well-being and the environmentdegrading the environmental resources of a country can have greatly...

well-being and the environmentachieving ‘One Planet Living’and maintaining quality of life

The power of well-being 4

nef is an independent think-and-dotank that inspires and demonstratesreal economic well-being.

We aim to improve quality of life bypromoting innovative solutions thatchallenge mainstream thinking oneconomic, environmental and socialissues. We work in partnership andput people and the planet first.

nef (the new economics foundation) is a registered charity founded in 1986 by the leaders of The Other Economic Summit (TOES),which forced issues such as international debt onto the agenda of the G7/G8 summit meetings. We have taken a lead in helpingestablish new coalitions and organisations, such as the Jubilee 2000 debt campaign; the Ethical Trading Initiative; the UK SocialInvestment Forum; and new ways to measure social and environmental well-being.

If everyone in the world lived as we do in Europe wewould need three planets to support us. Therefore weneed to reduce our impact – our ecological footprint –by two thirds to a sustainable and globally equitablelevel. Different countries, however, are consuming atdifferent levels. In the USA, five planets would beneeded, whilst in China although now living within theone planet level, the current rapid development willlead to a massively increased impact.

Within this we sometimes refer to thenatural environment or ‘nature’, whichcan have a particular relationship towell-being, sometimes in uniqueways. (See Box 1 for a definition ofwell-being). The evidence in the firsthalf of this paper focuses in particularon the importance of localenvironments.

There are many ways in which theenvironment is crucial to our well-being. At the most fundamental level,the ecosystem sustains and containsour society and economy. Afunctioning ecosystem is a pre-requisite to human well-being: we seethis in parts of Bangladesh whereflooding wreaks havoc on people’severyday lives and livelihoods. WWF’sLiving Planet Report suggests thatglobally we are consuming 30 percent more than the planet can sustaininto the long term.1

If everyone in the world lived aspeople do in Europe, we would needthree planets to support us. Beyondthis broad sense in which theenvironment is fundamental to ourlives, there is now an emerging bodyof evidence that suggests that thelocal environment, and particularlynatural environments, meets a widerange of human needs and promoteswell-being. In the first part of thispaper we draw together some of thisevidence looking at the relationship inthe broadest sense – includingphysical, resource and perceptualaspects to the relationship.2 In the

second part of this paper, we turn to the question of how we canachieve ‘One Planet Living’ – wherewe all live within our environmentalmeans – and yet maintain or increaseour quality of life.

2well-being and the environment

Introduction

There is increasing research around well-being and happiness.WWF (the Worldwide Fund for Nature) commissioned nef(the new economics foundation) to consider the relationshipbetween well-being and the environment. We are using the term environment here in a broad sense to mean the externalphysical conditions we live in and experience, including the built environment.

Some academics argue that well-being is best understood in terms of ouroverall happiness or satisfaction with life. But evidence shows that there ismuch more to life than satisfaction: people also want to be leading rich andfulfilling lives – developing their capabilities and fulfilling their potential.3

Therefore, nef’s model of well-being has two personal dimensions:

P People’s satisfaction with their lives, which is generally measured byan indicator called life satisfaction: this captures satisfaction, pleasureand enjoyment.

P People’s personal development for which there is not yet onestandard psychological indicator – the concept includes being engagedin life, curiosity, ‘flow’ (a state of absorption where hours pass likeminutes), personal development and growth, autonomy, fulfillingpotential, having a purpose in life, and the feeling that life hasmeaning.4

For people to lead truly flourishing lives they need to feel they arepersonally satisfied and developing.

One Planet Living (OPL) is a jointinitiative of BioRegional and WWF.It aims to make sustainable livingeasy, attractive and affordablethroughout the world.

BOX 1: What is well-being?

