds of relationship in a policy-relevant manner. Whilst several contrasting policy areas
are considered for illustration, we have not attempted to make a comprehensive review of all
possible areas.
25
Pathways between environmental sustainability and well-being
In this section we consider the ways in which environmental sustainability and individual well-being
can impact on one another. These pathways are of various types and do not fall easily into a
scheme of classification. However, we will aim to move the discussion progressively from
transparent pathways in which the relationship between environmental sustainability and wellbeing is direct and immediate; through semi-transparent pathways in which a direct relationship is
mediated by environmentally relevant values and behaviours; to opaque pathways in which a
relationship exists but is wholly or largely indirect.
1. Transparent:
Resulting from physical / psychological processes and not
mediated through attitudes or behaviours
2. Semi-transparent:
Mediated through attitudes and behaviours with directly
attributable environmental consequences
3. Opaque:
Mediated through attitudes and behaviours without directly
attributable environmental consequences
Because they are not mediated by behaviours, Transparent pathways operate from the
environment to the individual. In other words, changes in the environment or exposure to some
aspect(s) of it influences the individual; an example of this might be the impact of increasing levels
of ambient air pollution on physical and psychological well-being. Semi-transparent and Opaque
pathways, meanwhile, operate largely in the opposite direction, namely from the individual to the
environment. In both cases, individual’s attitudes and behaviours influence the environment either
directly, or through some mediating process; here, an example might be the environmental impact
of an individual’s decision to drive to work rather than take the bus. These relationships are shown
schematically in Figure 1.
26
Mediated through
attitudes and
behaviours
Not mediated
through attitudes
and behaviours
Figure 1: Pathways between the environment and the individual
direct
Transparent
Environment
Individual
Direct influence
of environment
on individual
Semitransparent
Environment
Individual
Attitudes and behaviours
with directly attributable
environmental consequences
Opaque
Individual
Environment
Attitudes and behaviours without
directly attributable environmental
consequences
indirect
As the review progresses, we highlight a number of connects and disconnects that are apparent
between well-being and environmental sustainability. A connect is a situation where – in our view –
there is clear evidence that policies which have a positive impact on environmental sustainability
would also have a positive impact on well-being (or, conversely, a negative impact on both
environmental sustainability and well-being). A disconnect, by contrast, occurs where there is
evidence that policies that which would impact positively on environmental sustainability would
have a negative impact on well-being (or vice versa).
In addition to connects and disconnects, we also highlight areas where more research is clearly
required. It could be argued, of course, that this is the case for virtually all of the areas considered.
However, highlighted areas are those where, in our view, a relationship that is implied or
suggested by extant research would be of particular policy interest if future research found it to be
robust and significant.
Transparent
Transparent pathways are those in which aspects of the natural environment, changes to
environmental conditions, or the direct consequences of such changes affect the physical and
psychological well-being of individuals. They are not mediated by individuals’ behaviour and thus
27
not dependent on attitudes or knowledge about the environment. As such, they operate from the
environment to the individual.
Environmental impacts on physical well-being
Environmental conditions have always been an important dimension of human health and wellbeing, and the negative health effects of local pollution are well-known. However, poor
environmental quality is estimated to be directly responsible for some 25 per cent of all preventable
ill-health, especially diarrhoeal diseases and acute respiratory infections (United Nations
Environment Program 2002). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), a major United
Nations initiative involving more than 1,300 experts worldwide, provides an authoritative, up-todate and comprehensive overview of the relationship between the environment and health in its
health synthesis report (Corvalan, Hales, McMichael et al, 2005). It notes that nature’s “goods and
services” are the ultimate foundations of life and health. These provisions range from the basic
necessities of life such as food, shelter and clean air and water to less tangible, but highly valued,
cultural, spiritual and recreational benefits.
According to the MEA, humans have changed natural ecosystems more rapidly and extensively
over the past 50 years than in any comparable period in human history. These changes have
benefited humanity, especially by greatly increasing food production; however, about 60 per cent of
ecosystem services are currently being degraded or used unsustainably. The causal links between
environmental change and human well-being are complex, displaced in space and time, and
dependent on modifying forces.
Historically, most environmental health problems have entailed specific risks within a local context,
such as pollution and contamination. However, over the past two decades the focus of
environmental concerns has shifted from local and regional impacts to the way humans are now
changing planetary systems and processes, with huge consequences for well-being. McMichael
(2001) argues that environmental health concerns should be extended to include “the sustaining of
natural systems that are the prerequisite to human survival, health and well-being”.
It is simple enough to construct ‘thought experiments’ that show how individual well-being might be
affected by environmental change at the global level. It seems intuitively obvious, for example, that
increasing levels of pollution will lead to lower well-being – levels of asthma and related illnesses
will increase, for instance, and temperatures and sea levels will rise more quickly leading to
negative climactic events (e.g. flooding, hurricanes, biodiversity loss). Large-scale threats, whose
effects are already being felt, include (McMichael 2001, Corvalan et al 2005):
28
ƒ
Climate change. While some health impacts (such as milder winters) would be beneficial,
most are likely to be adverse. These include more frequent and extreme weather events
such as heat waves, storms and floods; the altered range, seasonality and intensity of
vector-borne infectious diseases; changes to food yields, especially of cereal crops, which
are likely to increase in temperate zones but decline in the tropics and subtropics; and
inundation and salinisation resulting from rising sea levels.
ƒ
Resource degradation. The over-exploitation of natural resources such as land, water,
fisheries and forests all have implications for human well-being, through their impacts on
food production and nutrition.
ƒ
Ozone depletion. This remains a problem because of the lag between phasing out ozonedepleting chemicals and the recovery of the ozone layer. Depletion increases exposure to
ultraviolet radiation, which is expected to increase sunburn, skin cancers and various eye
disorders. It could also impair the immune system and affect global food production.
ƒ
Global cycles. Changes to global cycles of elements such as nitrogen, phosphorus and
sulphur: the result of increased use of synthetic fertilisers, burning fossil fuels and other
practices, these changes are affecting water quality and soil fertility, and so could impair
global food production.
ƒ
Biodiversity loss. This poses hazards to human health through restricting supplies of food
and pharmaceuticals, both of which benefit from access to new plants and animals and
their genes. Another potential hazard is the risk of unravelling functional ecosystems,
affecting processes such as pollination and pest control.
ƒ
Chemical contamination of food and water. Low-level exposure to some industrial and
agricultural chemicals may be disrupting endocrine function, undermining disease
resistance and reproduction.
ƒ
Introduced ‘alien’ or ‘invasive’ species. These can affect food yields and storage, produce
food-borne toxins and spread infectious disease.
There is copious evidence in the medical and epidemiological literature to support the argument
that environmental changes have already had impacts on health, and will continue to do so in the
future. Sunyer and Grimalt (2006), for instance, review a range of evidence that suggests direct
effects of climate change on individual’s health, in particular those resulting from temperature rises,
29
changes in levels of rainfall (e.g. droughts and floods) and the ecology of infectious diseased. They
note the unfair distribution of the effects of climate change; Africa is likely to be hardest hit, whilst
being responsible for relatively little of the world’s CO2 emissions. Weiss and McMichael (2004)
argue that marked trends of re-emergence of old, and emergence of new, infectious diseases in
the latter part of the twentieth century can be partially attributed to human-induced climate change.
Perhaps the most fully worked out exploration of future health scenarios arising from climate
change is given by Butler and colleagues, based on work undertaken for the MEA (Butler,
Corvalan & Koren, 2005; Butler & Oluoch-Kosura, 2006). The range and scale of impacts they
describe makes for alarming reading.
Environmental inequality – the “unequal social distribution of environmental risks and hazards and
access to environmental goods and services” (Lucas et al, 2004) – and the related notion of
environmental justice are important components of the relationship between future environmental
change and health. Areas of socio-economic deprivation and exclusion frequently tend to suffer
both from disproportionately high levels of environmental risk and greater susceptibility to that risk
in terms of impacts. McMichael, Woodruff and Hales (2006) echo this argument and suggest, for
example, that the so-called ‘heat island’ effect, whereby densely populated urban environments
retain heat due to their high thermal mass, may be exacerbated by climatic change, with adverse
health effects for residents (see also McGeehan & Mirabelli, 2001).
CONNECT: Many of the effects of climate change will have negative impacts on physical wellbeing. These will occur as the result of both localised (e.g. increased flooding in certain areas)
and more global (e.g. diminishing air quality) environmental change, and will become more
severe and more widespread over time. Policy responses that succeed in ameliorating these
effects will thus be beneficial to well-being by safeguarding the need for physical health and
security.
Environmental impacts on psychological well-being: Changes to local environment
Many writers have noted that local environmental conditions, and specifically engagement with the
natural world, have positive benefits for the psychological well-being of individuals (e.g. Kaplan &
Kaplan, 1989; Burns, 2005). More dramatically, it has recently been suggested that such effects
may extend upwards to the community level. Availability of communal green spaces in highly
urbanised areas can have significant impacts on community cohesion and social interaction
amongst neighbours (Kuo, Sullivan, Coley & Brunson, 1998) and may even be associated with
lower crime rates (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001).
30
MORE RESEARCH: The suggestions that even quite minimal access to community parks and
gardens in urban areas can impact on crime rates and other sociological variables is extremely
striking, and requires much more research attention.
Mace, Bell & Loomis (2004) suggest that policy interventions to preserve natural parks can be
justified on the basis of proven psychological benefits of green space. A similar case is made by
Waylen (2006), in the specific context of botanic gardens. Pretty et al (2005) argue for widerranging policy intervention to promote green space on the grounds of psychological and physical
well-being benefits; in particular, they stress the need to encourage active engagement with green
spaces, through educational activities in school and partnership with the sport and leisure industry.
In sum, the promotion, maintenance and preservation of publicly accessible green space can be
regarded, with little reason for equivocation, as an environmental sustainability / well-being
connect.
CONNECT: Preservation and promotion of public-access green spaces would probably have a
positive impact on psychological well-being. This applies both the conservation areas such as
national parks and to community parks and gardens in urban areas.
Conversely, there is good evidence that damage to local environments can have serious
psychological impacts. Connor, Albrecht, Higginbotham, Freeman, and Smith (2004) studied
residents of the Upper Hunter Valley in Australia, an area that has suffered serious environmental
degradation over two centuries as the result of intense resource exploitation, in particular coal
mining and land clearance for agriculture. Using in-depth qualitative interviews the researchers
found that these changes to the environment were associated with significant expressions of
psychological distress, and were linked to negative changes to participant’s sense of place and
perceptions of autonomy. They dub this condition “solastalgia”, namely “the specific distress
caused by the negatively perceived transformation of one’s home and sense of belonging” (p. 55;
see also Albrecht, 2005).
Negative psychological impacts can be observed over much shorter time periods, in response to
relatively sudden environmental changes. Baum and Fleming (1993) gathered longitudinal data on
people living near the Three Mile Island nuclear power station and a number of other hazardous
waste sites, as well as people exposed to toxic chemical spills. In addition to physical problems
(such as long-term increases in blood pressure, sympathetic arousal and endocrine levels),
psychological symptoms such as distress and anxiety were frequently observed, in addition to
31
poorer performance on standard psychological tasks. Importantly for well-being, many participants
in the study reported a perceived loss of control relative to those not exposed to such hazards,
leading to persistent symptoms of emotional distress and arousal associated with uncertainty and
concerns about future health. Similar results have been found for people living near the site of the
Chernobyl nuclear disaster (Havenaar et al,1996).
CONNECT: Localised environmental damage can have a serious negative impact on the
psychological well-being of people who live nearby.
Environmental impacts on psychological well-being: Wider environmental conditions
Evidence for relationships between wider environmental conditions and psychological aspects of
well-being exists, but is relatively slight. Vemuri and Costanza (2006) found that a country’s natural
capital (as measured by a composite indicator, the Ecosystem Services Product) was strongly
associated with aggregate life satisfaction across countries, and was a better predictor than social
capital. At the within-country level, Welsch (2002) demonstrated a statistical relationship between
happiness ratings and environmental pollution. Using cross-sectional data from the World
Database of Happiness (Veenhoven, 2005), he included self-reported life satisfaction as an
explanatory variable in an analysis of the ‘cost’ of air pollution, enabling the implied valuation to be
expressed both in terms of monetary value and in terms of life satisfaction. Welsch’s analysis
suggested that a shift upwards in levels of nitrogen dioxide in Germany to the levels found in Japan
would lead to 8.25 per cent of the population reporting life satisfaction one category lower, on a
four point scale. He describes this, somewhat delicately, as “probably not … a trivial event to
society”.
In a later publication, Welsch (2006) used panel data on life satisfaction, GNP and pollution levels
from ten European countries to calculate implied valuation of improvements in air quality over the
period 1990-1997. Air pollution (in particular nitrogen dioxide and lead) was found to be a
significant predictor of differences in life satisfaction both between countries and over time. An
obvious question to ask is the process through which such an effect might be mediated, and this is
not clear-cut. Jacobs, Evans, Catalano and Dooley (1984) showed a relationship between
symptoms of depression and air quality in Los Angeles; interestingly, however, this effect was
heightened in individuals who had recently experienced an undesirable life event (e.g.
bereavement), even when potentially confounding factors such as socioeconomic status and prior
psychological condition were controlled for.
