**1. Introduction: quality of life in the South**

Quality of life is a relatively new topic in theoretical discussion and the application of public policies in modern societies. As societies progressed in the industrial age, especially in developed countries, particularly in Europe, quality of life began to take on importance in coexistence. Indeed, the crisis of industrialism—supported by the Enlightenment ideology of progress—highlighted the environmental and health problems brought about by this essentially economic growth. Mass production for mass consumption began to be questioned due to its socio-environmental impacts. In this context, which favored the emergence of a new citizen consciousness, the discussion began on the need for a paradigm shift—from a socio-ecopredatory

growth paradigm to sustainable development that includes social, economic, and environmental dimensions, with a sort of utopian balance among these components. Indeed, in the late 1960s, the capitalist system was shaken by the emergence of new citizen movements bearing new subjectivities, principles, and values, which fought for and demanded social, cultural, and political changes, an equation not at all easy to solve. Globalization processes have weakened the role of the nation state and thus have diminished the role of politics in the society. The global economy, businesses, and multinational corporations dominate the stage and aggressively expand their interests with little regard for limits on growth and unsustainable exploitation of natural resources imposed by climate change.

Despite it all, quality of life has advanced as a result of the struggles of workers, professionals, women, young people, boys, girls, and indigenous peoples. Naturally, a fundamental quality of life paradigm would profoundly question the neoliberal development model and policies predominant in many countries and continents. It would also question the environmental policies of the Anthropocene Era that threatens biodiversity and the survival of the planet.

It should be noted that there is no universal definition of quality of life that is valid for everyone. Europe was the continent that advanced fastest in defining it, establishing key concepts, criteria, and indicators that are applicable and thus verifiable. This process began in the early 1970s and deepened and sharpened over the following decades, as established in this chapter. In addition, the advancing development of societies around the world led to the emergence of new areas and dimensions of quality of life, which as a result of the same process became more complex and multifaceted. Of course, there are still millions of people around the world in a daily struggle for survival, who neither know of nor enjoy even a basic quality of life, including adequate, safe, quality food, a roof, decent work, rights, landscape access, and good human coexistence. Inequalities of all types help make poverty and the vulnerable state in which a significant part of the world population survives invisibly. Latin America and the Caribbean, along with a significant part of the population of Africa and Asia and the new poor of developed countries (the so-called "losers" of globalization), suffer daily through this unbearable reality of unfulfilled dreams and desires.

In any case, at this point in the development of the modern society and humanity, the idea of quality of life has taken its place as a development parameter and legitimate aspiration of the people. Advances in science, technology, information, and knowledge, as well as intercommunication on social networks, have contributed to increasing subjective and collective demands for continuous quality of life improvements. A society with greater awareness of its rights constantly aspires to live better.

In the South, there is a multicultural variety of good practices; indigenous communities; rural and Andean communities; cooperative work traditions; cultures that value quality food; biodiversity, and the landscape; and historical legacies and epistemological narratives that serve as the basis for continuing to construct and deepen quality of life.

### **2. Historical context and meaning of quality of life**

Quality of life is a concept that emerged in the 1960s as a critic of the conception of development and well-being as necessary products of economic growth. Such criticism had already been expressed by various authors in the early twentieth century, but it was during the post-World War II era that this perception and the related debate deepened. Later—within the framework of the post-development

**187**

*Quality of Life from the South, Local Knowledge, Socio-Ecological Relationships, and Citizen…*

Industrialization has produced not only consumer goods and progress but also pollution problems, occupational illnesses, the stress of modern life, exploitation of ecosystems, human communication problems, and various forms of repression of freedom in its multiple expressions [1]. Industrialization has tended to standardize lifestyles, hemming in the individual and limiting or impeding personal fulfillment, with long days of alienated work to achieve a livelihood that enables the consumption of perishable and durable goods. The value of the relaxed, happy life does not figure in the culture or the paradigm of economic growth policy or the ideology of

Against this backdrop, heavy, deep criticisms of the development model emerged

Thus, quality of life arose as a reform of advanced industrial society, aiming to improve the living conditions of the general population. It exists within the framework of the establishment of the so-called welfare state that developed in European countries in particular, with lower-quality peripheral expressions in the most industrialized and politically advanced Latin American countries ([1], p. 28). It was introduced as a way of quantitatively measuring development amid the growing complexity of the social structure and measuring the impacts of state intervention

Quality of life aims to be a universal, scientific system of measuring the satisfaction of human needs in developed countries [1]. From the beginning there has been a debate on the quantitative and qualitative parameters of quality of life. This debate has been particularly relevant in the creation of objective and subjective social quality-of-life indicators. The objective indicators would be measurable, while the subjective indicators would be intangible and vary according to individual perception. Over time, subjective human needs have taken on increasing importance.