Escape, beauty and meaningResearch suggests that green spacecan play an important role inproviding ‘an escape’ from highpopulation density in cities, be thisthrough gardens, allotments orcountryside.6

There appears to be a universality tothe experience of beauty that natureevokes within humans. For exampleresearchers looked at the preferencesof culturally varied students inAustralia and Italy regarding naturaland constructed landscapes. Naturallandscapes were preferred overall,and specifically as places to live, workand vacation.7

A sense of meaning is a significantcomponent of well-being.8 Nature haslong provided a way of inspiring awe,meaning and sense of oneness.Staring at the ocean, or looking at thestars, or climbing a mountain providesa unique experience that cannot bereplicated by non-natural phenomena.Nature’s role in what we might call our’spiritual well-being’ is unique, andprovides a range of benefits includingmaking us more reflective,contributing to our personal growth,inspiring awe, and evoking a feelingof wholeness and belonging.9

Social tiesA pleasant local environment helpscreate social relationships, whichresearch shows is one of the mostimportant contributors to our well-being. For example, a study inChicago notes that, “Resultsconsistently indicated that naturallandscaping encourages greater useof outdoor areas by residents. Spaceswith trees attracted larger groups ofpeople, as well as more mixed groupsof youth and adults, than did spacesdevoid of nature. In addition, moredense groupings of trees and treesthat are located close to publichousing buildings attracted largergroups of people. These findingssuggest that natural elements, such astrees, promote increased opportunitiesfor social interaction, monitoring ofoutdoor areas, and supervision ofchildren in impoverished urbanneighborhoods.”10

Another study noted “We found thatthe more vegetation in a commonspace, the stronger the neighborhoodsocial ties near that space –compared to residents living adjacentto relatively barren spaces, individualsliving adjacent to greener commonspaces had more social activities andmore visitors, knew more of theirneighbors, reported their neighborswere more concerned with helpingand supporting one another, and hadstronger feelings of belonging.”11 Thedirection of causation was clear in thisstudy – the greenery caused thesocial relationships, not the other way

around. This was shown by the factthat residents in this case did notmanage the landscaping. Theevidence shows, therefore, that goodquality local environments supportstronger communities and ‘socialcapital’.

Mental healthThere are many studies that showhow the natural environment can beconducive to mental health. In onestudy people were shown a disturbingfilm and then a film of either thenatural environment or a builtenvironment. Those who saw thenatural environment film were foundto be in a much better mood thanthose who saw the video of the builtenvironment.12

In another study, 145 urban publichousing residents in the US wererandomly assigned to buildings, someof which were close to nature.“Residents living in buildings withoutnearby trees and grass reported moreprocrastination in facing their majorissues and assessed their issues asmore severe, less soluble and morelong-standing than did theircounterparts living in greenersurroundings.”13 The study supportsthe ‘attention restoration hypothesis’that green space reduces mentalfatigue. Conversely other researchshows that residents living in relativelybarren buildings had higher levels ofmental fatigue, aggression andviolence than those living in greenerbuildings.14 There are different

3 well-being and the environment

How the environment contributes to our well-being

Nature is something that people use to refresh themselves. A UKsurvey found that 90 per cent of people valued the countryside forrelaxation, fresh air and peace.5

theories as to what might cause this.One argument from evolutionarytheory suggests that nature is a keycomponent of a fit human habitat.

Physical healthPhysical health is a growing issueworldwide, as increasing numbers ofpeople lead sedentary lifestyles. Thisis not a purely Western issue – a thirdof the world’s obese people live indeveloping countries.15 Safe andpleasant local environments can playan important role in helping topromote physical health byencouraging exercise.

A study from Japan shows thataccess to green space and pleasantlocal environments has significantlongevity benefits. The probability ofsenior citizens living for a further fiveyears was linked to their ability to takea stroll in local parks and tree-linedstreets, and their preference to

continue to live in their owncommunity.16

Environment-related health problemscause misery for many in thedeveloping world. In Africa 25 percent of working time lost is due toenvironment compared with 11 percent in Latin America. A World BankGroup study has found thatreductions in SO2 emissions, whichwould cost just $300, would save onelife in Beijing.17 And World HealthOrganisation research shows airpollution with particulate matter claimsan average of 8.6 months from the lifeof every person in the EuropeanUnion.18

There is also evidence that naturalenvironments can help peoplerecover from illness. Hospital patientswith views of greenery recoveredmore quickly, used fewer painkillersand were seen as more co-operativeby hospital staff.19 Natural views are

also more generally associated with adrop in blood pressure and reductionin stress levels.20 Once more, thecauses of this are not entirely clear,but the evidence is strong.