32
CONNECT: Reduction of the level of airborne pollutants (such as nitrogen dioxide and lead) is
likely to have a positive impact on psychological well-being.
Rehdanz and Maddison (2005) used regression methods to compare reported levels of life
satisfaction from the World Database of Happiness with comprehensive data on temperature and
precipitation in each country. Higher average temperatures in the warmer months were associated
with lower levels of self-reported life satisfaction, whereas higher average temperatures in the
cooler months were positively associated with life satisfaction. These results held even when a
number of other variables, including GDP per capita, were kept constant. Notably, annual average
temperature was not significantly related to happiness, suggesting that the effect is attributable to
weather extremes. The authors infer from this analysis that climate change, as currently forecast,
will have differential impacts on well-being in different countries. In high latitude countries, Winter
temperatures will rise, leading to increased levels of well-being. In low latitude countries, by
contrast, temperatures in the Summer months will rise higher still, leading to the kinds of
detrimental health impacts discussed above. These findings are lent support by previous work from
Frijters and van Praag (1998) and Maddison (2003), both of which make similar arguments without
explicit use of subjective well-being data.
A central point of interest in both Welsch’s and Rehdanz and Maddison’s studies is that the life
satisfaction data is completely separate from the data on environmental conditions. It is not the
case that people were asked, for instance, to report their satisfaction with the Summer
temperature, or with the air quality. As all three studies are based on regression models, caution
must be exercised in inferring causal relationships. Nonetheless, they provide evidence that life
satisfaction data at the population level is sensitive to environmental factors even when some
confounding variables are controlled-for; thus, they suggest the possibility of direct pathways
between environmental sustainability and psychological well-being.
CONNECT: Temperature rises due to negative environmental change are likely to have a
negative impact on psychological (and physical) well-being in some low latitude countries.
DISCONNECT: Temperature rises due to negative environmental change are likely to have a
positive impact on psychological well-being in some high latitude countries.
33
Summary
Environmental impacts on physical health are relatively straightforward to understand; to the extent
that health is a component of well-being and that the forecasts made for future climate change
scenarios are reasonably accurate, it is clear that negative impacts on physical well-being will
result (although these will differ substantially by geographical location). Meanwhile, there is
suggestive empirical evidence for a positive psychological benefit of interaction with the natural
environment, and some evidence that benefits may extend more widely to aspects of social wellbeing. There is evidence that negative changes to a local environment have negative psychological
impacts on those who live nearby, although these may be mediated through changes in perceived
autonomy and an acute sense of loss rather than by direct effects. Furthermore, there is some
(limited) evidence of a relationship between wider environmental factors such as air quality on
psychological well-being, although it is unclear precisely how such effects are caused. Seasonal
variation in temperature may be associated with variations in psychological well-being; hence,
global trends in climate change may have differential impacts on psychological well-being, again
depending on geographical location.
Clearly, a model of sustainable development that succeeds in slowing the rate of negative
environmental change will contribute to preventing negative health impacts, and thus to sustaining
current levels of well-being. Any policies that achieve this can thus be considered well-being /
environmental sustainability connects. There is an caveat here, however, namely that the wellbeing ‘pay-off’ from such policies will have two important characteristics. Firstly, it will be
significantly lagged, since substantive changes to the environment will happen only over a
relatively long time scale. Secondly, at least in the case of physical health benefits, it will be largely
preventative, in the sense that potential future threats to well-being will be ameliorated, rather than
actively well-being enhancing.
Semi-transparent
In a well-known essay, Hardin (1968) described what he saw as the impossibility of increasing both
global population and quality of life for all within the limits of finite planetary resources. In Hardin’s
view this is a paradox because individuals’ rational desire to enhance their own quality of life by
consuming more resources is incommensurate with the common good, which requires limited and
increasingly scarce resources to be preserved. He dubbed this a “tragedy of the commons” –
“tragedy” because it is an inevitable consequence of human nature. Hardin’s proposed solution to
the problem, “relinquishing the freedom to breed” (Hardin, 1968, p. 1248) caused considerable
34
controversy at the time and remains highly contentious, but his basic analysis has been
influential.15
The tragedy of the commons is an example of a ‘social dilemma’, namely a situation in which the
rational course of action for individuals within a group is detrimental to the group as a whole (see,
e.g. Dawes, 1980). Social dilemmas are central to the relationship between environmental
sustainability and well-being, and exist in a number of what we term here semi-transparent
pathways: namely, those where an individual engages in behaviours that are not, as it were,
‘intentioned’ towards the environment yet which have a direct impact on environmental
sustainability. In other words, these are situations in which the net environmental effect would be
different if the individual behaved differently, but it is not obviously in their rational interests to do
so.
There are many examples of these kinds of behaviours. Personal transport choice is perhaps the
most apparent, but others include recycling and awareness of household resource use. These
situations can be thought of as social dilemmas because an action that is rational for the individual
– say, driving to work rather than getting the bus – has a net detrimental impact on the
environment, and hence, ultimately, on all individuals.
Car use
CO2 emissions from private cars are widely accepted to make a significant contribution to climate
change. Moreover, because the actual amount of car use is under the individual’s direct control,
this has appeared to be fertile ground for instigating behaviour change. ‘Green’ taxes, such as
those proposed recently by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (HCEAC,
2006), aim to encourage voluntary reductions in car use. Road pricing schemes, such as the
London congestion charge, are likewise targeted at individuals. These ideas typically meet with
resistance because, for many people, car use is virtually synonymous with autonomy (Stradling, in
press). Unlike public transport, cars are seen as convenient, fast, clean and safe (Wardman, Hine
& Stradling, 2001) and, critically, something over which the individual can exercise control.
Whilst the environmental benefits of reduced private car use are not disputed, it is typically
assumed that it would lead to a concomitant reduction of individual well-being, manifest through a
perceived loss of autonomy for people who have grown to value, and so to demand, the flexibility
and convenience that cars provide. Transport is, after all, essential to the extent that people need it
15
The problem of population growth is regarded by some as the ‘elephant in the room’ of current sustainable
development policy. See, for instance, this recent article by Professor Chris Rapley, Director of the British
Antarctic Survey: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4584572.stm.
35
to access their places of work, shops and other services, and leisure opportunities. Without
personal transport, the day-to-day lives of many people – especially those in rural communities –
would be made appreciably more difficult. It is not clear whether concomitant well-being benefits
from reduced car use would be forthcoming in the short- to medium-term.16 In the longer term it
could be argued (for instance, on the basis of Welsch, 2006) that everyone would benefit from
improvements in air quality resulting from reduced emissions; but this argument is somewhat
speculative and certainly not likely to persuade many people to give up their cars.
It could be argued (perhaps optimistically) that those who switch from driving to cycling will
experience relatively little loss of autonomy, and even a well-being benefit mediated through
increased physical fitness. It is arguable too that, despite isolated incentives such as the provision
of tax free bicycles under the Green Transport Plan, transport policy on the whole does not
currently promote cycling as a genuine alternative to other forms of transport. Realistically, cycling
is not a feasible alternative for a majority of people as a means of travelling to and from work, or
accessing services and leisure opportunities.17
A key element to changing car use behaviour may thus be public transport. A recent report from
the RAC found that 68 per cent of UK motorists agreed that tougher measures were required to
address the problems of congestion, with 40 per cent in favour of congestion charging. However,
69 per cent of respondents also said that their support for road charging was contingent on visible
improvements in public transport provision (RAC Report on Motoring, 2006). Moreover, availability
of good public transport may be necessary but not sufficient. Psychological research on
motivations for car use has tended to stress the role of pro-environmental attitudes or ‘value norms’
(e.g. Marell, Davidsson & Girling, 1995; Nordlund & Garvill 2002, 2003). In one study, Joireman,
van Lange and van Vugt (2004) found that preference for using public transport was positively
associated with beliefs about the environmental damage of cars. However, this was only the case
for those who reported high levels of concern for future consequences of environmental change,
and there was no relationship to general social values. Umetzer, Blake, & Guppy (1999) found that
many car users act as ‘free-riders’, finding policies which collectivise the costs of driving preferable
to those that individualise it.
16
Although it is likely that some health improvements would be observed. See, e.g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4283295.stm for an indication of the extent of morbidity and mortality in
Europe related to air pollution.
17
It is important to recognise that this situation – in which people without cars genuinely do have fewer
opportunities and options than people with – is a result of previous decisions by people to drive, and the
consequences of these decisions (e.g. shops, employers and leisure providers moving to locations with good
road access and unlimited parking). The dispersion of services out of town centres renders them harder to
access by public transport, cycling or walking, which in turn encourages more people to drive and increases
the incentive on any business that wants to compete for the ‘carriage trade’ to move out of town. These
issues need to be considered systemically in terms of cause and effect (see, e.g. Levett, 2003, 2005).
36
DISCONNECT: Personal car use supports well-being, especially in terms of personal autonomy
and freedom, and – for some – access to essential services.
Air travel
Air travel, another major contributory to CO2 emissions, is a somewhat different case. Relatively
few people in the UK need to fly, either to access essential services or as part of their employment;
most flights are taken for leisure, as a means of reaching holiday destinations. Given the
reasonable assumption that foreign holidays increase rather than reduce well-being for most
people, as with car use it is not obvious how a reduction in flying would lead to well-being benefits
in the short- or medium-term. At best, it may be that people would adapt to taking holidays within
the UK, or at least within nearby continental Europe, and suffer no long-term reduction in wellbeing as a result. However, it seems likely that moves to seriously curb air travel would be met with
resistance. Under current proposals, such as targeted taxation or carbon allowance schemes, a
more likely scenario is that flying would once again return to being a preserve of the wealthy.18 If
accompanied by an overall reduction in flights this would have environmental benefits, but would
probably be detrimental from a well-being perspective, both in terms of curtailing autonomy and
increasing perceived inequality (and hence well-being, as mediated through relative socioeconomic status).
DISCONNECT: Widespread availability of international flights supports well-being by increasing
possibilities for holiday destinations.
DISCONNECT: Attempts to curb air-travel could have the unintended consequence of raising
the income threshold at which flying is economically viable, without leading to a significant
reduction in the actual number of flights.
MORE RESEARCH: Especially given the current security climate, it seems feasible that flying
is not benign in well-being terms, but actually a cause of stress and anxiety. Research is
needed to explore whether this has a detrimental effect on the well-being benefits of the
holiday as a whole.
An additional aspect of air travel relevant to well-being is noise pollution. Van Praag and Baarsma
(2005) adopted a conceptually similar approach to that of Welsch (2002, 2006) to demonstrate a
relationship between airport noise and well-being. They gathered data from a large sample of
18
See, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5253444.stm. Arguably, in fact, it has never ceased to be –
even now, frequency of flying is still significantly correlated with socioeconomic group.
37
Amsterdam residents, some of whom lived directly on the flight path to Schiphol airport. Variables
included subjective well-being, subjective ratings of noise exposure from various sources, objective
measures of noise experienced and a range of detailed demographic information. The resulting
analysis demonstrated, firstly, that life satisfaction was negatively related to the amount of airport
noise experienced and, secondly, that variation in a typical ‘shadow’ market price – i.e. property
price – did not fully reflect the monetary value associated with noise pollution from the airport.
Using this information, the researchers were able to build a model for estimating appropriate levels
of monetary compensation as a function of the extent to which house prices explain noise
differences, the actual noise level experienced, household income and the amount of noise
insulation in the home.
Noise pollution from airports is a highly localised issue and is not directly related to environmental
change or air pollution of the kind discussed above (although it is an indirect consequence of
economic growth, and flights themselves are obviously a major contributor to environmental
damage).
CONNECT: Localised noise pollution from busy airports has a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of local residents. Hence, a reduction in the number of flights could have well-being
benefits for some.
Ecological behaviours in the home
Many behaviours in the home – in particular those that are water and energy intensive – represent
a semi-transparent relationship between environmental sustainability and well-being. On the one
hand, these behaviours appear to have well-being benefits for the individual; using the dishwasher
rather than washing-up by hand, having a long hot bath rather than a quick shower or keeping the
heating turned up rather than wearing more layers of clothing. On the other, most people are
aware of environmental issues surrounding their own behaviour, and are willing in principle to ‘do
their bit’ as long as it is convenient and cost-effective (Holdsworth, 2003) and they feel that it is part
of a wider effort (SCR, 2006).
DISCONNECT: Certain resource intensive behaviours in the home support well-being, either by
saving time spent on unrewarding or unpleasant tasks, or by promoting comfort and agreeable
living conditions.
Nevertheless, obvious barriers exist. Kurz, Donaghue, Rapley and Walker (2005) conducted a
qualitative analysis of interviews with homeowners in Perth (Australia) on the subject of water and
38
energy conservation in the home. Water was conceived of as a scarce and limited natural
resource, whereas discussion of energy focused on technologies for production, not consumption.