In 1970 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched a program to create social quality of life indicators in order to measure social well-being, a result of political concern for social matters ([1], p. 28). In 1973 the OECD defined eight areas of concern: (1) health, (2) personal development through the acquisition of knowledge (education), (3) employment and quality of life at work, (4) free time and leisure, (5) available goods and services, (6) physical

that encompassed even the so-called real socialisms, not considered as genuine alternatives for human and social development ([1], p. 27). Malaise took hold in the consciousness of citizens. In 1964 Herbert Marcuse published *One-Dimensional Man* [2]. A representative of critical social theory, in this work, which had a great impact in intellectual and youth circles, the author addressed the totalitarian trends or traits of advanced societies. According to Marcuse, the system would create false needs through mass media, advertising, and the integration of workers into the industrialized consumption society ([1], p. 27). The system would function with a strong dose of individualism. Societies would be controlling, containing social change without opposing it. The industrial society would operate one-dimensionally, without spaces

for exercising criticism, real democracy, and human freedom.

in economic, social, political, and cultural matters.

discussion—the Enlightenment idea of "progress" would even be questioned. Influential modern thinkers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and part of the twentieth century thought and spread the idea that progress—now supported by science and technology—would be an uninterrupted, continuous process, but they were wrong ([1], p. 27). Progress advances and retreats over time in modern societies in accordance with the era, class interests, and social groups and the way in which social, political, and environmental conflicts are resolved. In addition, progress does not benefit all sectors of the society equally. Inequality is an everpresent phenomenon that accompanies the development of capitalist societies [1]. It is an inherent, intrinsic characteristic of the system of domination that varies and

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88953*

transforms as societies advance.

so-called progress ([1], p. 27).

#### *Quality of Life from the South, Local Knowledge, Socio-Ecological Relationships, and Citizen… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88953*

discussion—the Enlightenment idea of "progress" would even be questioned. Influential modern thinkers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and part of the twentieth century thought and spread the idea that progress—now supported by science and technology—would be an uninterrupted, continuous process, but they were wrong ([1], p. 27). Progress advances and retreats over time in modern societies in accordance with the era, class interests, and social groups and the way in which social, political, and environmental conflicts are resolved. In addition, progress does not benefit all sectors of the society equally. Inequality is an everpresent phenomenon that accompanies the development of capitalist societies [1]. It is an inherent, intrinsic characteristic of the system of domination that varies and transforms as societies advance.

Industrialization has produced not only consumer goods and progress but also pollution problems, occupational illnesses, the stress of modern life, exploitation of ecosystems, human communication problems, and various forms of repression of freedom in its multiple expressions [1]. Industrialization has tended to standardize lifestyles, hemming in the individual and limiting or impeding personal fulfillment, with long days of alienated work to achieve a livelihood that enables the consumption of perishable and durable goods. The value of the relaxed, happy life does not figure in the culture or the paradigm of economic growth policy or the ideology of so-called progress ([1], p. 27).

Against this backdrop, heavy, deep criticisms of the development model emerged that encompassed even the so-called real socialisms, not considered as genuine alternatives for human and social development ([1], p. 27). Malaise took hold in the consciousness of citizens. In 1964 Herbert Marcuse published *One-Dimensional Man* [2]. A representative of critical social theory, in this work, which had a great impact in intellectual and youth circles, the author addressed the totalitarian trends or traits of advanced societies. According to Marcuse, the system would create false needs through mass media, advertising, and the integration of workers into the industrialized consumption society ([1], p. 27). The system would function with a strong dose of individualism. Societies would be controlling, containing social change without opposing it. The industrial society would operate one-dimensionally, without spaces for exercising criticism, real democracy, and human freedom.

Thus, quality of life arose as a reform of advanced industrial society, aiming to improve the living conditions of the general population. It exists within the framework of the establishment of the so-called welfare state that developed in European countries in particular, with lower-quality peripheral expressions in the most industrialized and politically advanced Latin American countries ([1], p. 28). It was introduced as a way of quantitatively measuring development amid the growing complexity of the social structure and measuring the impacts of state intervention in economic, social, political, and cultural matters.