EconomicHigh quality environments tend toimprove property prices. In Ohio,Boulder and Columbus, homes nextto parks commanded up to 23 percent more in price than similarproperties only a street away.21

Similar findings emerge from theNetherlands where a view of a parkraises the price of a property by 8 per cent whereas a view of anapartment block can reduce the price by 7 per cent.22

Good quality environments can alsohave business benefits, both in termsof attracting business investment, andincreasing trade, as people obviouslyprefer to shop in pleasant and safeenvironments. Research shows that inthe US, small businesses in particularrate green and open spaces as theirhighest priority when choosing theirlocation.23

The relationship between poverty andthe environment is an important one.There is evidence that the poorestcitizens suffer the worstenvironments.24 A recent study showsthat withdrawing environmentalresources (where environment isdefined by the poor themselves) hasa substantial impact on poor people’swell-being.25

Natural space is also increasinglyrecognised as an important part ofregeneration in order to promoteliveability: economic regenerationwithout thought for social andenvironmental factors has beenshown to create places where peopledo not want to live. Without dealingwith this, it is difficult to lift an area outof a negative cycle as those peoplewho are economically successfulmove out as soon as they are able.26

Degrading the environmentalresources of a country can havegreatly constraining effects on futureeconomic growth. Deforestation inCambodia led to costs of $156 millionin flooding in 2000 – the country wassaid to have generated just $92 millionin the forests sector 1994–2000.27 Ithas been calculated that the net


present value lost from 1km2 ofdegraded reef in the Philippinescompared to productive reef over25 years (at 10 per cent discount rate)is $86,300 from sustainable fisheries,$193,000 of foregone coastalprotection and $482,000 of losttourism – compared to $15,000gained from blast fishing.28 Between1957 and 1990 China lost an area ofarable land equal to all the cropland inDenmark, France, Germany andHolland due to land degradation.29

Young people playing and learningOutdoor play has significant benefitsfor young people, including thedevelopment of their cognitive andmotor skills. Green spaces provideboth fun and challenge. A study inthe US shows that young people whoplayed in areas with trees and grassrather than similar areas without treesand features played for longer, andplayed more creatively and more co-operatively.30

There is evidence that nature hasbenefits for young people’s education.As well as the general benefits tophysical and mental health whichhave already been described, there isevidence that higher quality groundsin schools brings behavioural changein pupils, reduces bullying, andprovides more opportunities forlearning.31

Crime In a wonderfully titled paper “Doesvegetation reduce crime?” theresearchers, who conducted a studyin Chicago, conclude “…vegetationcan deter crime in poor urbanneighborhoods in any or all of thefollowing ways: by increasingresidents’ informal surveillance ofneighborhood spaces, by increasingthe implied surveillance of thesespaces, and by mitigating residents’mental fatigue, thereby reducing thepotential for violence.”32 This providesa counterexample to the commonidea that foliage can increase crimeas it provides cover for burglars. It islikely that the design of the space isimportant here.

It has already been shown that localspaces, which are pleasant, are morelikely to attract residents to walk, sit,and socialise. This can have an impacton the fear of crime, which tends to behighest in relation to spaces with littlesense of community presence – wherefew people tend to be out and about. Italso may help act as a preventative tothe ‘broken windows syndrome’ whereif a broken window is not repaired,other windows will soon also bebroken in a cycle of vandalism.

In Ontario, Canada, a rubbish dump,which attracted criminals and wasavoided by residents, was turned intoa community garden. This resulted ina 30 per cent drop in crime over thefollowing summer. This had a positivespiral effect: as the area became

safer, more people used it and thesurrounding streets, thus increasingself-policing and reducing the fear ofcrime.33

Local environments and well-beingThus it is clear that our localenvironments, in particular naturalenvironments, can have significanteffects upon our well-being in multipleways. Some of these effects havebeen unrecognised or undervalued,and this has allowed for under-investment in public spaces or forgreen spaces to be given up in favourof other forms of development.

Clearly there can be tensionsbetween personal well-being and‘One Planet Living’. For example, thedesire to escape to nature may meanpeople drive or fly to their destination,increasing pollution. Good localenvironments do not necessarilymean a sustainable globalenvironment. The second half of thispaper explores whether this tension isalways true and looks at ways inwhich it might be resolved.


