1. Resource Productivity and Environmental Tax Reform in Europe (petrE) Economic Growth, the Environment and Wellbeing CSGE Conference 30 November 2007 Berlin Paul Ekins and Andy Venn Environment Group, Policy Studies Institute

2. Literature about economic growth and environmental sustainability –Growth and sustainability can be reconciled in theory –Growth and sustainability have never been reconciled in practice –Conditions for reconciliation are politically challenging and require strong policy interventions to influence the direction of innovation and patterns of consumption, as well as processes of production Literature about economic growth and well- being/happiness –Relationship between economic growth and well-being is not straightforward –Some doubts as to whether there is any positive relationship between them Creating Sustainable Growth in Europe

3. Explore the historical relationship between energy and environmental intensity, economic growth and energy prices in Europe (WP1A) Explore the relationship between economic growth, environmental quality and well-being/happiness (WP1B) Explore the issue of innovation in relation to environmental technologies and environmental quality (WP1C) Aims of petrE Workpackage WP1

4. Undertake literature review to explore: –What is the state of the art in relation to the growth/well-being debate –How has the concept of well-being been related to environmental quality and resource flows Methodology – literature search (peer reviewed, grey literature, press, internet), conceptual development and analysis in the light of the results Aims of WP1B

5. Why study wellbeing? The wellbeing – income relationship Income and happiness in the United States, Source: Layard (2005) - World value surveys data reinforces similar trends in Europe and Japan (developing nations not covered)

6. Multiple/conflicting definitions –Hedonic (pleasure), eudaimonic (fulfilment) –Subjective [e.g. surveys] (Layard 2005) /objective [e.g. unemployment, Clark & Oswald 1994] “a positive and sustainable state that allows individuals, groups or nations to thrive and flourish. This means at the level of an individual, wellbeing refers to psychological, physical and social states that are distinctively positive” Huppert Baylis and Keverne (2004) “There is no accepted definition of wellbeing” Hird (2003) Definitions of wellbeing (life satisfaction, happiness, quality of life)

7. Physical, material, social, emotional well-being; health, income & wealth (absolute/relative), relationships, meaningful work & leisure, personal and mental stability Dolan, P. et al (2006) Review of research on the influences on personal well-being and application to policy making. Report to Defra. Different indicators/ measurements of well-being: –Objective lists (Rawls 1971, Max-Neef 1992) –Preference satisfaction (utility, choice Parfit 1984) –Flourishing accounts (psychological well-being - Ryff and Keys 1995 – autonomy, personal growth, self-acceptance, life purpose, mastery, positive relatedness) –Subjective well-being: hedonic accounts (how we feel - Kahneman et al. 2004), evaluative accounts (how we think and feel - Deiner et al. 1999) Contributions to wellbeing (1)

8. Contributions to wellbeing (2) Layard (2005): Objective list ‘Big 7’ UNICEF (2007): An overview of child well-being in rich countries 1.Family relationships 2.Financial situation 3.Work 4.Community and friends 5.Health 6.Personal freedom 7.Personal values 1.Material well-being 2.Health and safety 3.Education 4.Peer and family relationships 5.Behaviours and risks 6.Subjective wellbeing Mixture of objective list (i.e. work, community) preference satisfaction (i.e. material well-being), flourishing account (i.e. freedom, education) and subjective wellbeing elements included in the above lists.

9. Ekins (2000) 4-capitals model; ecological capital; environmental functions contribute to the economy (resources, sinks), human health, human well-being (amenity, recreation, information, spiritual well-being) Well-being and environment: a theoretical framework

10. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)

11. 1.Frijters and van Praag (1998) effects of climatic differences on well-being of Russians (regulating → health) 2.Rehdanz and Maddison (2005) relationship between climate and well-being (regulating → health) 3.Welsch (2006) air pollution impacts on wellbeing (regulating → health) 4.Van Praag and Baarsma (2005) aviation noise well-being damage in Amsterdam (cultural → health) 5.Vemuri and Costanza (2006) on role of natural capital in well- being (provisioning/regulating → health) 6.Ferrer-i-Carbonell and Gowdy (2007) relation between well-being and concern for pollution or species extinction (cultural → health) 7.New Economics Foundation & WWF (2005), Marks et al. 2007: different pathways direct: environment → individual; Indirect: individual behaviour → environment → (perhaps different) individual Peer-reviewed articles and relation to MEA classification of ecosystem services

12. Contrasting synthesis of findings with MEA(2005) resulted in identification of following research gaps (in environment  wellbeing relationships) 1.Lack of empirical work on supporting ecosystem service influences on wellbeing 2.Lack of empirical work on provisioning ecosystem services influences on security and good social relations 3.Lack of empirical work on regulating ecosystem services influences on good social relations 4.Lack of empirical work on cultural ecosystem services influences on security, basic materials for good life and good social relations 5.Over reliance in peer reviewed articles in assessing only health impacts. A gap exists in assessing environment/ecosystem impacts on the other three main MEA (2005) constituents of wellbeing 6.Lack of analysis of capital feedback effects 7.Lack of analysis which could support the MEA (2005) concept of potential for mediation of impacts (i.e. adaptation or mitigation options) Gaps in the research area

13. www.psi.org.uk