**2. Characterizing well-being in the context of service flows**

Understanding the relationships among ecosystem goods and services that contribute to and shape well-being is a core task for both researchers and policy makers. Our understanding of this relationship has evolved over the last several decades from being synonymous with income and consumption of marketed goods [39, 40] to a broader view incorporating noneconomic issues like gender [41, 42], sustainability [43–45], and the environment [44, 46]. Given this evolution of thought, it is amazing that many still view the most reliable measure of human well-being to be income [47]. Yet, the importance of ecosystem services as a driver for well-being has been well established in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [23]. The World Economic Forum's [48] environmental sustainability index, Wackernagel's et al.'s [49] national estimates of ecological footprints, and the New Economics Foundation report [50] all emphasize the importance of the role of environmental factors (e.g., ecosystem goods and services) in the establishment of well-being.

Much of the drive to include ecological information in the estimation of well-being derived from ongoing discussions of whether humans are a part of an ecosystem rather than simply a stressor on ecosystems [51]. This approach termed Ecosophy T is a view of the central role of ecosystems and states that every being, whether human, animal or plant has an equal right to live and prosper [51]. This holistic emphasis requires that the self-realized Ecological Self should not act without understanding how that action will affect other living beings. An understanding of the unintended consequences of actions is the equivalent of the liberal harm principle [52, 53]. To go from an understanding of unintended environmental consequences (i.e., humans as stressors) to an inclusion of ecosystems and ecological understanding in well-being (i.e., humans as part of ecosystems) is a logical and fairly straightforward thought process.

The HWBI framework illustrates the relationship between service flows provided through social, economic and environmental sectors and the domains of HWBI (**Figure 1**). Collectively, the components of HWBI are similar to Maslow's pyramid of self-actualization [54] where basic human needs represent physiological and safety needs; economic needs represent employment, education, wealth, infrastructure, growth and trade; environmental needs represent clean air and water, and low risks of contamination; and, subjective happiness needs represent life satisfaction, freedom, solastalgia [55], topophilia [56], and biophilia [57]. The Human Well-being Index (HWBI) is intended to be used as an endpoint measure responsive to changes in service flows from natural, human and built capital [18].

HWBI was developed as a composite measure based on eight dimensions of well-being (domains) characterized by 20 multi-metric indicators reflecting both objective and subjective measures [18, 58]. The HWBI domains are sub-indices that serve as proxy measures representing various aspects of human well-being (**Table 1**) which are aggregated into the composite index. In a nutshell, The HWBI calculation follows these four steps as summarized by Harwell et al. [59]:


Substitutions at the metric level in the HWBI allow for the index to be adapted to include data that more closely reflect characteristics in specific use case applications (e.g., geographical locations or population groups) while maintaining the integrity of the index at the indicator level [59–61].

human well-being, regardless of time, space and culture [18], communities can easily "relate" to these well-being dimensions, making prioritization a fairly straight-forward exercise in developing relative importance values (RIVs) as weighting factors to customize HWBI. Applications of stakeholder RIVs utilized in a real community case studies are presented in Fulford et al. [62]. The foundational research in the development of HWBI [11, 25, 63, 64] has also been used to inform community-based landscape planning via the valuation ecosystem services [64].

**Figure 1.** Conceptual model of the human well-being index (from [19, 20]). Model links goods and services (ecosystems,

The Role of Ecosystem Services in Community Well-Being

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74068

149

social, and economic) with the eight domains of well-being through relationship functions.

The HWBI framework is designed to reflect stakeholder viewpoints regarding the relative importance of each of the eight domains. Since the domains are relevant to characterizing

The Role of Ecosystem Services in Community Well-Being http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74068 149

all emphasize the importance of the role of environmental factors (e.g., ecosystem goods and

Much of the drive to include ecological information in the estimation of well-being derived from ongoing discussions of whether humans are a part of an ecosystem rather than simply a stressor on ecosystems [51]. This approach termed Ecosophy T is a view of the central role of ecosystems and states that every being, whether human, animal or plant has an equal right to live and prosper [51]. This holistic emphasis requires that the self-realized Ecological Self should not act without understanding how that action will affect other living beings. An understanding of the unintended consequences of actions is the equivalent of the liberal harm principle [52, 53]. To go from an understanding of unintended environmental consequences (i.e., humans as stressors) to an inclusion of ecosystems and ecological understanding in well-being (i.e., humans as part of ecosystems) is a logical and fairly straightforward thought process.

The HWBI framework illustrates the relationship between service flows provided through social, economic and environmental sectors and the domains of HWBI (**Figure 1**). Collectively, the components of HWBI are similar to Maslow's pyramid of self-actualization [54] where basic human needs represent physiological and safety needs; economic needs represent employment, education, wealth, infrastructure, growth and trade; environmental needs represent clean air and water, and low risks of contamination; and, subjective happiness needs represent life satisfaction, freedom, solastalgia [55], topophilia [56], and biophilia [57]. The Human Well-being Index (HWBI) is intended to be used as an endpoint measure responsive

HWBI was developed as a composite measure based on eight dimensions of well-being (domains) characterized by 20 multi-metric indicators reflecting both objective and subjective measures [18, 58]. The HWBI domains are sub-indices that serve as proxy measures representing various aspects of human well-being (**Table 1**) which are aggregated into the composite index. In a nutshell, The HWBI calculation follows these four steps as summarized by Harwell et al. [59]:

• Indicator scores are calculated as population weighted averages of related standardized

• Relative importance values (RIVs) are optional factors that may be included in HWBI calcu-

• The HWBI is calculated as the geometric mean of equally or unequally weighted domain

Substitutions at the metric level in the HWBI allow for the index to be adapted to include data that more closely reflect characteristics in specific use case applications (e.g., geographical locations or population groups) while maintaining the integrity of the index at the indicator

The HWBI framework is designed to reflect stakeholder viewpoints regarding the relative importance of each of the eight domains. Since the domains are relevant to characterizing

• Domain scores are obtained by averaging indicator scores related to a specific domain.

lations to represent stakeholder priorities associated with well-being domains.

to changes in service flows from natural, human and built capital [18].

services) in the establishment of well-being.

148 Ecosystem Services and Global Ecology

metric values.

scores.

level [59–61].

**Figure 1.** Conceptual model of the human well-being index (from [19, 20]). Model links goods and services (ecosystems, social, and economic) with the eight domains of well-being through relationship functions.

human well-being, regardless of time, space and culture [18], communities can easily "relate" to these well-being dimensions, making prioritization a fairly straight-forward exercise in developing relative importance values (RIVs) as weighting factors to customize HWBI. Applications of stakeholder RIVs utilized in a real community case studies are presented in Fulford et al. [62]. The foundational research in the development of HWBI [11, 25, 63, 64] has also been used to inform community-based landscape planning via the valuation ecosystem services [64].


**Table 1.** Description of domains used in the HWBI.

Additionally, ecosystem services have been linked to community well-being priorities based on HWBI domains for the purpose of setting conservation targets for coastal ecosystems to deliver ecosystem and human benefits [65].