In the developed world there hasbeen a reluctance to do anything thatwould damage economic growth andreduce individual choice. It issometimes argued that theenvironment is a luxury good indeveloping countries, and that theprimary goal must be growing theeconomy in order to solve poverty,before turning to the environment.

Ecological economists such asHerman Daly have argued, however,that a primary question about theeconomy is its scale in relation to theecosystem that sustains it.34 Whilstconventional economists see themacro-economy as the whole,ecological economists see it asembedded within a wider ecosystem.Logically there will be a size to theeconomy – at a given level oftechnology – which cannot besustained by the underlyingecosystem. Beyond this point, growthbecomes ‘uneconomic’; in otherwords its costs outweigh its benefits.Economists understand that allcourses of action have an ‘opportunitycost’ – the cost of other opportunitiesforgone. They tend to forget, however,that growth is another competing endamongst the things we may want,and, as with all things, we mustdecide what we will give up toachieve this end. Often the price is aheavy one, as we do not explicitlythink through the cost to theenvironment of further growth in termsof resource depletion, pollution,climate change, etc.

One way to understand andcommunicate sustainabledevelopment is in terms of presentand future quality of life.35 Quality oflife can be understood as comprisingthree major components: well-being,social justice and environmentalsustainability.36 If we understandsustainable development in terms ofquality of life, it can become aconcept that is more meaningful topeople, and also is no longer primarilyabout limits to behaviour. Instead it isabout promoting quality of life inholistic ways.

Over the last thirty years there hasbeen a new stream of multi-disciplinary research around well-being and happiness. This hasprovided some important new

insights, particularly about therelationship between money andhappiness. The data shows that indeveloped countries, massiveincreases in economic wealth overthe last thirty years have resulted inhappiness levels remainingunchanged (see Figure 1). Theevidence suggests that after basicneeds are met, we adapt very quicklyto the material gains that come fromincreases in income. We alsocompare ourselves to others and thiscan lead to satisfaction ordissatisfaction. The resolute flatness ofhappiness in developed countries iscoupled with data suggesting thatmental health problems are rapidly onthe rise, and levels of trust and socialcohesion are falling.37


The wider picture

Environmentalism and the idea of ‘sustainable development’ havefailed to connect with, and indeed been resisted by, many people.In part this is because the ideas have been perceived to beprimarily about limits on people’s behaviour and consumption, andthus inherently about reducing quality of life.

Figure 1: UK life satisfaction and GDP 1973–2002

Cross-country comparison of lifesatisfaction and GDP also shows thatsome countries have high levels ofwell-being despite lower consumption(see Figure 2). In particular, the datasuggests that it is the quality of ourrelationships that is fundamental toour well-being. There is also datashowing that materialistic people(who believe money and possessionswill bring happiness) have lower well-being than their non-materialisticcounterparts.38

Gross Domestic Product – anindicator often cited as the keymeasure of a society’s progress – hasbeen found to be sorely lacking. Forthese reasons The Economist hascalled GDP ‘Grossly Distorted Picture’and Nobel Laureate Simon Kuznets –the original architect of GDP – hasmade it clear that he never meant it tobe used to measure quality of lifesaying, “The welfare of a nation canscarcely be inferred from ameasurement of national income.”

The importance of well-being forpolicy is gaining ground. Mostrecently, the UK SustainableDevelopment Strategy Securing theFuture has indicated that the UK willcreate a set of well-being indicatorsand also consider how policy couldpromote well-being.39

There is an emerging body of thinkingthat suggests that we could movetowards ‘One Planet Living’ and yet

maintain or even increase our well-being. This is based on the view thatour present development paths(particularly in developed countries),which focus primarily on growing theeconomy, may not be the best roadsto well-being. This view holds that awell-being society would be morefocused on quality work, community,and more leisure time, with lessconsumption created by a lessaggressive marketing society. Such asociety could directly meet humanneeds in a more holistic way thanpresent societies whose economiesare based on creating unsatisfiedneeds through marketing. A vision ofsuch a society is outlined in nef’sWell-being Manifesto.40