Quality of life aims to be a universal, scientific system of measuring the satisfaction of human needs in developed countries [1]. From the beginning there has been a debate on the quantitative and qualitative parameters of quality of life. This debate has been particularly relevant in the creation of objective and subjective social quality-of-life indicators. The objective indicators would be measurable, while the subjective indicators would be intangible and vary according to individual perception. Over time, subjective human needs have taken on increasing importance.

In 1970 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched a program to create social quality of life indicators in order to measure social well-being, a result of political concern for social matters ([1], p. 28). In 1973 the OECD defined eight areas of concern: (1) health, (2) personal development through the acquisition of knowledge (education), (3) employment and quality of life at work, (4) free time and leisure, (5) available goods and services, (6) physical

*Quality of Life - Biopsychosocial Perspectives*

natural resources imposed by climate change.

unfulfilled dreams and desires.

threatens biodiversity and the survival of the planet.

growth paradigm to sustainable development that includes social, economic, and environmental dimensions, with a sort of utopian balance among these components. Indeed, in the late 1960s, the capitalist system was shaken by the emergence of new citizen movements bearing new subjectivities, principles, and values, which fought for and demanded social, cultural, and political changes, an equation not at all easy to solve. Globalization processes have weakened the role of the nation state and thus have diminished the role of politics in the society. The global economy, businesses, and multinational corporations dominate the stage and aggressively expand their interests with little regard for limits on growth and unsustainable exploitation of

Despite it all, quality of life has advanced as a result of the struggles of workers, professionals, women, young people, boys, girls, and indigenous peoples. Naturally, a fundamental quality of life paradigm would profoundly question the neoliberal development model and policies predominant in many countries and continents. It would also question the environmental policies of the Anthropocene Era that

It should be noted that there is no universal definition of quality of life that is valid for everyone. Europe was the continent that advanced fastest in defining it, establishing key concepts, criteria, and indicators that are applicable and thus verifiable. This process began in the early 1970s and deepened and sharpened over the following decades, as established in this chapter. In addition, the advancing development of societies around the world led to the emergence of new areas and dimensions of quality of life, which as a result of the same process became more complex and multifaceted. Of course, there are still millions of people around the world in a daily struggle for survival, who neither know of nor enjoy even a basic quality of life, including adequate, safe, quality food, a roof, decent work, rights, landscape access, and good human coexistence. Inequalities of all types help make poverty and the vulnerable state in which a significant part of the world population survives invisibly. Latin America and the Caribbean, along with a significant part of the population of Africa and Asia and the new poor of developed countries (the so-called "losers" of globalization), suffer daily through this unbearable reality of

In any case, at this point in the development of the modern society and humanity, the idea of quality of life has taken its place as a development parameter and legitimate aspiration of the people. Advances in science, technology, information, and knowledge, as well as intercommunication on social networks, have contributed to increasing subjective and collective demands for continuous quality of life improvements. A society with greater awareness of its rights constantly aspires to

In the South, there is a multicultural variety of good practices; indigenous communities; rural and Andean communities; cooperative work traditions; cultures that value quality food; biodiversity, and the landscape; and historical legacies and epistemological narratives that serve as the basis for continuing to construct and

Quality of life is a concept that emerged in the 1960s as a critic of the conception of development and well-being as necessary products of economic growth. Such criticism had already been expressed by various authors in the early twentieth century, but it was during the post-World War II era that this perception and the related debate deepened. Later—within the framework of the post-development

**2. Historical context and meaning of quality of life**

**186**

live better.

deepen quality of life.

environment, (7) personal safety and the administration of justice, and (8) participation in collective life ([3], p. 74).

Other quality-of-life models have also been developed in Europe. For example, Germany created the "SPES System of Social Indicators," which measures both objective and subjective needs, as well as the evolution of personal well-being ([1], p. 28). Well-being surveys are occasionally conducted, data from which are presented to the public via reports. The Universities of Frankfurt and Mannheim,


**189**

*Quality of Life from the South, Local Knowledge, Socio-Ecological Relationships, and Citizen…*

with financing provided by Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), investigated and created the System of Social Indicators in 1972. They selected 10 areas, subdivided into 196 indicators. The areas are: (1) population, (2) social status and mobility, (3) employment and work conditions, (4) income and income distribution, (5) consumption, (6) transportation, (7) housing, (8) health,

In 1982 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defined a list of social indicators based on 15 social concerns broken down into 33 indicators

