The science and politics of human well-being: a case study in cocreating indicators for Puget Sound restoration

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Across scientific fields, there have been calls to improve the integration of scientific knowledge in policy making. Particularly since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, these calls increasingly refer to data on human well-being related to the natural environment. However, policy decisions involve selective uptake of information across communities with different preferences and decision-making processes. Additionally, researchers face the fact that there are important trade-offs in producing knowledge that is simultaneously credible, legitimate, socially relevant, and socially just. We present a study that developed human well-being indicators for Washington State's Puget Sound ecosystem recovery agency over 3 years. Stakeholders, decision makers, and social scientists were engaged in the identification, modification, and prioritization of well-being indicators that were adopted by the agency for tracking progress toward ecosystem recovery and strategic planning. After substantial literature review, interviews, workshops, and indicator ranking exercises, 15 indicators were broadly accepted and important to all audiences. Although the scientists, decision makers, and stakeholders used different criteria to identify and prioritize indicators, they all agreed that indicators associated with each of 6 broad domains (social, cultural, psychological, physical, economic, and governance) were critical to assess the holistic concept of well-being related to ecosystem restoration. Decision makers preferred indicators that mirrored stakeholder preferences, whereas social scientists preferred only a subset. The Puget Sound indicator development process provides an example for identifying, selecting, and monitoring diverse concepts of well-being related to environmental restoration in a way that promotes recognition, participation, and a fair distribution of environmental benefits across the region.

Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators

“…Recent efforts to reconcile nature conservation and human development include promoting the integration of social sciences into conservation (Mascia et al 2003, Agrawal and Ostrom 2006, Brosius 2006, Barry and Born 2013, Sandbrook et al 2013, Bennett et al 2016, Ives et al 2017 and the integration of local actors (e.g., community members, NGOs, local government) into research and action through social-ecological systems resilience studies, community-based management, or in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity (Altieri and Merrick 1987, Alcorn 1993, Pinedo-Vásquez and Padoch 1993, Berkes 2008, Liu and Opdam 2014, Ens et al 2016. These efforts have led to (1) more nuanced human well-being indicators, modified from the Human Development Index, to better integrate material conditions, quality of life (e.g., spiritual dimensions, social connections, environmental quality, and subjective wellbeing), and sustainability of well-being (i.e., human, social, economic, and natural capital) (Clark 2014, OECD 2015, Biedenweg et al 2017, Gross-Camp 2017, Wali et al 2017, and (2) sets of indicators, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, that include people-focused and ecological goals but fall short in integrating these domains through attention to the feedbacks and interactions between humans and the environment.…”

Environmental justice research shows the importance of social feedbacks in ecosystem service trade-offs

“…Indeed, we found environmental justice research to be highly compatible with and complementary to approaches to study well-being and capabilities, as noted by other environmental governance scholars (Schlosberg andCarruthers 2010, Edwards et al 2016). Some studies have incorporated very broad definitions of well-being that capture some of these dynamics (Biedenweg et al 2017). However, cursory recommendations to "sketch links" between ecosystem services and well-being are evident in many ecosystem assessment protocols (see for example Ash et al 2010) and are inadequate to inform management of trade-offs in complex and dynamic contexts.…”

“…Beyond the factors common to wellbeing approaches, cognitive judgements and behavioral responses are additionally influenced by a range of sometimes competing social norms or moral judgements, notions of what is fair and just, contextual factors including cogent social and political discourses, and perceived opportunities, incentives, threats, and costs (Bandura 1986, Stedman 2002. Some authors have included perceptions of governance and views about fairness within wellbeing frameworks (Biedenweg et al 2017). However, most academic conceptualizations of well-being focus on a person's long-term functioning, abilities, accomplishments, and values at the expense of exploring shorter term subjective feelings, judgements, and behavioral responses (Deci andRyan 2008, Huta andWaterman 2014).…”

Biocultural approaches to developing well-being indicators in Solomon Islands

“…However, success in these terms hinges on an accurate understanding of place-based cultural, economic, and ecological values (Caillon et al 2017, Sterling et al 2017a. As such, we need to link human and ecological well-being explicitly, consider a wide range of variables and the feedbacks between them, and make a systematic attempt to balance specificity and scalability in different forms of local and global knowledge (Biedenweg et al 2017, Sterling et al 2017a). This is no easy task but is likely to be the only means of achieving just and equitable outcomes over the medium to long term.…”

“…In response, scholars and practitioners have worked to contextualize indicators of social and ecological well-being using a variety of approaches (Fraser et al 2006). Examples of these approaches include using social-ecological systems theory to monitor marine resource management (Hughes et al 2012); examining linked social-ecological indicators in agro-ecosystems https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art32/ (van Oudenhoven et al 2011); developing locally framed assessments of basic needs (Wilkie et al 2015); cocreating indicators of well-being through participatory engagement of various stakeholder groups (Biedenweg et al 2017); and, in Vanuatu, developing indicators that align with local conceptions of well-being (Tanguay 2015). At an international scale, some efforts have recognized that there are feedbacks between social and ecological processes and that human well-being is linked to the ecological state (e.g., Bergamini et al 2013, Naeem et al 2016.…”