Some new research, which supportsthis view, looks at the relationshipbetween well-being and ecologicallyresponsible behaviour.41 Two studiesfound that happier people are living inmore ecologically sustainable waysand that there is not a straightforwardtrade off between well-being andenvironmentally responsiblebehaviour. The research suggests thattwo factors underlie both thehappiness and the ecologicalresponsibility. The first is an ‘intrinsicorientation’ – in other words beingmotivated by internal goals rather thanexternal and material goals. This bothpromotes well-being and pro-environmental behaviour as “intrinsicvalues are, by their very nature, notdependent on material goods for their

fulfilment”.42 The second factor is‘mindfulness’ – an ability to perceiveinternal and external realities openlyand without distortion. Mindfulness isassociated with greater levels of well-being, and also is linked to lessmaterialism and less consumptionspending over time. This newresearch suggests that we couldcultivate lifestyles based on intrinsicvalues and mindfulness, which bringgreater fulfilment and are at the sametime more ecologically responsible.


Figure 2: An international comparison of the life satisfaction and GDPof nations

Thinking about sustainabledevelopment in this way raiseschallenges about how to take itforward but also providesopportunities, in particular to makethe concept more relevant to people’slives and thus make the transition tosustainable development moreplausible and possible.

How could we move towards ‘OnePlanet Living’ based on quality of life?This is a big question, and thepurpose of this paper is to raise itrather than to answer it in full. Thereare, however, some possible paths tofollow which could be fruitful, some ofwhich move away from traditionalenvironmental territory. We suggestfive ways of taking forward a conceptof sustainable development withquality of life at its heart as a way ofstarting the debate.

1. Measure what matters

There are presently no majorrecognised indicators that bringtogether well-being concerns withenvironmental sustainability. Workneeds to happen to consider how wecan measure and manage the twinaims of promoting quality of life and‘One Planet Living’.

2. Promote and protect localenvironments

The evidence in the first part of thispaper shows that the naturalenvironment can have a powerfuleffect upon our well-being, and thatthe local environment in particularplays a crucial role in our physical andmental health, social and communitylife, the growth of our children and theeconomy in which we work. Thereforewe need to do more to recognise themultiple and unique benefits that thelocal environment can provide, andseek to protect and promote these asa necessary part of vibrantcommunities with high quality of life.

As discussed earlier, there isevidence that the poorest citizenssuffer the worst environments. Thus itis a matter of environmental justice toensure that resources are aimed atthe worst off. There is also evidencethat there can be barriers tointeraction or use of the environmentby the socially excluded or ethnicminorities due to lack of access orknowledge and skills.43 Thus all workon preserving or strengthening thelocal environment should focus onissues around inclusion and access,and should take a participatoryapproach.

Another factor to be taken intoaccount is that as populations in thedeveloping world grow, we will see ahuge increase in urban population inmega-cities. It will therefore becomeever more important to keep people

in touch with the joys of nature, bothfor their own well-being and also toensure a ‘connection’ with the naturalworld encouraging the acceptance ofpolicies which protect non-urbanareas.

3. Ecological debt trading

If all world citizens were given a rightto their share of the global commons,developed-country citizens would behighly indebted to those indeveloping countries, as richcountries’ environmental footprint isfar greater than their fair share.44 Weshould make these rights tradeable.This would mean that rich countrieswould have to pay poorer countries forover-using resources and over-pollution. This would have significanteffects on development throughredistributing economic wealth topoorer countries. Over time thenumber of rights to environmentalresources could be reduced, henceusing the market mechanism to bringdown global levels of resource useand pollution. Rich countries wouldalso benefit from this kind of policy.Protecting the global environment is ineverybody’s interests. We live in aninterdependent world and poverty andpoor environments can create warand conditions where terrorism mightflourish, factors which then affecteverybody, rich or poor.


Moving forward – creating ‘One Planet Living’based on quality of life

Inspired by the data, which shows the close relationship betweenour well-being and our environment, this paper argues that weneed to put quality of life at the heart of sustainable development.

4. Curbing the marketing societyand promoting sustainableconsumption

Increased consumption is not bringingmore well-being in developedcountries. More materialism makes usless happy. And yet billions are spentevery year on advertising andmarketing to make us believe that we‘need’ more products, and that if wehad that car we would be happier…and sexier to boot!

