Search

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent a bridging point between the old, neoclassical, growth-based model of the economy and newer, emerging paradigms, such as the well-being economy. The importance of growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is recognized within the SDGs, however, in addition, Target 19 of Goal 17 advocates the adoption of alternative measures of economic well-being. The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) has been found to be the indicator of alternative economic well-being most aligned with the SDGs. On the basis that increased, high-quality energy use leads to expanded macro-economic activity, as measured by GDP, this study conducts a conceptual exploration of the extent to which the pursuit of sustainable energy development (SED) can enhance GPI outcomes. Based on a recent Icelandic GPI study, a total of 46 SED themes were found to be linkable to 16 of its 39 sub-indicators, including 8 cost deductions and 7 benefit additions. The frequency of these was as follows: sustainable energy production (10), sustainable energy consumption (10), energy security (8), nature conservation (8), social benefits (7) and economically efficient energy system (3). The main implication of the study outcomes is that the pursuit of SED is likely to have considerable benefits in terms of fulfilling energy and climate policy, but also co-benefits with regard to the promulgation of economic and societal well-being, as reflected in the GPI. These outcomes, although applicable to Iceland, have ramifications for all nations who are simultaneously striving for greater economic prosperity, whilst tackling climate change and striving to deliver equitable, environmentally sound and resilient energy systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recognising the well-known limitations of economic growth as a litmus test of progress and the call by Target 19 of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 to "develop measurements on progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product", this paper advances understanding of the linkages between alternative measures of economic well-being, the well-being economy and the SDGs. A conceptual model is presented, linking four capital assets to well-being goals and domains, which are connected to related SDGs. An assessment is conducted on the extent to which Gross Domestic Product and five alternative indicators of economic well-being (Environmentally Adjusted Net Domestic Product, Measure of Economic Welfare, Genuine Savings, Genuine Progress Indicator and Inclusive Wealth Index) align with (a) the dimensions of economic well-being, and (b) various environmental, economic, social and institutional targets set by the SDGs. The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is found to be the most comprehensive in coverage, accounting for market-based welfare, services from essential capital, and various environmental and social costs, and linking directly to targets in fourteen of the seventeen SDGs. The paper discusses how greater use of alternative measures of economic well-being by policymakers can encourage transitions to economies which prioritise well-being and desirability objectives. • Conceptual model of wellbeing economy presented – capital asset classes, domains and goals. • Alternative measures of economic wellbeing have far greater linkages to SDGs than GDP. • Genuine Progress Indicator most closely aligned with SDG targets. • Alternative measures of economic wellbeing can promote policy initiatives with SDG benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last three years, national indicator sets and international coalitions for advancement of the well-being economy's ambitions have begun to be developed. This study applies a capital asset, well-being goals and domains, and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework to evaluate the scope and comprehensiveness of the indicator sets of Iceland, Scotland and New Zealand. Both national objectives and SDG indicator priorities, determined through each nation's stakeholder consultation process, have greatly shaped the indicator selection process, albeit leading to a narrow concentration in some areas. There is currently more focus on natural capital preservation and environmental performance in the cases of Iceland and New Zealand, whereas Scotland integrates analysis on contributions to human well-being via ecosystem services. Additionally, resources that appear critical to these economies and processes that undermine the productive capacities of the resource base are not represented by indicators. Spatial scale variations are evident too. Domestic phenomena are the focus of Iceland and New Zealand's indicators sets, whilst Scotland's is more internationalist. Despite these inconsistencies, it is evident that the national indicator sets are inclusive and reflective of socio-cultural priorities, including the needs of certain Indigenous peoples, often monitoring criteria that go beyond the limits of the SDGs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]