From ... in Lifestyle History Health Political Social issues — Mar 10, 2025

Assessing Local Good life: The Art of Prioritizing ‘What Counts’ Together

In the midst of our ongoing systemic crisis, one question takes center stage: How do we define what genuinely matters? This question forms the nucleus of the Good Life1 Indicator Movement. With the current systemic upheaval prompting a thorough examination of our collective objectives and a comprehensive review of our socio-technical systems, numerous challenges are brought to the fore. First and foremost, it’s a democratic challenge because the concept of well-being is inherently political and laden with value judgments – a matter too significant to be entrusted solely to experts. Beyond this, lies the challenge of recognizing interdependencies across multiple levels: interdependencies between environmental and social issues, between individuals and the institutional framework within which they operate, and between public policies and various territorial levels.

The good news is that many groups of stakeholders have embraced this topic, and we now benefit from a wealth of past and ongoing initiatives conducted in various regions. We witness a proliferation of experiences in constructing local well-being indicators today. Why such a proliferation of so-called good life indicator initiatives? Does this mean we’re incapable of agreeing on what constitutes well-being? In my perspective, this profusion of initiatives is, in fact, cause for optimism. It reflects the fact that each region is developing approaches tailored to their specific needs and populations, breaking free from a form of abstract universalism. It’s clear that some indicators that make sense on a larger scale (such as life expectancy) lose their relevance at the community or organizational level. An indicator highly specific to a local scale (like the success of landlocked salmon fishing in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region in Quebec or the tonnage of maritime traffic in Jacksonville, USA) may not have significance for another community.

But what, you might wonder, do these initiatives yield? To illustrate, let’s delve into a project I’ve been deeply involved with – the Territorial Sustainable Well-being Indicators (IBEST) in Grenoble and Isère, France.

IBEST is a collective undertaking, built over an extended period, as the first inklings of this idea date back to 2002 (driven by professionals in public policy and activist groups). I’ll spare you the details of a twenty-year history to construct a non-monetary, multidimensional approach to sustainable well-being, one that incorporates the diversity of inequalities. Let’s focus on two distinctive features of the initiative.

Firstly, rooted in a critique of traditional economic indicators and the unsustainability of our socio-economic system, IBEST combines the dimensions of well-being, sustainability, and the common good. It serves to create dashboards, population profiles, and synthetic indicators. The experiment also combines survey data with existing administrative data and integrates expert and layperson knowledge. These efforts to reconcile elements that are sometimes viewed as antagonistic are a hallmark of IBEST, showcasing the ambition to adopt a cross-cutting vision of sustainable well-being that transcends certain shortcomings of existing approaches.

Secondly, the initiative engaged a diverse group of stakeholders, including inhabitants, policy professionals, researchers from various disciplines, and activists. It led to the participative development of a sustainable well-being framework comprising eight dimensions: 1. Work and employment; 2. Assertiveness and commitment; 3. Democracy and living together; 4. Living environment; 5. Health; 6. Access to and use of public services; 7. Time and pace of life; 8. Subsistence needs. Based on these eight dimensions and participatory input, a quantitative survey with approximately 70 questions was conducted three times in the Grenoble metropolitan area (2012, 2018, 2023) and was subsequently expanded to other parts of Isère starting in 2018.

But what is the purpose of such an effort?

First and foremost, it contributes valuable insights and, notably, because it is co-constructed with local stakeholders, it democratizes the understanding of social and environmental challenges. This kind of initiative offers a holistic view of individuals and a broader perspective on inequalities. Consider this, when assessing individuals’ well-being from various angles, we can inquire: who flourishes effortlessly, and, conversely, who contends with a myriad of obstacles? In Grenoble, it’s evident that women, those in lower socio-economic categories, and those in poor health face the most significant challenges. While this finding is not surprising, the approach also brings to light new issues (access to nature, relationship with time, etc.) and the plurality of realization difficulties encountered by different categories of the population.