Professor David Cadman, writing inResurgence in April 2003, points outthat, “The doctrine of consumptionand economic growth is not primarilyfounded on ‘satisfaction’ but upon‘dissatisfaction’.” Cadman quotesRobert Lane from The Loss ofHappiness in Market Democracies“…advertising must usedissatisfaction to achieve its purpose”and shows that this deliberatelymisleading aspect of consumerculture dates back to Edward Bernaysin the post war 1930s. Bernaysapplied his experience of USpropaganda to the foundation of whatis now modern day consumerism –“He understood that the appetite ofour present materialism dependsupon stirring up our wants – but notsatisfying them.” If this is true thenthis ‘promise’ of consumerism is notonly not making us any happier anddestroying the plant – it is also a lie!

The marketing machine’s ‘footprint’ or‘brainprint’45 preys on ourweaknesses and seeks to make us

spend more money. But it has no realinterest in meeting our needs. This isas true for developing countries as fordeveloped countries. We need toreview the role we want advertisingand marketing to play in our world.We should consider how similar it isto pollution, and thus worth taxing likeany other externality. We should alsostrengthen regulatory mechanisms topromote truth in advertising, and inparticular to protect young peoplefrom targeted advertising.

There is growing understanding thatconsumption plays a complex role insociety far beyond the functionalsatisfaction of basic needs.46

Developed countries need to take thelead in experimenting with theemerging thinking on how we canmove towards sustainableconsumption through innovativemethods of behaviour change. Thisgoes beyond traditional economisticmodels that focus upon informationprovision and financial incentives toincorporate thinking around socialnorms, institutional structures,situational factors and community-based change.47 We need to makethe right choice the easy choice.

5. Bring together the globaldevelopment and environmentalagendas

At present there is a perceived andsometimes real clash between theglobal development agenda (whichtends to see growth as a key topoverty reduction) and the global

environmental agenda (which tends tosee growth as a bad thing).Development and environmentalbodies need to build a commonplatform on how to create asustainable global economy that isbased on quality of life now and forfuture generations.48 This is likely tocomprise of a mix of measuresincluding:

P Ways of distinguishing ‘economicgrowth’ from ‘uneconomic growth’.

P Higher levels of redistribution fromdeveloped countries to developingcountries.

P Fewer constraints on developingcountries’ growth than ondeveloped countries’.

P Better economic modelling of whatslow-growth economies wouldlook like, including the impacts ontaxation, funding of publicservices, and employment.

Developing countries areunderstandably suspicious of Westernenvironmental agendas and are rightto ask, “Why can’t we have what youhave?” The only way we can movetowards sustainable development is ifdeveloped countries take the lead ondealing with their own issues –particularly the sustainability ofconsumption.

Not the final wordBy placing quality of life at the heartof sustainable development we canmake the concept something that ispositive and relevant to people’s lives.It also allows us to create a new andpowerful vision about the sort ofsociety in which we wish to live. Thechallenge is for all those working onissues around development andenvironmentalism to grapple with thequestion of how we can move to aworld based on well-being, socialjustice and environmentalsustainability.


Endnotes1 WWF (2004) Living Planet Report 2004 (WWF, Switzerland).2 This paper is not a detailed survey of the evidence. For more in-depth coverage of many of the issues, see, for example, Land Use Consultants

(2004) Making the Links: greenspace and quality of life (Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 060 (ROAME No. F03AB01). Also seeDuffy, B. (2004) Life Satisfaction and trust in other people (MORI, London).

3 Life satisfaction data tends to remain relatively stable at the country level. It partly suffers from the fact that people adapt to their circumstances.Therefore it is important to supplement life satisfaction with other measures. For a fuller explanation of, and justification for, a two-dimensional modelof personal well-being see Marks, N., Shah, H. and Westall, A. (2004) The Power and Potential of Well-being Indicators (nef, London).www.neweconomics.org

4 See, for example, Ryan, R. and Deci, E. (2001) ‘On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being’,in S. Fiske (Ed.) Annual Review of Psychology (Annual Reviews Inc., Palo Alto, CA.) Vol. 52; pp.141–166.