Furthermore, a dichotomy was frequently observed between (claimed) personal desire to save
water and social ‘obligations’, such as to keep up appearance of the garden and maintain accepted
standards (e.g. of hygiene). McMakin, Malone and Lundgren (2002) studied the motivation of
household residents to conserve energy in the home without financial incentives. They found that
sustainable behaviour change arose from a variety of motivations, including pro-environmental
altruism. However, altruistic motivations were more likely when people felt a sense of autonomy
and control (similar arguments are put forward by both Geller, 1995, and de Young, 1996).
These results imply that some aspects of psychological well-being may in fact be precursors to
ecological behaviour, or at least that psychological well-being and pro-environmental behaviour
might be correlated. Several studies provide evidence to support this. Kasser & Sheldon (2002)
demonstrated that Americans who reported more satisfaction and less stress at Christmas time
also engaged in more environmentally-friendly holiday behaviours like using organic or locallygrown foods and giving environmentally friendly presents. Brown & Kasser (2005, Study 1) found a
positive correlation between the happiness of American adolescents and how much they reported
engaging in environmentally-friendly behaviours such as turning off electric lights, recycling, and
reusing paper, aluminium foil, and plastic bags. In a second study (Brown & Kasser, 2005, Study 2)
Americans who experienced high life satisfaction also reported significantly more engagement in
ecologically-sustainable behaviours and significantly lower ecological footprints.
CONNECT: Higher levels of psychological well-being are associated (in some studies) with the
likelihood of engaging in pro-environmental behaviours in the home.
Unlike using less water or energy, for instance, there is no sense in which household waste
recycling is likely to be detrimental to well-being. At the same time, however, it is ‘effortful’ to the
extent that it requires extra time and consideration to be given to an otherwise straightforward task.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, people with stronger pro-environmental motivations and values may be
more likely to carry the burden of recycling duties within a household (Díaz Meneses & Beerli
Palacio, 2005), and researchers have variously argued that gender, income, location, residence
type and numerous other factors predict likelihood of recycling (for a review, see Saphores, Nixon,
Ogunseitan & Shapiro, 2006). Links to well-being, however, are unclear.
Generally, de Young (1996) emphasises that attempts to increase the likelihood of individuals
engaging in environmentally sustainable behaviours should not overlook the psychological need for
39
competence and efficacy. Whilst, for instance, recycling household waste appropriately is not
difficult, neither is it obvious or intuitive at first. Attempts to promote recycling must therefore not
only encourage people’s motivations to act, but should recognise that many individuals will not feel
especially competent when they try activities new to them; this feeling of incompetence, in turn, is
likely to interfere both with their persistence at the new behaviours and with their personal wellbeing. In a second study in Perth, Kurz, Donaghue and Walker (2005) showed that energy saving
behaviour in the home was more frequent, and more effective, when labels were actually placed on
household items that served as reminder to residents to curb their energy use and detailed how
they should go about it.
MORE RESEARCH: Efforts to encourage pro-environmental behaviours in the home could
lead to feelings of incompetence, having a negative impact on well-being. On the other hand,
people may ultimately gain feelings of competence and autonomy from knowing how to use
appliances appropriately and commensurately. Understanding this tension is important for
framing policies that aim to change individual’s behaviour.
MORE RESEARCH: Whilst it is known that positive attitudes towards the environment often
underlie pro-environmental behaviours, how these attitudes develop is less well understood.
Again, this information is important for policies that attempt to use education and persuasion to
encourage green behaviour.
Environmental concern
It is broadly accepted in the environmental psychology literature that ‘environmentally friendly’
behaviour is predicted to some extent – although perhaps not especially strongly (Olli, Grendstad &
Wollebaek, 2001) – by attitudes towards the environment. This raises the question of whether the
presence or absence, or the phenomenological character, of attitudes towards the environment
has a relationship with psychological well-being. In one of very few studies to consider this directly,
Villacorta, Koestner & Lekes (2003) administered an inventory of environmental attitudes, along
with various standard measures of autonomy, motivation and aspiration. They found that proenvironmental attitudes were associated with likelihood of engaging in ecological behaviours.
However, they were also associated with personal autonomy and motivations such as concern for
one’s community, and with the experience of ‘positive affect’ and the absence of frequent ‘negative
affect’ (which, under some definitions, are a key component of well-being; Diener, Suh, Lucas &
Smith, 1999).
Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Gowdy (in press) used regression methods to analyse attitudinal data from the
British Household Panel Survey. Using a dichotomous variable of concerned / not concerned, they
40
found a negative relationship between well-being and concern about ozone depletion, but a
positive relationship between well-being and concern about biodiversity loss. Both of these results
held when potentially confounding variables were controlled for (i.e. individual personality traits,
actual levels of pollution in the respondent’s area and their propensity to engage in outdoor
pursuits). Individuals who reported concern about both ozone depletion and biodiversity showed no
effect on well-being. These results are interesting because they suggest: 1) that concerns about
environmental issues can have a significant impact on well-being; and 2) that different types of
concerns might affect well-being in different directions.
CONNECT: Concerns about the environment may be directly related to psychological wellbeing. However, there is limited evidence that such concerns could operate in different
directions depending on the nature of the concern.
MORE RESEARCH: Research demonstrating direct relationships between well-being and
environmental attitudes and behaviours is relatively slight, but highly suggestive. From the
perspective of ‘selling’ sustainability this is an extremely important area; if robust links could be
shown, this would provide a strong basis for more radical policy responses.
Attitudes to the future
One dimension of the relationship between environmental sustainability and well-being that is
virtually ignored in both the scientific literature and political debate, but which is potentially
important, is that of attitudes to the future. Some writers have argued that environmental changes
such as global warming are feeding a growth of ‘apocalyptic suspicion’ about the century ahead
(Eckersley, 2006a). This pessimism impacts directly on individuals’ behaviour, but also has wider,
indirect implications for well-being through its influence on how societies respond to this century’s
challenges.
Perceptions of the future are increasingly shaped by the images of global or distant threat and
disaster to which people are exposed: earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, disease pandemics,
terrorist attacks, genocide, and famine. While these hazards are not new – the Cuban missile crisis
of the 1960s and the, then imminent, prospect of a nuclear war between the United States and
USSR is often cited as evidence that people have lived with the prospect of global annihilation for
several generations – the fears were never so sustained and varied, and so powerfully reinforced
by the frequency, immediacy and vividness of today’s media images. Indeed, the recent film
41
documentary, An Inconvenient Truth,19 presents the arguments supporting climate change virtually
in the form and style of a disaster movie.
Responses to this situation are likely to be subtle and complex. At an individual level, for example,
well-being is strongly associated with the needs for autonomy and competence, and a view of the
world as essentially benevolent and controllable. The notion of a future in which massive negative
changes are wrought beyond human control could well be detrimental to these needs, and could
be one reason why pro-environmental behaviours and attitudes have been associated with wellbeing in some studies. Loss of faith in the future may also affect well-being by reinforcing
materialism and individualism (Eckersley 2005, 2006a).
At a societal level, it has been argued that we are being drawn in at least three directions by the
prospects of dramatic – even catastrophic – social, economic and environmental changes
(Eckersley 2006b). These responses highlight how people, individually and collectively, can react
very differently to the same perceptions of threat and hazard. In their most extreme forms, they can
be characterised as follows:
1. Apocalyptic nihilism: the abandonment of belief – thinking and acting as though it is ‘late in the
day’ and nothing much matters any more. The focus is on ‘tending our own patch’ and politics
is driven by fear and self-interest.
2. Apocalyptic fundamentalism: the retreat to simplistic belief – ‘end time’ thinking, where global
war and warming are embraced as harbingers of apocalypse and politics is framed as a
contest between good and evil.20
3. Apocalyptic activism: the transformation of belief – the desire to create a new conceptual
framework or system (stories, values, beliefs) that will make a sustainable future possible.
Politics is reframed according to a new worldview and ethic.
Although it is possible to give examples of people and/or groups that hold almost exclusively
nihilist, fundamentalist or activist views, these categories are artificially stark and are thus best
thought of as tendencies rather than absolutes. As such, they can overlap, co-exist and change
over time in both individuals and groups. From the perspective of environmental sustainability,
19
Directed by David Guggenheim and featuring former US presidential candidate Al Gore.
See http://raptureready.com/rap2.html for an extreme example of this kind of response. Note that negative
climate changes and their effects – floods, plagues, drought and famine, etc – are taken to make a positive
contribution to the ‘Rapture Index’, because they bring the Rapture closer.
20
42
nihilism and fundamentalism both represent maladaptive responses, in the sense that they are
likely to lead to a disregard for the environment and as such risk amplifying the costs to human
well-being. It has recently been argued that such responses have led in the past to the collapse of
societies confronting environmental strains (Diamond, 2005). Activism, meanwhile, can be seen as
an adaptive response, closely associated with the drive for environmental sustainability.
MORE RESEARCH: Attitudes to the future of the planet may impact on both psychological
well-being and people’s actual behaviours. This is potentially a very important area, but little
empirical research to date has addressed it specifically. In particular, research should address
the range, intensity and distribution of different attitudes to the future, and consider the extent
to which they predict behaviour.
Summary
The very existence of a social dilemma problem in the case of car use, air travel and similar
behaviours suggests that, as a minimum, people perceive that a well-being deficit would result
from changing their behaviour patterns. It is obviously not true that everyone who flies regularly, or
drives to work rather than takes the bus, holds anti-environmental views or is indifferent towards
the natural world. However, it probably is true that many people assume – quite reasonably – that
their own actions have such negligible environmental impact that there is no appreciable benefit in
them acting alone, especially when they suspect that their well-being would be compromised as a
result. In fact, they are very likely wrong about this latter point; the psychological principle of
adaptation (Helson, 1964; and supported since by copious empirical evidence) suggests that
people soon become used to quite radical changes in their physical and material circumstances
and ultimately end up no less (or, for that matter, more) happy. But from a policy perspective,
telling people that their intuitions are wrong and that they will ‘get used to it’ in time is an
unappealing basis for persuading them to make significant lifestyle changes.
Much research shows that a person’s values and attitudes towards the environment play a key role
in influencing their ecological behaviours (although there is some disagreement about exactly how
this influence is operationalised). Of more interest in the present context, some studies have
shown a positive association between psychological well-being and environmental attitudes and
behaviours. Such an association, if found to be robust, would provide a powerful argument in
support of the kinds of behaviour change – especially ‘downshifting’ – that are widely assumed to
be required for a really substantive effect on the environment. It would certainly be more promising
than coercion coupled with claims that ‘you’ll get used to it’.
43
Essentially, then, people have to want to behave differently. However, society-wide shifts in values
are extremely difficult to instigate, slow to take hold and even slower to yield widespread changes
in behaviour.21 The environmental sustainability pay-off would be very significantly lagged –
indeed, it would probably not be evident at all until some large ‘critical mass’ of individuals made
appreciable and persisting lifestyle changes. However, any well-being pay-off resulting from
psychological affinity with the environment and the subsequent ‘reward’ from engaging in proenvironmental behaviours would also emerge gradually over time. It would certainly occur
concurrently with, or sometime after, the initial dip in well-being resulting from curtailing previously
desirable behaviours.
Attitudes that motivate behaviour in the present depend, to an extent, on attitudes about the future.
Various responses to the threat of environmental change are possible, from denial and/or
ambivalence through to the kinds of extreme ‘apocalyptic’ responses outlined above. If people
believe – either whole-heartedly, or on balance – that the future is bleak and prospects for change
are hopeless, this is very likely to limit the extent to which they are motivated to engage in proenvironmental behaviours. In some extreme manifestations, such beliefs may even encourage
behaviours that deplete the environment. In our view, these issues are currently under-researched.
Opaque
As noted earlier in this paper, it is broadly accepted in the sustainable development literature that
negative environmental impacts are ultimately a consequence of rising material consumption; there
is no need to revisit these arguments here. If this is true, however, then it is important to consider
two key aspects of the relationship of individual well-being to consumption and economic growth,
both of which have been marshalled as possible explanations for the Easterlin paradox: 1) values
and attitudes associated with consumption; and 2) the impact a consumption-based economy itself
has on social structures and institutions. We describe these pathways as ‘opaque’ because the
relationship of individuals’ behaviour on the environment is typically obscured by a complex of
mediating processes.
Materialism and kinds of motivation
For our growth-based economy to function people have to want to consume, and to keep
consuming after their basic physical needs have been met; for this, in turn, they have to believe
that consumption will make them (in the broad sense) happier. The very goal of the advertising and
21
This is certainly not to say that they cannot happen. Recent polling evidence suggests that people in the
UK are becoming increasingly aware of the environmental impacts of their behaviours (Co-Operative Bank,
2005) and that this is gradually being reflected in actual consumption patterns (see, for instance, Vidal,
2006).
44
marketing professions is to persuade people that they ‘need’ more goods and services for a
complete and fulfilling life. There is little doubt that such tactics are successful – for instance,
research suggests that people who watch a lot of television (and are thus exposed to a large
amount of advertising) are likely to have a more strongly materialist outlook and be more
dissatisfied with their standard of living (Sirgy et al, 1998). It seems likely, moreover, that
materialist values are developed from a young age; earlier work by nef identified evidence of a
strongly materialist outlook in children aged 9-15 in Nottingham (Marks, 2004), and there is positive
evidence that the relative importance placed on material wealth and possession by young people
in the US rose dramatically over the last few decades (see, e.g. Myers, 2000).
