![Sample our Environment & Sustainability journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5935/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Sustainability.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Simple frameworks that generalize the best metrics of human well-being related to the natural environment have rarely been empirically tested for their representativeness across diverse regions. This study tested the hypothesis that metrics of human well-being related to environmental change are context specific by identifying priority human well-being indicators in distinct regions. The research team interviewed 61 experts and held 8 stakeholder workshops across 3 regions to identify and prioritize locally relevant indicators. Results from the three regions were compared to determine the degree of geographic and demographic variability in indicator priorities. The team found broadly similar domains and attributes of human well-being across the regions, yet measurable indicators were specific to the contexts. Despite this, the congruence of overarching domains suggests that a high-level framework of human well-being can guide a holistic assessment of the human impacts of environmental change across diverse regions.
Acknowledgments
I thank all the participants from the three regions for contributing their time in the interviews, workshops, and presentations of results. K. Stiles, K. Wellman, H. Harguth, and A. Hanein assisted with project design, implementation, and workshop facilitation. J. Horowitz, S. Vynne, K. Nelson, B. Le-May, J. Arnold, R. Warren, T. Webler, K. Stavros, M. Ruff, and L. Kintner facilitated workshop groups. S. Brewer, B. Peterson, M. Personious, S. Redmond, and D. Ward provided valuable feedbackon recruitment and making the research process applicable to the policy process. K. Vincent provided valuable feedback on the initial article, including recommending the Venn diagrams.