5 Countryside Commission (1997) Public Attitudes to the Countryside, (Countryside Commission, Northampton).6 Chu, A., Thorne, A. and Guite, H. (2004) ‘The impact on mental well-being of the urban and physical environment: an assessment of the evidence’

Journal of Mental Health Promotion Vol. 3(2) pp.8-17.7 Purcell, A.T. et al (1994) ‘Preference or Preferences for Landscape’, Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 14, pp.195–209.8 nef’s model of personal well-being has two dimensions: life satisfaction and personal development. Meaning seems to be aligned with the second

dimension. For example, new parents tend to report a drop in life satisfaction, but report feeling higher levels of meaning in their lives. 9 Burns, G. (2005), ‘The role of the natural environment in well-being’ in Huppert, F. et al (eds.) (2005), The science of well-being (OUP, Oxford)

Forthcoming August 2005.10 Coley, R., Kuo, F. and Sullivan, W. (1997) ‘Where Does Community Grow?: The Social Context Created by Nature in Urban Public Housing’,

Environment and Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp.468–494.11 Kuo, F. and Sullivan, W. et al, (1998) ’Fertile Ground for Community: Inner-City Neighborhood Common Spaces’, American Journal of Community

Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 6, p.843.12 Van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S.L. and van der Wulp, N.Y. (2003) ‘Environmental Preference and Restoration: (How) are they related?’, Journal of

Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23, pp.135–146.13 Kuo, F. (2001) ‘Coping with poverty: impacts of environment and attention in the inner city’, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.5–34.14 Kuo, F. and Sullivan, W. (2001) ‘Aggression and violence in the inner city: effects of environment via mental fatigue’, Environment and Behaviour,

Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.543–571.15 www.who.int/nut/obs.htm quoted in Williams, J. (2004) 50 Facts that should Change the World (Icon Books, Cambridge).16 Takano, T., Nakamura, K., and Watanabe, M. (2002) ‘Urban residential improvements and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance

of walkable green spaces’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 12.17 Dasgupta, S. et al (1997) Surviving Success: Policy Reform and the Future of Industrial Pollution in China, (World Bank, Washington DC). 18 World Health Organisation (2005) Particulate Matter Air Pollution: how it harms health. Available online at http://www.euro.who.int19 Ulrich, R.S. (1984) ‘View through a window may influence recovery from surgery’, Science, 224, pp.420–421.20 Hartig, T. et al (2003) ’Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings’, Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 23. pp.109–123.21 Land Use Consultants (2004) Making the Links: greenspace and quality of life. (Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 060 (ROAME

No. F03AB01) p.61.22 Luttik, J. (2000) ‘The value of trees, water and open spaces as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands’, Landscape and Urban Planning

Vol. 48, pp.161–167. Quoted in Cabespace (2004) The Value of Public Space (Cabespace, London). Available online at www.cabespace.org.uk23 The Trust for Public Land (1999) Attracting Investment. Available online at www.tpl.org24 Duxbury, G. (2004) Sustainable communities: regeneration and a just society, in Foley, J. (2004) Sustainability and Social Justice (ippr, London).25 Brocklesby, B. and Hinshelwood, E. (2001) Poverty and the Environment: what the poor say. An assessment of Poverty-Environment linkages in

participatory poverty assessments, (University of Wales).26 See for example Strategy Unit (2005) Improving the prospects of people living in areas of multiple deprivation in England. (www.strategy.gov.uk)27 http://www.globalwitness.org/28 USAID (1998) The Value of Philippine Coastal Resources. www.oneocean.org/download/990118/intros.pdf29 UNEP (2000) Global Environmental Outlook 2000. www.unep.org/Geo2000/english/0027.htm30 USDA Forest Service (2001) Trees for children: helping inner city children get a better start in life, Technology Bulletin No. 7. (USDA Forest Service,

Pennsylvania) quoted in Land Use Consultants (2004) Making the Links: greenspace and quality of life (Scottish Natural Heritage CommissionedReport No. 060 (ROAME No. F03AB01), p.41.