Moreover, the knowledge generated through such initiatives foster greater collaboration among various public administration departments (e.g., environmental, social services) and local stakeholders (local authorities, associations, citizens). It nurtures imagination, unveils the invisible, and identifies levers for action. Thus, in the words of Albert Ogien, the challenge here is to ensure that indicators serve as a gateway to question the dimensions of value and do not become an “automatic pilot” for actors’ actions. Tangibly, in Grenoble, it contributed to the design and conception of public policies, such as territorial forecasting, territory promotion, or housing policies and the city’s policy targeting disadvantaged neighbourhoods, especially in the area of social cohesion. IBEST shows the importance of social connections and new levers for action (in terms of mutual aid, loneliness among the elderly, etc.). However, during budget constraints, cultural funding and support for associations tend to be the initial casualties. Thus, IBEST provides arguments to reconsider the priorities of public action and illuminates the dark corners of local statistics. In the Isère region, IBEST provided insight into the well-being of the elderly and led to an action plan for aging residents who wish to remain at home. It also shed light on the social needs of the disadvantaged areas.

In terms of evaluation2, these initiatives allow us to question the relevance and usefulness of actions for individuals. For example, the observation of sustainable well-being in the Grenoble area has been incorporated into various domains of evaluation (territorial coherence schemes, intermunicipal urban development plans, economic policies, thermal rehabilitation policies), enabling citizens or professionals who engage with the well-being indicators to question the contribution of public policies beyond the frameworks established by the evaluation’s sponsors. So, professionals in public policy in the Grenoble metropolitan area, instead of assessing the residual income produced by an urban renewal program in a simplistic manner, decided to examine the value of the program across all dimensions of sustainable well-being. This led to a more resident-focused, participatory evaluation, informed by new knowledge about sustainability and well-being, and allowed social landlords to better address residents’ needs within the program.

Furthermore, when it comes to steering change, these indicators have the power to fuel transformations in favor of a sustainable transition. For instance, as demonstrated by IBEST, they allow for a reflection on the thresholds of social and environmental sustainability and the pursuit of common goals within a region. For instance, the participative approach in IBEST highlighted that the common goal is not universal good health (which is unattainable), but ensuring that everyone has real access to healthcare. Today, IBEST is enriched by its intersection with the doughnut model regarding planetary and social boundaries. Much like the ‘douinteghnut deal’ in Amsterdam, this synergy between well-being and sustainability can guide resource allocation decisions, including the distribution of funding. This approach, coupled with the ‘doughnut,’ is currently being operationalized in Grenoble and is enhancing ongoing socio-ecological action plans.

As the IBEST case demonstrates, it is possible to create coherence between different sustainability fields and actions. However, for these initiatives to support the transformation of communities towards a good life, they must remain open and adaptable to evolving needs and populations. While existing initiatives show that indicators can serve the “qualitative”, policy-making, and the renewal of the concept of well-being, much work remains to better consider interdependencies among actors, countries, social/environmental aspects, and individual/collective factors.

Some references:

Delahais, T., Ottaviani, F., Berthaud, A. & Clot, H. (2023), Bridging the gap between wellbeing and evaluation : Lessons from IBEST, a french experience, Evaluation and Program planning, 97.

Ottaviani F., Steiler D., 2022. Economic peace as a counterpoint to the warfare economy: Rethinking individual and collective responsibility,   Journal of Business Ethics (The), 177, 1 : pages 19–29. 

Ottaviani, F., Le Roy, A. & O’Sullivan, P. (2021), (2021), Constructing Non-monetary Social Indicators: An Analysis of the Effects of Interpretive Communities (2021), Ecological Economics, 183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106962.

Ottaviani, F. (2018), Time in the development of indicators on sustainable well-being: a local experiment in developing alternative indicators (2018), Social Indicators Research, 135(1), p. 53-73.

Read the full article at the original website

References:

Search Results

Bookmarks

Some references:

Subscribe to The Article Feed