However, for some time a number of psychologists, ecologists, and philosophers have argued that
the entire project of consumption growth rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of human
nature. Far from making us happier, according to this critique, the pursuit of material things can be
psychologically damaging. Beyond the satisfaction of our basic physical needs for housing,
clothing and nutrition, the pursuit of material consumption merely serves to entrench us in
unproductive status competition, disrupt our work-life balance and distract us from those things that
offer meaning and purpose to our lives (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Scitovsky, 1977; Wachtel, 1983).
These theoretical arguments are now supported by a significant body of recent empirical research,
which purports to demonstrate that holding a strongly materialist value orientation is, all else being
equal, detrimental to well-being (see, e.g. Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; Chan & Joseph, 2000;
Diener & Oishi, 2000; Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Stutzer, 2004; Tatzel, 2002)
Why should this be? One popular explanation relates to individuals’ motivations. A decade ago,
Kasser & Ryan (1996) distinguished between two types of pursuits in life: so-called ‘intrinsic’ and
‘extrinsic’. Intrinsic goals are inherently rewarding in themselves, because they satisfy people’s
psychological needs. Extrinsic goals, on the other hand, concern external rewards and praise, and
are typically pursued as a means to some other end, for instance financial success, image or
popularity/status. In other words, extrinsic goals are not inherently satisfying of needs – rather, they
are motivations to pursue ends that people believe will satisfy their needs. Many psychologists
think that these kinds of beliefs, whilst widespread, are mistaken and are a systematic result of the
way in which the brain remembers past events and imagines future ones (see Wilson & Gilbert,
2005, for a review).
Across multiple studies and in a variety of cultures (e.g., Grouzet, Kasser, Ahuvia, Fernandez-Dols,
Kim, Lau, Ryan, Saunders, Schmuck & Sheldon, 2005) it has been consistently demonstrated that
intrinsic and extrinsic goals are distinguishable, and in psychological opposition to each other.
Further, studies have demonstrated that such pursuits differentially relate to personal well-being
45
and to ecological behaviour. Kasser (2002) reviews a variety of studies demonstrating that
individuals with goals that are highly extrinsic and materialistic report lower personal well-being,
whereas those with strong intrinsic values are happier and healthier. Much of this correlation
seems to be due to poor needs satisfaction for those who strongly pursue extrinsic, materialistic
goals and to greater need satisfaction for those focused on intrinsic goals. Other research shows
how materialistic, extrinsic goals are associated directly with more ecologically-degrading attitudes
and behaviours: materialistic people have less concern for other living things (Richins & Dawson,
1992), engage in fewer environmentally sustainable behaviours and, in resource-dilemma games,
report being more motivated by greed and use up more of limited resources (Sheldon & McGregor,
2000).
CONNECT: Strongly materialist values and motivations are associated with dissatisfaction,
anxiety and lower well-being. Some research suggests that they may also be negatively
associated with pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours.
Because materialistic values are necessary to provoke the consumption that, in turn, drives the
economy, there are many processes in our social world that necessarily encourage materialism
and discourage intrinsically oriented goals. Kasser (2006) recently proposed that in order to
decrease materialism, a three-fold strategy is necessary that works to: a) decrease the likelihood
that people will be exposed to materialistic messages (e.g. by banning advertisements to children
or by removing tax write-offs for advertising); b) increase people’s resilience to the materialistic
messages that remain in the environment (e.g. by building intrinsic values or by teaching
individuals how to decode advertisement messages); and c) help people to act more consistently
with the intrinsic goals that they may value (e.g. by encouraging ethical consumption and
investments or by focusing attention on indicators other than GDP). Strategies that follow these
paths are likely to help shift people’s values and goals, and thus behaviours, in ways that may
ultimately improve well-being and ecological-sustainability. It is important to note, however, that
such improvements will be significantly lagged.
Two further issues should be considered in relation to the general finding of correlation between
materialism and well-being. Firstly, it may be that people who strive towards materialist goals and
actually succeed in achieving them suffer less than those who do not. Nickerson, Schwartz, Diener
and Kahnemann (2003) analysed longitudinal panel data and found that the negative impact on
well-being associated with materialist values decreased as household income rose. Moreover, the
negative impact was largely confined to specific (albeit important) aspects of life satisfaction –
family relationships, and job satisfaction. Secondly, and on the other hand, there is some (limited)
46
evidence that high levels of consumer debt are significantly negatively correlated with
psychological well-being at the individual level (Brown, Taylor & Wheatley-Price, 2005). This issue
has received scant consideration in the literature to-date, but is clearly important in the present
context given that such debt is frequently accrued as a means of funding consumption.
MORE RESEARCH: It may be the case the materialist aspirations are supportive of well-being
in the short term if the individual is able to satisfy them. Many people in the middle classes, for
instance, are able to consume broadly as they would like and may well see it as detrimental to
their well-being if their consumption was restricted. Research is required to better understand
the qualitative difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations when goals are met.
MORE RESEARCH: The relationship between consumer debt and well-being has been
significantly under-researched to-date. This is important, to the extent that people typically
acquire debt through the pursuit of consumption opportunities.
Structural relationships between the economy and the individual
In spite of its obvious relevance to the question in hand, some observers remain unconvinced by
the argument that valuing wealth and material possessions is per se detrimental to well-being (see,
e.g. Friedman, 2005, for a stout defence of economic growth, and its attendant personal
aspirations, in moral terms). Nonetheless, some still regard the Easterlin paradox as serious
enough to demand explanation. The conclusions arrived at are, in some cases, even more radical,
and more critical of the conventional economic model, than those that depend on individual
psychological explanations.
In a recent attempt to construct an international index of quality of life, The Economist’s Intelligence
Unit put forward what amounts to a profound structural critique of the conventional model (EIU,
2005). Attempting to explain the paradox of diminishing returns to rising consumption, they
suggested that “there are factors associated with modernisation that, in part, offset its positive
impact”. Specifically, they argue that alongside consumption growth
[a] concomitant breakdown of traditional institutions is manifested in the decline of religiosity and
of trade unions; a marked rise in various social pathologies (crime, and drug and alcohol
addiction); a decline in political participation and of trust in public authority; and the erosion of the
institutions of family and marriage.
Three things are significant about the cultural changes highlighted by the EIU. The first is that they
involve factors known to be closely correlated with well-being – in particular, feelings of social and
47
community relatedness and trust. The second is that the changes which have occurred in these
factors are in the ‘wrong’ direction; in other words they act to undermine well-being. Thirdly, the
suggestion implicit in The Economist’s article is that these changes have occurred as a direct result
of the modernisation process, based on consumption growth. In other words, the pursuit of
consumption has systematically undermined not only the environmental conditions on which future
well-being depends, but also certain social conditions (e.g. family, friendship, community, trust) that
are critically important for well-being now.
It is clearly worth asking why consumption growth might operate in this way, and again it turns out
that this intellectual territory has a long and complex pedigree. Sociologists and social philosophers
have preoccupied themselves with almost precisely the same question for well over a century, ever
since Durkheim’s (1951/1897) careful study of suicide in turn of the century Europe in which he
identified forces of alienation aligned specifically with the emerging capitalist model of social
organisation. And some at least of the answers which have been put forward within this literature
are distinctly challenging for the existing model. A key responsibility for undermining well-being, for
example, has been placed on processes of commoditisation – through which previously public or
informal goods and services become the object of commercial markets – and individuation – the
gradual separation of people’s individual identities and interests from the interests of the social
group.
As many critics of modernity have pointed out, modern economies suffer from a structural need for
individualist, consumerist values in order to sustain demand for consumption (see, e.g. Baudrillard,
1997/1970; Bauman, 1998, 2001; Douthwaite, 1992; Fromm, 1976; Illich, 1977). This structural
need arises, specifically, because of the role that material consumption plays in economic stability.
In a system in which the stability of the economy depends on continued consumption, it becomes
increasingly important to maintain the social and psychological momentum of consumption. The
continuing expansion of the market into new areas, and the continuing allegiance of people as
consumers to the process appear to be vital.
CONNECT: Consumption growth, with its attendant emphasis on the needs of the
individual, may have caused (or catalysed) the breakdown of certain social structures that
support well-being, in particular through the need for social relatedness.
The suggestion that certain critical aspects of society are undermined by relentless consumption is
lent further support by sociological work on trends in cultural attitudes and perceptions of quality of
life. Studies over the past decade, both qualitative and quantitative, reveal levels of anger and
48
moral anxiety about changes in society that were not apparent thirty years ago (Eckersley, 2005,
2006a). They show that many people are concerned about the materialism, greed and selfishness
they believe drive society today, underlie social ills, and threaten their children’s future.
A 1995 US study, Yearning for Balance, underscores Americans’ worries about their way of life
(Harwood Group, 1995). Based on focus group discussions and a national survey, the study found
that people shared a deep and abiding concern with the core values driving their society and “the
frenzied, excessive quality of American life today”. Previous work by nef suggests that, for many
people in the UK, politics and corruption have become almost synonymous, as have politics and
insincerity, or politics and manipulation (Walker, 2002). Business consultant Sir John Whitmore
(2005) writes that in his work he meets more and more business people who “secretly despise the
system they are part of, who deplore the lack of corporate values, who know their products and
services are of little consequence, and who would love to be out of it and doing something more
meaningful”; but who also feel ‘trapped’ in their lifestyles.
Some studies make quite explicit the tension between concerns about quality of life and the
political emphasis on growth. For example, surveys show that 87 per cent of Britons and 83 per
cent of Australians agree that their societies are “too materialistic, with too much emphasis on
money and not enough on the things that really matter” (Hamilton, 2002, 2003a). An Australian
survey revealed that “having extra money for things like luxuries and travel” ranked last in a list of
seven items judged ‘very important’ to success, well behind the top-scorer, “having a close and
happy family”. And in contrast to government priorities, “maintaining a high standard of living”
ranked last in a list of sixteen critical issues; educational access, children and young people’s wellbeing, and health care were at the top (Bagnall, 1999).
Another survey, conducted in Australia, offered respondents two positive scenarios of the country’s
future. One focused on individual wealth, economic growth and efficiency and enjoying “the good
life”; the other on community, family, equality and environmental sustainability. 73 per cent
expected the former, but 93 per cent preferred the latter, a gap between expectations and
preferences that had widened markedly since a comparable survey in 1995 (Ipsos Mackay, 2005).
At the same time, optimism about the future of world had fallen. Asked to choose between two
statements about the world in the 21st century, only 23 per cent thought it was likely to be “a new
age of peace and prosperity”; 66 per cent opted for “a bad time of crisis and trouble”.
Summary
As Jackson (2005b) points out, “individual behaviours are deeply embedded in social and
institutional contexts” (p. 2). The result is that people become “locked-in” to patterns of behaviour
49
consistent with the entrenched belief that consumption is the route to well-being. This is a good
thing from an economic perspective, since it drives the consumption growth on which the economy
depends. However, it is a bad thing for the environment since it also drives the exploitation of
natural resources and disregard for long-term environmental impacts that are responsible for taking
Western societies well beyond the limits of ‘one planet living’.
A growing body of evidence suggests that, at least in some respects, materialist values may also
be a bad thing for individual well-being. By emphasising the pursuit of so-called extrinsic goals,
which are not inherently rewarding, over intrinsic goals which are, materialist values provide poor
needs satisfaction. It is probably the case that for some people (perhaps, for instance, some
successful entrepreneurs) the pursuit of money can come to be inherently rewarding. For most
people, however, it seems important not as an end in itself, but because it enables the greater
consumption which they believe will make them happier. In practice, as has been noted already,
empirical studies find little or no relationship between happiness and material wealth and
consumption that is not otherwise accounted for by status effects (Clarke et al, 2006).
More radically, it has been suggested by some that ever-greater consumption growth has led to the
breakdown of certain social structures and institutions known to be important to well-being. This is
a consequence of the increasing emphasis on the individual as distinct from society. Whether such
feelings underlie increasing rates of suicide (as Durkheim suggested a century ago) and
depression, drive negative trends in people’s perceptions about society, or even offer a partial
explanation of the Easterlin paradox is, of course, a matter for debate. But future research needs to
take seriously the suggestion that changes in society which have a detrimental effect on well-being
are, in part, caused by aspects of the incumbent, environmentally unsustainable economic model.
50
Transparent Pathways
Connects
ƒ
Many of the effects of climate change will have negative impacts on
physical well-being. These will occur as the result of both localised (e.g.
increased flooding in certain areas) and more global (e.g. diminishing air
quality) environmental change, and will become more severe and more
widespread over time. Policy responses that succeed in ameliorating
these effects will thus be beneficial to well-being by safeguarding the need
for physical health and security.
ƒ
Preservation and promotion of public-access green spaces would probably
have a positive impact on psychological well-being. This applies both the
conservation areas such as national parks and to community parks and
gardens in urban areas.
ƒ
Localised environmental damage can have a serious negative impact on
the psychological well-being of people who live nearby.