31 Land Use Consultants (2004) op. cit., p.42.32 Kuo, F. and Sullivan, W. (2001) ‘Environment and Crime in the Inner city: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?’, Environment and Behavior,

Vol. 33, No. 3, p.348.33 McKay, T. (1998) ’Empty spaces, dangerous places‘, ICA Newsletter, Vol. 1(3) pp.2–3. Quoted in Cabespace (2004) The Value of Public Space

(Cabespace, London). Available online at www.cabespace.org.uk34 Daly, H.E. and Farley, J. (2004) Ecological Economics: principles and applications (Island Press, Washington).35 The UK Government has taken this approach in its Sustainable Development Strategy. The main weakness of the approach was not conceptual but

came from the failure of government to place sustainable development at the heart of policy-making.36 Social justice cannot be reduced down to subjective well-being, for otherwise if poor people were happy with their lot (having got used to it) there

would be no argument for redistribution. Some might argue that environmental sustainability can be reduced to subjective well-being, as sustainingthe environment is necessary to promote well-being. Resolving this question requires discussion of whether the environment matters for its ownsake and is beyond the scope of this paper. For further thinking on this, see Dobson, A. (2000) Green Political Thought (Routledge, London). Evenif one has an anthropocentric view of green issues (which at least one of the authors has), for the purposes of operationalising sustainabledevelopment it makes sense to have environmental sustainability as a principle.

37 Shah, H. and Marks, N. (2004) A well-being manifesto for a flourishing society (nef, London). www.neweconomics.org38 Kasser, T. (2002) The High Price of Materialism (MIT Press, CA Mass.).39 Securing the Future (DEFRA, 2005).40 Shah, H. and Marks, N. (2004) op. cit. See also Levett, R. et al (2003) A Better Choice of Choice (Fabian Society, London).41 Brown, K.W. and Kasser, T. (2005) Are Psychological and Ecological Well-being Compatible? (Unpublished paper).42 Ibid. p.15.43 See for example the research by the Black Environment Network (BEN) www.ben-network.org.uk44 Simms, A. (2005) Ecological Debt (Pluto Press, London).45 Peck, J. and Beloe, S. (2004) Through the Looking Glass (WWF/SustainAbility).46 For an extensive consideration of these issues, see Jackson, T. (2004) Motivating Sustainable Consumption – a review of evidence on consumer

behaviour and behavioural change (Sustainable Development Research Network, London). See also Levett, R. et al (2003) op. cit.47 Jackson, T. (2004) op. cit.48 Such a process has begun through the creation of the Working Group on Climate Change and Development of which WWF is a member. See

Simms, A. et al (2004) Up in Smoke? (nef, London).


Appropriate and affordable financialservices should be available to all –whether it’s individuals looking for abank account, a social enterpriselooking for a loan or an inner-cityenterprise looking for equity. This iscurrently not the case. To address thegaps in financial service provision nefis advocating reform to develop apolicy environment that ensuresaccess to affordable financial servicesfor all, particularly the mostdisadvantaged.

The programme aims to stimulate anddesign more effective and sustainableapproaches to investment for localeconomic development, includingsocial investment vehicles such asthe Adventure Capital Fund.

We develop and pilot innovativefinancial products and deliverymechanisms, including the FactorFour approach to ending fuel poverty,community development credit unionsand a wholesale fund for communitydevelopment finance institutions inthe UK.

For more information please call020 7820 6300

Access to finance: Access to basic financial services is a vital part of living and working in the mainstream of society. Gaps in financial service provision in Britainexclude many people and communities from fulfillingtheir potential. nef is working to change policy andpilot new financial products and services to ensureproper access to financial services for all.

One of the other things we do

Current priorities include international debt, transforming markets, global finance and local economic renewal

Registered charity number 1055254© July 2005 nef (the new economics foundation)

new economics foundation3 Jonathan StreetLondon SE11 5NHUnited Kingdom

Telephone: +44 (0)20 7820 6300Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7820 6301E-mail: [email protected]: www.neweconomics.org

Written by Hetan Shah with Jules PeckEdited by Mary Murphy

With thanks to Andrea Westall, Julia Simon, Nic Marks and Andrew Simms.

Design by the Argument by Design – www.tabd.co.uk

One Planet Living is a joint initiative of WWF and BioRegional, andits vision is ‘a world in which people everywhere can lead happy,healthy lives within their fair share of the Earth’s resources’.

It is based on a set of 10 guiding principles:

1. Zero Carbon2. Zero Waste3. Sustainable Transport4. Local and Sustainable Materials5. Local and Sustainable Food

6. Sustainable Water7. Natural Habitats and Wildlife8. Culture and Heritage9. Equity and Fair Trade10. Health and Happiness.

well-being and the environmentdegrading the environmental resources of a country can have greatly...

Documents