These quality-of-life indicators obviously cannot be automatically replicated in Latin America. Nonetheless, in recent decades there have been frequent discussions on quality of life in Latin America between governments and research centers. In this context, Latin American countries can use these indicators as an important reference framework for guiding public policies, as it occurs in Europe and in other developed countries. It is understood that these social indicators are not mere conventional constructs, but rather that they contain exhaustive specifications and forms of measurement and influence the creation and application of public policies

In Latin American countries, these social concerns are of the utmost interest to citizens but are still in the early stages—although with different emphases—in the public sphere as a result of the implementation of neoliberal policies in basic areas of social life such as education, health, and social security ([1], p. 30). In other areas such as work and housing, there is a lack of regulations and public control that would guarantee quality, for instance, work quality. Social housing, meanwhile, does not conform to human interior space requirements or due access to the natural landscape. In addition, free time is practically nonexistent. "Free time," indispensable for the exercise of liberty and personal fulfillment, is consumed by long workdays and endless commutes in megacities thrown into disarray by transport or is spent in various survival occupations. Life expectancy has increased considerably, but its quality has improved little. Likewise, social integration continues to suffer,

In short, quality of life is certainly a fundamental concept but the one that has yet to be delved into and implemented in our societies. There must be advances in public policy and citizen awareness. Civic malaise resulting from abuses in various areas of social life, services, and consumption in general constitutes signs of exhaustion and a crisis of the neoliberal model that fosters great expectations—quality of education, health, social security, salaries, housing, pollution-free environments, etc.—that cannot be met due to the inequitable distribution of assets

Climate change is the most severe, complex environmental problem affecting the planet and facing humanity in the twenty-first century. For thousands of years, the temperature remained at a global average that enabled the existence of humans and diverse species in a state of interdependence with ecosystem biodiversity. Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, there has been increasing temperature alteration as a result of global warming caused by increases in carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil energy mix that has dominated the Anthropocene Era [5] in which we live. Indeed, we went from an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 280 parts per million (ppm) in the pre-industrial age (reference date: 1750) to nearly 400 ppm in

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88953*

(**Table 1**) [4].

(9) education, and (10) participation ([3], p. 91).

in the countries in which they are used ([1], p. 30).

with high levels of socio-territorial segregation and inequality [1].

**3. Environmental problems, climate change, and quality of life**

2015, with an ensuing increase in the Earth's average temperature.

and the lack of citizen participation and social inclusion.

#### *Quality of Life from the South, Local Knowledge, Socio-Ecological Relationships, and Citizen… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88953*

with financing provided by Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), investigated and created the System of Social Indicators in 1972. They selected 10 areas, subdivided into 196 indicators. The areas are: (1) population, (2) social status and mobility, (3) employment and work conditions, (4) income and income distribution, (5) consumption, (6) transportation, (7) housing, (8) health, (9) education, and (10) participation ([3], p. 91).

In 1982 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defined a list of social indicators based on 15 social concerns broken down into 33 indicators (**Table 1**) [4].

These quality-of-life indicators obviously cannot be automatically replicated in Latin America. Nonetheless, in recent decades there have been frequent discussions on quality of life in Latin America between governments and research centers. In this context, Latin American countries can use these indicators as an important reference framework for guiding public policies, as it occurs in Europe and in other developed countries. It is understood that these social indicators are not mere conventional constructs, but rather that they contain exhaustive specifications and forms of measurement and influence the creation and application of public policies in the countries in which they are used ([1], p. 30).

In Latin American countries, these social concerns are of the utmost interest to citizens but are still in the early stages—although with different emphases—in the public sphere as a result of the implementation of neoliberal policies in basic areas of social life such as education, health, and social security ([1], p. 30). In other areas such as work and housing, there is a lack of regulations and public control that would guarantee quality, for instance, work quality. Social housing, meanwhile, does not conform to human interior space requirements or due access to the natural landscape. In addition, free time is practically nonexistent. "Free time," indispensable for the exercise of liberty and personal fulfillment, is consumed by long workdays and endless commutes in megacities thrown into disarray by transport or is spent in various survival occupations. Life expectancy has increased considerably, but its quality has improved little. Likewise, social integration continues to suffer, with high levels of socio-territorial segregation and inequality [1].

In short, quality of life is certainly a fundamental concept but the one that has yet to be delved into and implemented in our societies. There must be advances in public policy and citizen awareness. Civic malaise resulting from abuses in various areas of social life, services, and consumption in general constitutes signs of exhaustion and a crisis of the neoliberal model that fosters great expectations—quality of education, health, social security, salaries, housing, pollution-free environments, etc.—that cannot be met due to the inequitable distribution of assets and the lack of citizen participation and social inclusion.