ƒ
Reduction of the level of airborne pollutants (such as nitrogen dioxide and
lead) is likely to have a positive impact on psychological well-being.
ƒ
Temperature rises due to negative environmental change are likely to
have a negative impact on psychological (and physical) well-being in some
low latitude countries.
Disconnects
ƒ
Temperature rises due to negative environmental change are likely to
have a positive impact on psychological well-being in some high latitude
countries.
More
research
ƒ
The suggestions that even quite minimal access to community parks and
gardens in urban areas can impact on crime rates and other sociological
variables is extremely striking, and requires much more research attention.
51
Semi-transparent Pathways
Connects
Disconnects
More
research
ƒ
Localised noise pollution from busy airports has a detrimental impact on
the well-being of local residents. Hence, a reduction in the number of
flights could have well-being benefits for some.
ƒ
Higher levels of psychological well-being are associated (in some studies)
with the likelihood of engaging in pro-environmental behaviours in the
home
ƒ
Concerns about the environment may be directly related to psychological
well-being. However, there is limited evidence that such concerns could
operate in different directions depending on the nature of the concern.
ƒ
Personal car use supports well-being, especially in terms of personal
autonomy and freedom, and – for some – access to essential services.
ƒ
Widespread availability of international flights supports well-being by
increasing possibilities for holiday destinations.
ƒ
Attempts to curb air-travel could have the unintended consequence of
raising the income threshold at which flying is economically viable,
without leading to a significant reduction in the actual number of flights.
ƒ
Certain resource intensive behaviours in the home support well-being,
either by saving time spent on unrewarding or unpleasant tasks, or by
promoting comfort and agreeable living conditions.
ƒ
Especially given the current security climate, it seems feasible that flying
is not benign in well-being terms, but actually a cause of stress and
anxiety. Research is needed to explore whether this has a detrimental
effect on the well-being benefits of the holiday as a whole.
ƒ
Efforts to encourage pro-environmental behaviours in the home could
lead to feelings of incompetence, having a negative impact on well-being.
On the other hand, people may ultimately gain feelings of competence
and autonomy from knowing how to use appliances appropriately and
commensurately.
ƒ
Whilst it is known that positive attitudes towards the environment often
underlie pro-environmental behaviours, how these attitudes develop is
less well understood.
ƒ
Research demonstrating direct relationships between well-being and
environmental attitudes and behaviours is relatively slight, but highly
suggestive. From the perspective of ‘selling’ sustainability this is an
extremely important area; if robust links could be shown, this would
provide a strong basis for more radical policy responses.
ƒ
Attitudes to the future of the planet may impact on both psychological
well-being and people’s actual behaviours. This is potentially a very
important area, but little empirical research to date has addressed it
specifically. In particular, research should address the range, intensity
and distribution of different attitudes to the future, and consider the extent
to which they predict behaviour.
52
Opaque Pathways
Connects
More
research
ƒ
Strongly materialist values and motivations are associated with
dissatisfaction, anxiety and lower well-being. Some research suggests
that they may also be negatively associated with pro-environmental
attitudes and behaviours.
ƒ
Consumption growth, with its attendant emphasis on the needs of the
individual, may have caused (or catalysed) the breakdown of certain
social structures that support well-being, in particular through the need for
social relatedness.
ƒ
It may be the case the materialist aspirations are supportive of well-being
in the short term if the individual is able to satisfy them. Many people in
the middle classes, for instance, are able to consume broadly as they
would like and may well see it as detrimental to their well-being if their
consumption was restricted. Research is required to better understand
the qualitative difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations when
goals are met.
ƒ
The relationship between consumer debt and well-being has been
significantly under-researched to-date. This is important, to the extent that
people typically acquire debt through the pursuit of consumption
opportunities.
53
Discussion
Identifying common causation
Transparent pathways between well-being and environmental sustainability do not depend on the
attitudes or behaviours of individuals and are completely mediated by changes to the environment.
To the extent that such changes are, in large part, attributable to material resource use required to
meet consumption demand, then it is possible to argue that consumption growth ultimately
underlies these pathways. Opaque pathways, meanwhile, are entirely mediated through the
prevailing socio-economic system – they concern how people’s attitudes to their lives, to
themselves, their goals and their beliefs about what will make them happy will impact on their wellbeing. As such, they are the very drivers of material consumption.
Semi-transparent pathways concern how individuals’ personal attitudes towards the environment
mediate decisions about energy use, car use, recycling, and other behaviours with directly
attributable environmental consequences. These, too, must be seen in the wider context of a
consumption-focused economy. Energy use in the home has risen dramatically as the “bundle of
goods” (Sen, 1984) required for an acceptable standard of living has increased. To the extent that
few of these goods are essential in any ‘basic needs’ sense (no-one’s survival depends on owning
a dishwasher) and the well-being benefit from them is usually minimal and short-lived (because of
the effects of adaptation; see, e.g. Easterlin, 2003), it becomes clear that the personal
consumption decisions are driven by other needs. At least some of these are likely to be psychosocial in nature, relating to perceived social expectations (recall Kurz et al’s observation that
homeowners in Perth justified water use on the basis of ‘social obligations’) and lay beliefs about
the well-being gains from consumption. A similar argument could be made for foreign holidays and
(although perhaps to a lesser extent) high levels of car use.
What, then, to make of the evidence that well-being has not increased in line with GDP growth, and
indeed that by some measures it has begun to decrease? On the one hand, nobody seriously
doubts that economic growth of some form is essential to reduce levels of absolute poverty and
improve living conditions in the developing world. Neither would it be easy – or sensible – to simply
abandon the incumbent socio-economic model in the developed world. On the other hand,
because consumption behaviour ultimately mediates the key pathways between environmental
sustainability and individual well-being, the potential need for dramatic change must be taken
seriously.
Firstly, we should take seriously the suggestion that, in some significant respects, modern society
is adrift in its pursuit of well-being. Not only are we compromising the well-being of future
54
generations, we may not consistently be able to deliver our own now. But equally, this well-being
deficit suggests the possibility of some hope for the future. Namely, that it might be possible to
deliver well-being without materialism, a higher quality of life without the associated material
throughput and environmental impact, a kind of double dividend in sustainability (Jackson, 2005a):
to live better by consuming less, and be more sustainable in the process. And it is this promise
which makes the well-being debate such an important one for sustainable development.
The challenge of transition
Moving towards a materially lighter economy has always been a theoretical possibility. However,
the need to do so has usually been framed in terms of environmental sustainability and the limits of
the planet – terms that many see as remote from their everyday lives (and that some refuse to
accept at all). The argument that consumption growth is actually detrimental to well-being in key
respects provides a new and powerful motivation for change. The promise of transition to a lowconsumption lifestyle with enhanced personal and social well-being is enticing. But there are
serious challenges to be overcome before such a transition can be instigated, and if it is to be
managed in anything resembling a smooth manner. In our view, there are three key tensions that
will need to be negotiated.
Getting started
If you wanted to create a materially light, well-being led economy, you would not wish to start from
the position in which we find ourselves in the West. Moving from our present situation to a
genuinely one-planet economy will, ultimately, require engagement with huge political issues –
global competitiveness, climate change treaties, trade policy and so on. Before that, however, will
come the problem of persuading people that it is the right goal to work towards in the first place
and that achieving it will not entail large costs in terms of well-being.
There are three particular aspects of this to consider. Firstly, whilst people adapt quickly to
changes in their material standard of living, they are likely to feel threatened by anticipated losses.
As famously demonstrated by Kahneman and Tversky (1979; see also Thaler, 1980), and
repeatedly shown since, people tend to be highly risk averse before an event – the fear of potential
losses carries more cognitive ‘weight’ than the anticipated benefits of future gains. In practice,
though, even quite radical reductions in consumption would almost certainly be far less painful than
people anticipate. Moreover, as evidence from the ‘voluntary simplicity’ movement suggests (Elgin,
1993; Etzioni, 1998; Pierce, 2000; Brown & Kasser, 2005) there is good reason to think that people
who made a positive choice to consume less would feel efficacious and autonomous as a result.
55
This highlights the importance of persuading people that change is both necessary and – crucially
– in their own best interests. It seems vital, in other words, that people are intrinsically rather than
extrinsically motivated to change their behaviour. Legislation, coercion or need (i.e. poverty) may
help to instigate behaviour change, but the well-being benefit of such changes depends on the
individual being able to internalise the motivation such that they value their new lifestyle for its own
sake. As such, any policy measures aimed at changing behaviour need to be accompanied by
positive messages, explaining not just how the planet will benefit but how individuals will benefit.
One possibility would be to re-frame the message of ‘lower consumption’ as something like
‘psychological lightness’ – as a shedding of unnecessary heaviness and burden rather than as a
loss of valued products and services.
A second, related challenge was repeatedly highlighted in the foregoing evidence review: the
differing timeframes of well-being gains and losses from behaviour and attitude change. Many of
the potential gains in well-being identified – or at least the pay-offs, in terms of preventing future
anticipated losses of well-being – are likely to be lagged: that is, they will only be realised in the
relatively long term, and some time after the change necessary to cause them. Meanwhile, many
of the experienced ‘losses’ will be felt more or less immediately. In other words, some short term
pain may be required for long term gain.
This is a problem, because whilst humans have a great capacity for anticipating the course of
future events, they are far less adept at anticipating how they will feel about them when they
happen (Gilbert, 2006). In the present context this can lead to ‘discounting’ the future, namely,
failing to anticipate the detriment to future well-being that will be caused by behaviour now, or the
benefit to future well-being that a certain amount of sacrifice now will give rise to.22 Awareness and
understanding of the long term effects of, say, climate change, does not necessarily translate into a
willingness to change behaviour now. It is not clear at present precisely how this problem might be
solved. Again, it may be a question of appropriate framing of the issue. But there is probably no
escaping the fact that, in many cases, people will perceive a well-being deficit before the benefit
‘kicks in’.
Thirdly, there is the social dilemma problem which characterises most of the semi-transparent
pathways identified above. People rationalise that changing their own behaviour will not have any
significant impact on the wider problem of environmental sustainability unless others do likewise,
and thus that there is no point in them taking the well-being ‘hit’ alone. The challenge of social
dilemmas is that they strongly imply the need for prescriptive, enforced behavioural change to
22
Attitudes to smoking are a good example of this paradox.
56
ensure sufficient ‘critical mass’ to actually make a difference. But enforced change of this kind is
often hugely unpopular, and risks negating any well-being benefits by failing to persuade people of
the need for change.23
For all this, there are encouraging signs that a message extolling the merits of reduced
consumption from a well-being perspective could be received positively by many. Evidence from
the literature on so-called ‘downshifting’ (Hamilton & Mail 2003; Hamilton 2003b) suggests that,
over the last ten years, 25 per cent of Britons and 23 per cent of Australians aged 30-59 made
voluntary long-term lifestyle changes which resulted in their earning less money, placing less
emphasis on consumption and having more free time. Contrary to popular belief, these were not
exclusively middle-aged and wealthier people but were spread across age groups and social
classes. The means of lifestyle change included cutting back work hours, taking a lower-paid job,
stopping work, changing career and consciously changing their consumption patterns. Reasons
included spending more time with the family, living a healthier lifestyle, seeking more balance or
fulfilment, and leading a less materialistic and more environmentally friendly life.24
This trend is consistent with the views of American sociologist Ronald Inglehart (2000) who,
drawing on surveys of people in the United States and several European nations between 1970
and 2001, found a pronounced shift from ‘materialist’ to ‘postmaterialist’ values. Postmaterialists
are still interested in a high material standard of living, but take it for granted and place increasing
emphasis on the quality of life. According to Inglehart, the economic outlook of modern industrial
society emphasised economic growth and economic achievement above all. Postmaterialist
values, meanwhile, “give priority to environmental protection and cultural issues, even when these
goals conflict with maximising economic growth”.
Levelling (and lowering) the playing field
Sustainable development policy has always placed a premium on reducing inequalities: of
incomes, of resources, of impacts and (by extension) of well-being across different sections of
society. Sustainability also demands that we look to the well-being of future generations as well as
the well-being of the current generation (futurity). A society in which people pursue their own well-
23
Radical, enforced behaviour change at the population level is not without precedent; during the Second
World War, for example, rationing was introduced very successfully (Simms, 2001). Clearly, however, the
context was significantly different. In particular, there was a clear and immediate danger and a readily
identifiable enemy, neither of which are the case regarding the dangers of environmental depletion and
climate change.
24
There is a certain irony inherent in the term ‘downshifting’. On the one hand, it has the unappealing ring of
a downwards movement in standard of living – of reduction, self-denial and ‘giving things up’. On the other
hand, of course, people usually choose to downshift for precisely the opposite reason – to increase their
well-being and live richer, more satisfying lives.
57
being without regard either to the well-being of other people today or to the well-being of future
generations is not sustainable.
To date, by contrast, the well-being debate has had relatively little to say on the subject of equity.
However, as noted earlier, much of the apparent relationship between income and well-being can
be explained in terms of status effects. Such effects are relative, and represent a zero-sum game
in which one person’s relative gain causes a concomitant loss for others. Arguably, then, striving to
improve aggregate levels of well-being implies a consideration for equity.
