Twentieth International Conference on Environmental, Cultural, Economic & Social Sustainability

Abstract

When the Brundtland Report emerged in 1987, decision-makers and researchers began advocating for the monitoring of social and environmental aspects using quantitative diagnostics (Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000). This historical evolution of indicator selection processes has exhibited a notable preference for adopting objective indicators (Jones, 2019). Conversely, subjective indicators have not received the same level of consideration as their objective counterparts (Stedman, 2016). While subjective indicators are instrumental in comprehending various dimensions of an individual’s life and the process of societal development, the prominence of objective indicators has tended to overshadow the significance of their subjective counterparts. This imbalance underscores a prevailing bias toward quantifiable, measurable data in the realm of sustainability, resilience, well-being and quality of life assessment and evaluation. Thus, this proposal intends to address two main questions (1) What are the tendencies in the use of subjective indicators in quantitative evaluations? and (2) How do the actors and institutions regarding quantitative evaluations contribute to the understanding of sustainability, QoL, resilience and well-being subjectivity and holism? The comprehension of the role of subjective indicators in metric systems promises to yield valuable insights: (1) methodologies adopted by scientists and policy-makers in their pursuit of holistic understanding; (2) the operationalization of subjective indicators within the overarching conceptual frameworks of quality of life, sustainability, resilience, and well-being; (3) the interplay and integration of insights from diverse disciplines (4) the influence exerted by the nature of participating institutions, encompassing private, non-governmental, and governmental entities, among others, in shaping the selection of indicators.