This, however, is a very significant challenge, as can be illustrated using data collected by nef as
part of a recent project (see Marks et al, 2006). This data was gathered via a website questionnaire
that asked about respondent’s lifestyle and their subjective experience of their lives. From this,
estimates were calculated of their Ecological Footprint (a popular ‘strong’ indicator of resource
consumption; Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). 7,500 UK residents completed the questionnaire. It is
difficult to ascertain to what extent these are a representative sample of the UK population;
however, the data do permit an interesting illustration of the relationship between well-being and
environmental impact at a personal level, using real data.
Figure 2 shows this data graphically. The blue line represents the distribution of Ecological
Footprint by centile group, expressed in terms of ‘x planet living’. To the rightermost end of the
distribution are those people with high consumption lifestyles, equivalent to ‘seven planet living’; to
the left are those whose lifestyles have the least environmental impact, approaching the ‘one
planet living’ (this is represented by the green line) to which the UK sustainable development policy
aspires.25 The green arrows depict the nature of the transition that is required to level and lower the
playing field. Not only is the distribution of consumption extremely skewed, it is also too high – the
average lifestyle of respondents requires the equivalent of three-planets. Notably and importantly,
however, there is no significant statistical relationship whatsoever between self-reported Life
Satisfaction and Ecological Footprint in these data.
25
These figures should be interpreted with due caution, as Ecological Footprint was assessed using only 10
lifestyle questions. This is not uncommon practice, but it is likely to underestimate the extremes of the
distribution.
58
Figure 2: Ecological Footprint and
subjective life satisfaction in the UK
10.0
9.0
9.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
Ecological Footprint
Mean Life Satisfaction
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
One planet living
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
No. of planets (0-10)
Life satisfaction (0-10)
10.0
60
70
80
90
0.0
100
Footprint centile group
Resolving the tension between production and consumption
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to movement towards a materially lighter and well-being led economy
is the structural requirement in our current system for continued growth. On the production side
there are clear well-being benefits from a strong and stable economy: employment is secure, there
is potentially less genuine physical hardship and taxation funds the provision of public services.
There are downsides too – compromised work-life balance, for example – but these effects are
likely to be smaller than the potential negative effects of unemployment.
However, growth in production is driven by consumer demand which, in turn, is fuelled by desires
characteristic of ‘extrinsic’ motivations (for status, wealth, fame, and so on) repeatedly found to be
associated with lower well-being. As discussed above, growing consumption is potentially
detrimental to well-being in at least two significant ways: directly (in the materialist values it both
fosters and requires) and indirectly (by undermining the social processes that support people’s
well-being). And, at the risk of repetition, it is the high levels of material throughput and resource
consumption required to meet consumption demand that give rise to the negative environmental
consequences that sustainable development hopes to ameliorate.
Thus, in well-being terms there is a tension between the needs of the economy and the
consumption that drives it. However, this is not a balanced equation. The well-being benefits
59
provided by a strong and stable economy are real and significant, but are also likely to be
constrained by ceiling effects. Once conditions of high employment and economic stability have
been reached, maintaining them will prevent aggregate well-being from falling as the result of
macroeconomic factors (e.g. labour market instability or reductions in welfare provision) but will
not, in itself, cause well-being to keep rising. This is because production-side benefits are relatively
static; there is only so much job security one can have, public services are vital but not increasingly
so, and once genuine material hardships are alleviated further benefits are smaller and
predominantly due to relative effects. Consumption-side costs, on the other hand, are continually
increasing. People are becoming more materialistic, requiring more and more simply to maintain
relative position. They are also increasingly individualistic, with lower levels of trust and rising fear
for the future. Needless to say, meanwhile, the real present and future environmental costs are
rising. Recognising that these costs and benefits are out of balance is one thing; fully appreciating
the symbiotic nature of the relationship between the production and consumption sides of the
economy is quite another.
The challenge of sustainable development is to negotiate a path that dematerialises consumption
without creating a downward spiral of increasing unemployment and poverty. Such a path will need
to be mindful of both sides of the production / consumption equation. From a production
perspective, it might involve workers taking productivity gains in terms of increased leisure time
rather than money; people might quite easily become accustomed to three-day weekends, career
breaks, and part time working, as long as there were sufficient opportunities for them to pursue
other interests. On the consumption side it might mean a restriction on the personal consumption
of environmental resources (for instance, a personal carbon allowance) and perhaps changes in
taxation structure to disincentivise resource-intensive consumption. This, in turn, would mean
fewer personal goods and less mobility, but potentially increased social contact and access to a
wider variety of shared goods and services. Such a future would look very different from where we
are now, but perhaps in rather appealing ways; more companionable, less unequal, more
environmentally sustainable and with higher levels of well-being for all.
Summary
The difficulties associated with changing behaviours and lifestyles are considerable. It is wellknown that people are often locked in to unsustainable behaviours by a combination of habit, social
norms, ‘perverse’ incentives and a lack of access to alternatives. Moreover, it is possible for
governments to take action to address all of these factors. Chapter 2 of Securing the Future sets
out a framework of action for approaching this task. But there remains one key obstacle to
persuading people to change their lifestyles and reduce their consumption: the structural reliance
of the economy on consumption growth.
60
Growing consumption is key to the stability of the modern economy. It is also supposed to be the
central pillar of the contemporary model for the pursuit of well-being. But consumption per se is not
the principal object of people’s aspirations, it is a means to an end; namely, well-being. If it truly is
the case that ever increasing consumption does not lead to increased well-being – indeed, if it is
systematically undermining the conditions on which both present and future well-being depend –
then a principle obstacle to a materially-lighter economy is removed.
61
How would sustainable development policy change with a well-being
focus?
In this final section we discuss a number of suggestions for sustainable development policy based
on the foregoing review and discussion. These form two separate groups, reflecting a difference in
how they should be interpreted. Firstly, we offer three proposals for the direction of government-led
research in this area. Secondly, using the schema developed earlier, we outline five illustrative
policies that could be implemented in the relatively short term and would – we believe, on the basis
of the evidence reviewed above – have benefits for both well-being and environmental
sustainability. These are illustrative in the sense that they give a flavour of possible policy
responses to the current state of knowledge regarding environmental sustainability and well-being.
However, they should not be interpreted as policy recommendations as such, and by presenting
them here we do not claim that the evidence to support their efficacy is sufficiently robust at this
stage.
Three suggestions for research
One message that emerges clearly from the present paper is that there is a relative dearth of
research explicitly addressing the relationship between well-being and attitudes and behaviours
that impact on environmental sustainability. Only in very recent years, for instance, have
economists begun to search for such relationships in the standard panel data-sets (e.g, Welsch
2002, 2006; Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Gowdy, in press) and as yet there has been no significant effort to
understand the causal pathways that underlie these correlations. Addressing this deficit is a matter
of urgency.
Proposal 1: Measuring what matters
The UK government is already committed to developing a set of well-being indicators as part of
Securing the Future. However, the foregoing analysis suggests that headline well-being indicators
alone are not sufficient to understand properly the complex interaction of social and economic
factors that both support and undermine well-being. We believe the well-being programme needs
explicitly to address the argument that the current, environmentally unsustainable economic model
is related to individual well-being in a host of complex ways. Some of these relationships are a
direct result of individual economic circumstances, such as status effects and the (albeit marginal)
well-being gains from increasing consumption opportunities. Many, however, are indirect, reflecting
ways in which the pursuit of growth has caused or catalysed changes to society as a whole: its
impact on community cohesion and social capital, on personal values and cultural norms, on
attitudes to the future, and so on.
62
These factors should be addressed through a sustained and extended programme of evidencegathering, monitoring and evaluation. We envisage that this would take the form of an inter-linked
process of research that would: 1) interrogate the theoretical literature on well-being to draw out
policy-relevant hypotheses; and 2) collect and analyse data on socio-economic trends – beginning,
perhaps, with re-analysis of existing data sets26 – with the specific aim of exploring the impact of
economic growth on those aspects of society that have been hypothesised to support, or
undermine, well-being. Ultimately, the intention would be to develop a set of measurement tools
that go beyond well-being as a psychological state in isolation, and understand it as an emergent
property of the wider social and economic milieu.
A framework for this initiative could be put in place relatively quickly – certainly within 12 months.
Such an exercise would be on a par with the development of the sustainable development indicator
set and other measurement exercises in government. In one sense, indeed, it is a logical extension
of the current programme to develop well-being indicators, led by DEFRA. By supporting the
analysis of structural relationships it expands the current remit considerably; but this is – we would
argue – ultimately vital if the issues are to be properly understood.
Proposal 2: Exploring a long-term vision of a sustainable, well-being focused economy
The current economic model is heavily reliant for its stability (and for its delivery of public sector
spending) on private consumption growth. While this remains the case, there is a real danger that
safeguarding consumption growth will always ‘trump’ concerns about well-being when hard political
choices have to be made. Yet this growth in consumption typically increases environmental impact,
thereby undermining the conditions on which future well-being depends; whilst, as we have argued
above, perhaps offering little benefit to – and quite possibly undermining – individual well-being
now. Moving to a sustainable, well-being focused economy requires severing the link between
growth and environmental impact. This is explicitly acknowledged in Securing the Future, which
notes the need “for households, businesses and the public sector to consume more efficiently and
differently, so that consumption from rising incomes is not accompanied by rising environmental
impacts or social injustice” (DEFRA, 2005, p. 51). However, we believe there is a need for a wideranging dialogue that aims to close the gulf between the magnitude of the sustainability task and
the scale of possible responses, across the full spectrum of policy domains. The precise
mechanism through which such a dialogue should be progressed is a matter for discussion.
26
Such as the World Values Survey (Inglehart, 2000) and the forthcoming European Social Survey (which
includes a module on personal and social well-being; see http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/).
63
At present there is little evidence that de-materialising economic growth can be achieved on any
significant scale, or that it can deliver the kinds of material, energy and carbon reductions that are
required to meet environmental targets. There continues to be a need for discussion, supported by
robust research and analysis, about what a sustainable, well-being focused economy would really
look like, how it could be achieved, the role of material consumption within it, how to maintain
employment, how to protect public spending, the balance between public and private spending and
so on. Social change on the scale required from a well-being / environmental sustainability
perspective reflects a dynamic process of discussion and action. Whilst eventual outcomes are
difficult to forecast, we believe that well-being should be a central theme underpinning any longerterm vision.
Proposal 3: Protecting social and psychological spaces
Well-being depends critically on certain kinds of psychological and social ‘spaces’: the family,
community, frameworks for meaning and purpose (e.g. value systems, political and religious
beliefs), civic trust and so on. According to the arguments made above, some of these spaces are
being eroded by forces associated with commoditisation and rising individualism. Mass media and
advertising, for instance, play a functional role in driving consumption demand, yet often encroach
on both psychological and social space by promoting lifestyles and behaviours that are
unsustainable, unsocial and deleterious to well-being (SCR, 2006).
As a means of drawing together and adding coherence to existing policy initiatives – such as the
Sustainable Communities policy, the Liveability agenda, and the Together We Can initiative –
recognising and protecting social and psychological spaces should be an explicit ‘working
philosophy’ for sustainable development policy. This could be operationalised in a variety of ways
and might require positive initiatives in the specific areas, for instance:
a. Family policy. Ensuring that incentive structures and policy frameworks protect and
maintain the cohesion of the family and the conditions on which this depends.
b. Community policy. Providing and protecting conditions for communities to flourish –
e.g. support for public transport, local libraries, local independent shops and so on.
c. Green and public spaces. Recognising that physical spaces provide social and
psychological benefits, and working to preserve community areas.
The truth, of course, is that negotiating social and psychological space is a complex task,
undertaken over a wide variety of different policy arenas including consumer policy, local authority
policy, trading standards, industrial policy, advertising standards, agricultural policy and so on. An
intelligent approach to the protection of social and psychological space must be wise to the idea
64
that Government is a co-creator of the culture of well-being (and ill-being) and intervenes
continually in the conditions on which well-being depends. Interrogating policy initiatives across the
board is part of putting well-being at the heart of policy.
65
Five illustrative policies
Transparent
Planning for green space
Direct contact with green spaces has benefits for individual psychological well-being, health and –
potentially – social cohesion. Obviously, it is difficult to create new green space in existing urban
areas. However, planning regulations could be used to ensure that all new residential
developments have sizeable, well-designed and interesting green space for shared community
use.
Such regulations would go beyond existing guidelines (i.e. Planning Policy Guidance 17; ODPM,
2002) by specifying minimum size restrictions for the green space in new developments,
determined by a formula based on total land area of the development and/or number of residents.
Additionally, regulations could specify details of the actual layout of buildings, so as to ensure that
natural people flows always travelled close the green space. As for the actual composition of the
space, this might vary depending on the demographic of the likely residents. However, it would be
designed to encourage use by all sectors of the community, and as such would probably include
separate areas, e.g. for allotments, play areas, ponds and wildlife areas, and open spaces for
sports.
Upkeep of the spaces would be funded by a service charge, paid by residents of the development.
Policy area: Urban planning
Description: Regulations specify a minimum amount of community green space per unit
area of new development.
Timescale: Long – probably in the order of 3-5 years.
Feasibility: This would require a relatively modest extension of existing planning
regulations.
Semi-transparent
Review of taxation policy on behaviour
Taxes provide a powerful means of changing behaviour, both individual and organisational. For
example, they can be used to make the generation of waste very expensive and to reward
businesses and households that reduce their consumption and recycle materials. It is not clear that
taxes alone can motivate lasting behaviour change – it seems likely that this requires a shift of
values such that people are ultimately motivated to behave differently of their own volition.
However, well-planned taxation is an important component in any programme of social change.
66
The scale and complexity of this task means it would require a considerable timeframe – in the
order of three years. Implementation of the recommendations would probably take longer still,
given that even moderate tax reform is notoriously difficult.
Policy area: Taxation
Description: Review of tax system, with emphasis on rewarding pro-environmental
behaviour.
Timescale: Minimum 2-3 years
Feasibility: A comprehensive review would require integrated, cross-department work.
Implementing the outcomes of such a review might well be difficult.
Environmental sustainability and well-being in the national curriculum
The national curriculum provides an opportunity for children to be taught about environmental
sustainability not just as a scientific phenomenon, but as part of a wider social context. This
teaching could form part of the citizenship strand within the national curriculum, thus emphasising
the responsibilities of the individual and their behaviour towards the environment. The causes and
consequences of individual well-being could also be included, with emphasis on the role of
consumption choices.
Such teaching should ideally take place at, or around, the second year of senior school education.
At this age two important psychological events take place: the development of formal operational
(abstract) thinking and a concomitant self-interest in identity and the question “Who am I?” Formal
operational thought will allow the adolescents to grapple with the abstract, distal concepts of
economic growth, consumerism, happiness, and sustainability, as well as to have the future time
perspective necessary for understanding the potential consequences of the world’s failure to
become more sustainable. The entrance into the “identity stage” of development will help motivate
adolescents to be interested in the curriculum, as they are at the age when they are asking
questions about how to live their life most optimally.
There may be constraints on the implementation of this recommendation, with the most significant
barrier perhaps being an already over-crowded curriculum. However, any successful curricula
would need to involve reading, writing, quantitative literacy, social studies, and science, and thus
teachers should be able to serve these educational goals through the proposed curriculum.
67
Policy area: Education
Description: Incorporate material on sustainability, well-being and individual responsibility to
value and protect the environment into PSHE component of national curriculum.
Timescale: Could be achieved in 1-2 years
Feasibility: Issues of curriculum overload would need to be overcome. Course would have
to be designed carefully so as to build-in tangible learning outcomes.
Opaque
Ban advertising aimed at children
Most commercial messages contain an underlying message suggesting that wealth, purchase, and
consumption are pathways to happiness. When individuals (including children) are exposed to
many commercial messages, they take on materialistic values that are in turn associated with
lower well-being and less ecologically sustainable behaviour. Policies that decrease the extent to
which children are exposed to commercial messages should decrease the extent to which
materialistic values are adopted, and have concomitant benefits for both individual well-being and,
ultimately, environmental sustainability.
The most effective means of achieving this change would be to ban advertising aimed at children
under a certain age. Several nations in Europe, as well as the province of Quebec, have already
enacted such legislation. Support for such a policy could be garnered by drawing parallels to
similar cases where governments act to restrict access to harmful products (e.g. cigarettes).
Governments also have a history of providing special protections for children (e.g. child labour
laws; not allowing the sale of cigarettes or alcohol to children). The main barrier would be the
powerful lobby of corporations that profit from selling products to children or marketing to children.
This lobby could be overcome if parents, teachers, and others who advocate for children can be
educated about the problems of marketing to children and mobilised to encourage their
governmental representatives to support such legislation.
Policy area: Commercial and business
Description: Enact legislation to ban advertising aimed at children (age limit to be
determined).
Timescale: Legislation could be introduced quickly, subject to sufficient political will.
Feasibility: Policy relies on gathering a groundswell of public support. Likely barriers
include lobbying the interests of companies that profit from selling goods to
children.
68
Regulation of working hours
“Time poverty” is now widely recognised as the condition of spending too much time at work, with
the consequence of too little time for leisure (de Graaf, 2003). It has often been argued that
statutory limitations on working hours could be justified as a well-being measure (e.g. Shah &
Marks, 2004). When people are time-poor, they have less time for pursuing personal hobbies,
being with friends, and connecting with their communities, i.e., the very activities that promote
happiness (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon & Schkade, 2005). Further, when people are time poor, they
engage in more unsustainable consumption activities (driving instead of riding bikes or walking;
eating pre-packaged, highly processed food rather than cooking fresh food). Reduction of work
hours can also be an effective means of stabilising consumption patterns (Schor, 2005).
A systematic, gradual decrease in working hours could be managed without a significant impact on
employment (Turner, 2001), and – making the reasonable assumption of consistent modest gains
in labour productivity – little impact on material standard of living (Hamilton, 2003a). Such a change
could either be encouraged through tax incentives to corporations, or through national laws
decreasing the standard work week. Doubtless this would need to be implemented over several
years, allowing people to adjust to the slight decreases in monetary income that would accompany
the increase in time affluence.
Policy area: Work
Description: Phased reduction in working hours, implemented through tax incentives and/or
regulation.
Timescale: Long – probably in the order of 5-10 years.
Feasibility: Likely to meet initial resistance from employers, and probably from employees if
required to accept significant reductions in pay.
69
Conclusions
This report has explored the relationships, challenges and policy implications that arise from
understanding sustainable development in terms of both environmental sustainability and wellbeing. Its central message is that whilst individual well-being and environmental sustainability are
linked through a number of different pathways, at root they are bound together by the incumbent
socio-economic model. This model is structurally reliant on consumption growth, to the detriment of
the environment and, in certain key respects, to well-being and the conditions that support it.
We believe there is good evidence to suggest that, in the long run, a materially lighter and more
sustainable economy would be characterised by higher levels of well-being for all than is the
current, consumption-focused model. The challenge for sustainable development policy is to
manage the transition to such an economy in a manner that:
1. minimises the short-term detriments to well-being that will inevitably result from reduced
consumption opportunities and perceived curtailment of autonomy, whilst persuading
people of the need for change; and,
2. maximises the possibility of long-term well-being benefits by ensuring that intrinsically
motivating attitudes and beliefs about the value of the environment, and the true routes to
well-being, are the cultural norm.
This is no small task. It is right, in our view, that well-being should be a major component of the
sustainable development agenda. At the same time, it must not be regarded simply as a panacea –
in the short term there are probably few genuinely ‘double-dividend’ policies, due to the lagged
nature of potential well-being benefits.
Nevertheless, whilst it would be premature to suggest that a well-being perspective removes the
tension between environmental sustainability and the current model of socio-economic
development, it does have considerable potential to illuminate the debate by providing a common
goal and direction for policy – namely, the promotion of well-being for all, now and in the future.
This report has highlighted a number of important relationships between environmental
sustainability and well-being that could prove useful to future policy development. However, it has
also identified key challenges that any transition towards ‘one-planet living’ will have to overcome.
70
References
Albrecht, G. A. (2005). “Solastalgia”: A new concept in health and identity. PAN: Philosophy, Activism,
Nature, 3, 41-55.
Anielski, M., & Rowe, J. (1999). The Genuine Progress Indicator: 1998 update. San Francisco: Redefining
Progress.
Bagnall, D. (1999). Reasons to be cheerful. The Bulletin, 29, 36-39.
Baudrillard, J. (1997/1970). The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. [G. Ritzer, trans] Sage
Publications. London.
Baum, A., & Fleming, I. (1993). Implications of psychological research on stress and technological accidents.
American Psychologist, 48, 665–671.
Bauman, Z. (1998). Work, Consumerism and the New Poor. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Bauman, Z. (2001). Consuming Life. Journal of Consumer Culture, 1, 9-29.
Beckerman, W. (1991). In Defence of Growth. London: IEA.
Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. Journal of Public
Economics, 88, 1359-1386.
Brown, K. W., & Kasser, T. (2005). Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of
values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research, 74, 349-368.
Brown, S., Taylor, K., & Wheatley-Price, S. (2005). Debt and distress: Evaluating the psychological cost of
credit. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 642-663.
Burns, G. (2004). Naturally happy, naturally healthy: The role of the natural environment in well-being. In F.
A. Huppert, N. Baylis, & B. Keverne (eds), The Science of Well-being. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values perspective.
Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 348-70.
Butler, C. D., Corvalan, C. F., & Koren, H. S. (2005). Human health, well-being, and global ecological
scenarios. Ecosystems, 8, 153-162.
Butler, C. D., & Oluoch-Kosura, W. (2006). Linking future ecosystem services and future human well-being.
Ecology and Society, 11, 30.
Chan, R., & Joseph, F. (2000). Dimensions of personality, domains of aspiration, and subjective well-being.
Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 347-354.
Clark, A. E & Oswald, A. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment. Economic Journal, 104, 648-659.
Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. (2006). Income and Happiness: Evidence, Explanations and Economic
Implications. PSE, Discussion Paper 2006-24.
Cobb, C. W., & Cobb, J. B. (1994). The Green National Product: a Proposed Index of Sustainable Economic
Welfare. Lanham: University Press of America.
Cobb, C., Halstead, T., & Rowe, J. (1995). If the GDP is up, why is America down? The Atlantic Monthly
(October), pp. 59–78.
Co-Operative Bank. (2005). The Ethical Consumerism Report 2005. Manchester: The Co-Operative Bank.
71
Connor, L., Albrecht, G. A., Higginbotham, N., Freeman, S., & Smith, W. (2004). Environmental change and
human health in upper hunter communities of New South Wales, Australia. EcoHealth, 1 (suppl. 2),
47-52.
Corvalan, C, Hales, S, McMichael, A. et al. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis. A
report of Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). The costs and benefits of consuming. Journal of Consumer Research 27, 267272.
Daly, H., & Cobb, J. B. (1989). For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the
Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press.
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169 193.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
DEFRA. (2005). Securing the Future. London: HMSO.
de Graaf, J. (Ed.) (2003). Take back your time: Fighting overwork and time poverty in America. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
DETR. (1999). A Better Quality of Life. London: HMSO.
de Young, R. (1996). Some psychological aspects of reduced consumption behavior: The role of intrinsic
satisfaction and competence motivation. Environment and Behavior, 28, 358–409.
Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. New York: Viking Penguin.
Díaz Meneses, G., & Beerli Palacio, A. (2005). Recycling behavior: A multidimensional approach.
Environment and Behavior, 37, 837-860.
Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Money and happiness: Income and subjective well-being across nations. In E.
Diener, & E. M. Suh (eds), Culture and Subjective Well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 5, 1-31.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. E. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of
progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302.
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2006). Review of Research on the Influences on Personal Well-being
and Application to Policy Making. DEFRA.
Douglas, M. (1976). Relative poverty, relative communication. In A. Halsey (ed.). Traditions of Social Policy.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Douthwaite, R. (1992). The Growth Illusion. Devon: Green Print.
Durkheim, E. (1951/1897). Suicide. [J. A. Spalding & G. Simpson, trans] New York: Free Press.
Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? In P. A. David & M. W. Reder
(eds), Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz. New
York: Academic Press, Inc.
Easterlin, R. A. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization, 27, 35–47.
Easterlin, R. A. (2003). Explaining happiness. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, 100, 1117611183.
72
Eckersley, R. (2005). Well & Good: Morality, Meaning and Happiness (2nd edn). Melbourne: Text Publishing.
Eckersley, R. (2006a). What’s wrong with the official future? In Hassan, G. (ed), After Blair: Politics After the
New Labour Decade. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Eckersley, R. (2006b). Is modern Western culture a health hazard? International Journal of Epidemiology,
35, 252-258.
EIU. (2005). Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality of Life Index. London: Economist, January 2005.
Elgin, D. (1993). Voluntary Simplicity (revised edition). New York: William Morrow.
Etzioni, A. (1998). Voluntary Simplicity: Characterization, select psychological implications, and societal
consequences. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 619-643.
Ferrer-i-Carbonella, A., & Gowdy, J. M. (in press). Environmental degradation and happiness. Ecological
Economics.
Frank, R. H. (1999). Luxury Fever: Money and Happiness in an Era of Excess. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). Happiness & Economics: How the Economy and Institutions Affect Human
Well-being. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Friedman, B. (2005). The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
Frijters, P., & van Praag, B. M. S. (1998). The effects of climate on welfare and well-being in Russia. Climatic
Change 39, 61–81.
Fromm, E. (1976). To Have or To Be? London: Jonathon Cape.
Geller, E.S. (1995). Actively caring for the environment: An integration of behaviorism and humanism.
Environmental and Behavior, 27, 184-195.
Gilbert, D. (2006). Stumbling on Happiness. New York: Knopf.
Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Fernandez-Dols, J. M., Kim, Y., Lau, S., Ryan, R. M., Saunders, S.,
Schmuck, P., & Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 800-816.
Hamilton, C. (1999). The genuine progress indicator: methodological developments and results from
Australia. Ecological Economics, 30, 13–28.
Hamilton, C. (2002). Overconsumption in Australia: The rise of the middle-class battler. Discussion paper no.
49. Canberra: The Australia Institute.
Hamilton, C. (2003a). Overconsumption in Britain: A culture of middle-class complaint. Discussion paper no.
57. Canberra: The Australia Institute.
Hamilton, C. (2003b), Downshifting in Britain: A sea-change in the pursuit of happiness. Discussion paper
no. 58. Canberra: The Australia Institute.
Hamilton, C., & Mail, E. (2003). Downshifting in Australia: A sea-change in the pursuit of happiness,
Discussion paper no. 50. Canberra: The Australia Institute.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243—1 248.
Harwood Group. (1995). Yearning for Balance: Report for Merck Family Fund. Available at
www.iisd.ca/consume/harwood.html.
73
Havenaar, J. M., Van den Brink, W., Van den Bout, J,, Kasyanenko, A. P., Poelijoe, N. W., Wholfarth, T.
(1996). Mental health problems in the Gomel region (Belarus): An analysis of risk factors in an area
affected by the Chernobyl disaster. Psychological Medicine, 26, 845–855.
HCEAC. (2006). Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport: Ninth Report of Session 2005-6 (Volume I).
London: TSO.
Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation Level Theory: An Experimental and Systematic Approach to Behavior. New
York: Harper & Row.
Hicks, J. (1939). Value and Capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holdsworth, M. (2003). Green Choice, What Choice? London: National Consumer Council.
Illich, I. (1977). Towards a History of Needs. New York: Pantheon Books.
Inglehart, R. (2000). Globalisation and postmodern values. Washington Quarterly, 23, 215-228.
Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H-D. (2000). Genes, Culture and Happiness. Boston: MIT Press.
Ipsos Mackay. (2005). Where are we headed as a community? National Omnibus Poll, November. Sydney:
Ipsos Mackay Public Affairs.
Jackson, T. (2001). Quality of life, sustainability and economic growth. In M. Cahill & A. Fitzpatrick (eds),
Environment and Welfare: Towards a Green Social Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jackson, T. (2004). Chasing Progress: Beyond Measuring Economic Growth. London: nef.
Jackson, T. (2005a). Live better by consuming less? Is there a double dividend in sustainable consumption?
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9, 19-36.
Jackson, T. (2005b). SDRN Briefing One: Motivating Sustainable Consumption. London: Sustainable
Development Research Network.
Jackson, T. (2006). Consuming paradise? Towards a social and cultural psychology of sustainable
consumption. In T. Jackson (ed.), Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Consumption. London:
Earthscan.
Jackson, T., Laing, F., MacGillivray, A., Marks, N., Ralls, J., & Stymne, S. (1997). An Index of Sustainable
Economic Welfare for the UK 1950–1996. Guildford, UK: University of Surrey Centre for
Environmental Strategy.
Jacobs, M. (1997). The quality of life: social goods and the politics of consumption. In M. Jacobs (ed.).
Greening the Millennium? The New Politics of the Environment. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Jacobs, S. V., Evans, G. W., Catalano, R., & Dooley, D. (1984). Air pollution and depressive
symptomatology: Exploratory analyses of intervening psychosocial factors. Population and
Environment, 7, 260-272.
Joireman, J. A., van Lange, P. A. M., & van Vugt, M. (2004). Who cares about the environmental impact of
cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environment and Behavior, 36, 187-206.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2006). Would you be happier if you
were richer? A focusing illusion. Science, 312, 1908 – 1910.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47,
263-291.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
74
Kasser, T. (2002). The High Price of Materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kasser, T. (2006). Materialism and its alternatives. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (eds), A
Life Worth Living: Contributions to Positive Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American Dream: Correlates of financial success as a
central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410-422.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic
and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280-287.
Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner-city
neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology. 26, 823-851.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W.C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?
Environment and Behavior, 33, 343-367.
Kurz, T., Donaghue, N., & Walker, I. (2005). Utilizing a social–ecological framework to promote water and
energy conservation: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1281–1300.
Kurz, T., Donaghue, N., Rapley, M., & Walker, I. (2005). The ways that people talk about natural resources:
Discursive strategies as barriers to environmentally sustainable practices. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 44, 603-620.
Layard, R. (ed). (2004). Happiness: A Report on the Happiness Forum. London: LSE.
Layard, R. (2005) Happiness: Lessons From a New Science (London: Allen Lane).
Levett, R. (2005). Planning for Urban Sustainability: An Ecosystems Approach. London: Royal Town
Planning Institute
Levett, R. (2005). A Better Choice of Choice. London: Fabian Society
Lucas, K., Walker, G., Eames, M., Fay, H., & Poustie, M. (2004). Environment and Social Justice: Rapid
Research and Evidence Review. London: SDRN.
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable
change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111-131.
Mace, B. L., Bell, P. A., & Loomis, R. J. (2004). Visibility and natural quiet in natural parks and wilderness
areas: Psychological considerations. Environment and Behavior, 36, 5-31.
McGeehin, M.A. & Mirabelli M. (2001). The potential impacts of climate variability and change on
temperature-related morbidity and mortality in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives,
109 (suppl 2), 185–89.
McMakin, A. H., Malone, E. L., & Lundgren, R. E. (2002). Motivating residents to conserve energy without
financial incentives. Environment and Behavior, 34, 848-863.
McMichael, A.J. (2001). Human Frontiers, Environments and Disease: Past Patterns, Uncertain Futures.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McMichael, A. J., Woodruff, R. E., & Hales, S. (2006). Climate change and human health: Present and future
risks. The Lancet, 367, 859-869.
Maddison, D. J. (2003). The amenity value of climate: The household production function approach to
resource and energy. Economics, 25, pp. 155– 175.
Marell, A., Davidsson, P., & Girling, T. (1995). Environmentally friendly replacement of automobiles. Journal
of Economic Psychology, 16, 513-529.
75
Marks, N. (2004). The Power and Potential of Well-being Indicators: Measuring Young People’s Well-being
in Nottingham. London: nef.
Marks, N., Abdallah, S., Simms, A., & Thompson, S. (2006). The (un)Happy Planet Index: An Index of
Human Well-being and Environmental Impact. London: nef.
Marmot, M. (2004). Status Syndrome: How Your Social Standing Directly Affects Your Health and Life
Expectancy. London: Bloomsbury.
Martin, P. (2005). Making Happy People: The Nature of Happiness and its Origins in Childhood. London:
Fourth Estate.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Max Neef, M. A. (1991). Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections. New
York: The Apex Press.
Mayraz, G., Layard, R. & Nickell, S. (2006). The functional relationship between income and happiness.
Paper presented at the 3rd European Conference on Positive Psychology, Braga, Portugal.
Miliband, D. (2006). My priorities for DEFRA (Letter to the Prime Minister, 11 July).
Myers, D. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55, 56-67.
Neumayer, E. (2000). The ISEW: Not an indicator of sustainable economic welfare. Social Indicators
Research, 48, 77–101.
Nickerson, C., Schwarz, N., Diener, E., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Zeroing in on the dark side of the American
dream: A closer look at the negative consequences of the goal for financial success. Psychological
Science, 14, 531-536.
Nordlund, A., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behaviour. Environment and
Behavior, 34, 740-756.
Nordlund, A., & Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to
reduce personal car use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 339-347.
ODPM. (2002). Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation.
Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental behaviours: Bringing back social
context. Environment and Behavior, 33, 181-201.
Oswald, A. J., 1997. Happiness and economic performance. The Economic Journal 107, 1815– 1831.
Pierce, L. B. (2000). Choosing Simplicity: Real People Finding Peace and Fulfillment in a Complex World.
Carmel, CA: Gallagher Press.
Pretty, J., Griffin, M., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M., & South, N. (2005). A Countryside for Health and
Wellbeing: The Physical and Mental Health Benefits of Green Exercise. Sheffield: Countryside
Recreation Network.
RAC Report on Motoring. (2006). The Future of Motoring: A Clear Road Map, or Collision Course? RAC.
Rehdanz, K., & Maddison, D. (2005). Climate and happiness. Ecological Economics, 52, 111 – 125.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303-316.
Rosenberg, D., Oegema, P., & Bovy, M. (1995). ISEW for the Netherlands: Preliminary Results and Some
Proposals for Further Rresearch. Amsterdam: IMSA.
76
Saphores, J-D. M., Nixon, H., Ogunseitan, O. A., & Shapiro, A. A. (2006). Household willingness to recycle
electronic waste: An application to California. Environment and Behavior, 38, 183-208.
Schor, J. B. (2005). Sustainable consumption and worktime reduction. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9, 3750.
Scitovsky, T. (1976). The Joyless Economy: An Inquiry into Human Satisfaction and Consumer
Dissatisfaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SCR. (2006). I Will if You Will: Towards Sustainable Consumption (Report from the Sustainable
Consumption Roundtable). London: NCC/SDC.
Sen, A. (1984). The Living Standard. Oxford Economic Papers, 36. [Augmented version reprinted as Chapter
16 in D. Crocker & T. Linden (eds), The Ethics of Consumption. New York: Rowman and Littlefield]
Shah, H., & Marks, N. (2004). A Well-being Manifesto for a Flourishing Society. London: nef.
Sheldon, K., & MacGregor, H. (2000). Extrinsic value orientation and the tragedy of the commons. Journal of
Personality, 68, 383-411.
Sirgy, M. J., Dong-Jin Lee, Kosenko, R., Meadow, H. L., Rahtz, D., Cicic, M., Jin G. X., Yarsuvat, D.,
Blenkhorn, D., & Wright, N. (1998). Does television viewership play a role in the perception of quality
of life? Journal of Advertising, 27, 125-142.
Simms, A. (2001). An Environmental War Economy: The Lessons of Ecological Debt and Global Warming.
London: nef.
Simms, A., Moran, D., & Chowla, P. (2006). The UK Interdependence Report: How the World Sustains the
Nation’s Lifestyles and the Price it Pays. London: nef.
Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. [reprinted1976, R.
Campbell & A. Skinner (eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford].
Stradling, S. G. (in press). Determinants of car dependence. In T. Garling & L. Steg (eds), Threats to the
Quality of Urban Life from Car Traffic: Problems, Causes and Solutions. Oxford: Elsevier.
Stutzer, A. (2004). The role of income aspirations in individual happiness. Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization, 54, 89-109.
Sunyer, J. & Grimalt, J. (2006). Global climate change, widening health inequalities, and epidemiology.
International Journal of Epidemiology, 35, 213–216.
Tatzel, M. (2002). “Money worlds” and well-being: An integration of money dispositions, materialism and
price-related behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 103-126.
Thaler, R. (1980). Towards a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization, 1, 39-60.
Turner, A. (2001). Just Capital. London: Pan Books.
Umetzer, P., Blake, D. E., & Guppy, N. (1999). Individualised solutions to environmental problems: The case
of automobile pollution. Canadian Public Policy, 25, 345-359.
United Nations Environment Program. (2002). Geo-3: Global Environment Outlook 3, Synthesis.
www.unep.org.
van Praag, B. M. S., & Baarsma, B. E. (2005). Using happiness surveys to value intangibles: The case of
airport noise. The Economic Journal, 115, 224-246.
77
Veenhoven, R. (2001). Are the Russians as unhappy as they say they are? Comparability of self-reports
across nations. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 111-136.
Veenhoven, R. (2005). Average Happiness in 91 Nations 1995–2005: World Database of Happiness
(www.worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl).
Vemuri, A. W., & Costanza, R. (2006). The role of human, social, built, and natural capital in explaining life
satisfaction at the country level: Toward a National Well-Being Index (NWI). Ecological Economics,
58, 119-133.
Vidal,
J.
(2006).
Sales
of
4x4s
fall
into
lower
gear.
The
Guardian
(August
16)
(http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1851132,00.html).
Villacorta, M., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2003). Further validation of the Motivation Toward the Environment
Scale. Environment and Behavior, 35, 486-505.
Wachtel, P. (1983). The Poverty of Affluence – A Psychological Portrait of the American Way of Life. New
York: The Free Press.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Walker, P. (2002), We, the People: Developing a new democracy. London: nef.
Wardman, M., Hine, J., Stradling, S.G. (2001). Interchange and Travel Choice (Volumes 1 & 2). Edinburgh:
Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.
Waylen, K. (2006). Botanic gardens: Using biodiversity to improve human well-being. (Richmond, UK:
Botanic Gardens Conservation International).
WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: OUP.
Weiss, R. A., & McMichael, A. J. (2004). Social and environmental risk factors in the emergence of infectious
diseases. Nature Medicine (Supplement), 10, 70-76.
Weitzman, M. (1976). On the welfare significance of the national product in a dynamic economy. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 90, 156-62.
Welsch, H. (2002). Preferences over prosperity and pollution: environmental valuation based on happiness
surveys. Kyklos, 55, 473-495.
Welsch, H. (2006). Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data.
Ecological Economics, 58, 801-813.
Whitmore, J. (2005). Denial and demise. Resurgence, 233, Nov-Dec.
Wilkinson, R. G. (2005). The Impact of Inequality: How to make Sick Societies Healthier. London: Routledge.
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14, 131-134.
78