Happy Planet Index

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Happy Planet Index ( HPI ; German  Index of the Happy Planet ) is an indicator of the ecological efficiency with which a nation generates its well-being. The starting point is the thought that wealth is not the primary goal for a large number of people, but that a happy and healthy life is their primary goal. At the same time, it is important to take into account the "environmental costs" of achieving this goal. As a further development of established economic indices such as the gross domestic product , the HPI includes the criterion of sustainability.

The human development index , which also extends the classic GDP measurement to include additional criteria, also includes the criterion of life expectancy . However, the HPI distinguishes itself from this by including ecological criteria.

By comparing the subjective well-being and the average life expectancy with the ecological footprint , the HPI investigates the question of which country maximizes the well-being of the current generation and at the same time minimizes the resulting environmental pollution in order to enable future generations to generate well-being.

background

"The gross domestic product measures everything, except what makes life worth living." ( Robert Kennedy )

The HPI was developed in July 2006 as an alternative progress indicator for GDP by the New Economics Foundation , a British think tank, in collaboration with Friends of the Earth in Great Britain.

The intention of the HPI is to give society on a global level an alternative orientation in a time of uncertainty. “The HPI provides a compass by measuring what is really important,” for us, but above all for the planet we live on. The HPI is intended to encourage people to deal with both sustainability and life satisfaction, in order to ultimately strengthen environmental awareness.

Data collection and calculation

The HPI is calculated using the following formula:

Here mean:

  • : Life satisfaction (subjective well-being)
  • : Inequality factor (inequality of results)

The data for the HPI report on life expectancy is based on the data collected by the United Nations (Human Development Report). The information on subjective well-being comes from the database of the Gallup World Poll and the ecological footprint per person is a measure of the hypothetical area that is necessary to guarantee a person's standard of living in the long term and was taken from the data of the Global Footprint Network. The inequality of results is expressed as a percentage.

Components of the formula

Source:

Life expectancy ( Life Expectancy )
The average expected time between birth and death, in years, provided that the prevailing pattern of age-related death rates does not change from birth to death.
Life satisfaction ( Experienced Wellbeing )
the average of all reactions from the population to questions about satisfaction in various areas of life and an overall assessment of life satisfaction. The respondents have to classify this on a scale from 0 to 10. The higher the number, the greater the life satisfaction.
Inequality of results ( Inequality of Outcomes )
Measure of how unequal the distribution of life expectancy and subjectively experienced life satisfaction are within a certain country. (Percentage)
Footprint ( Ecological footprint )
This is understood to be the area on earth that is necessary to permanently enable the lifestyle and standard of living of a person (under today's production conditions). This includes areas that are required for the production of clothing and food or for the provision of energy, but e.g. B. also for the disposal of garbage or to bind the carbon dioxide released by human activities. It is crucial that the ecological footprint is a measure of consumption, not of production. This means that, for example, the CO 2 that is produced from the production of a cell phone that was made in China but was bought by someone who lives in Chile is part of Chile's Ecological Footprint, not China's.

The ecological footprint is expressed using a standardized unit: global hectares (gha). The global hectare is the average value of the worldwide biological productivity per hectare in one year.

Global comparison of the HPI

The results of the HPI show that nowadays no country can record success with all three factors (high life expectancy, high level of well-being while at the same time adhering to ecological limits).

In general, it can be stated that countries with a high average income, such as the European states or the USA , achieve a lower ranking, because at the same time their ecological footprint is too high. In 2016, Switzerland was ranked 24th, the United Kingdom ranked 34th, Germany ranked 49th, Austria ranked 43rd and the USA only ranked 108th out of a total of 140 countries. The top positions of the HPI are occupied by countries in the Caribbean and countries near the equator, although they have a comparably low GDP . Places one to three go to Costa Rica , Mexico and Colombia .

Distinctive data:

Happy Planet Index:

Life satisfaction:

Life expectancy :

Inequality of results :

Ecological Footprint:

Countries according to Happy Planet Index 2016
rank Country Happy Planet Index Life satisfaction
(0 ... 10)
Life expectancy (
years)
Inequality
of results
Ecological
Footprint
(global hectares (gha))
1 CostaRica
Flag of Costa Rica.svg Costa Rica
44.7 7.3 79.1 15% 2.8
2 Mexico
Flag of Mexico.svg Mexico
40.7 7.3 76.4 19% 2.9
3 Colombia
Flag of Colombia.svg Colombia
40.7 6.4 73.7 24% 1.9
4th Vanuatu
Flag of Vanuatu.svg Vanuatu
40.6 6.5 71.3 22% 1.9
5 Vietnam
Flag of Vietnam.svg Vietnam
40.3 5.5 75.5 19% 1.7
6th Panama
Flag of Panama.svg Panama
39.5 6.9 77.2 19% 2.8
7th Nicaragua
Flag of Nicaragua.svg Nicaragua
38.7 5.4 74.3 25% 1.4
8th Bangladesh
Flag of Bangladesh.svg Bangladesh
38.4 4.7 70.8 27% 0.7
9 Thailand
Flag of Thailand.svg Thailand
37.3 6.3 74.1 15% 2.7
10 Ecuador
Flag of Ecuador.svg Ecuador
37.0 6.0 75.4 22% 2.2
11 Jamaica
Flag of Jamaica.svg Jamaica
36.9 5.6 75.3 21% 1.9
12 Norway
Flag of Norway.svg Norway
36.8 7.7 81.3 7% 5.0
13 Albania
Flag of Albania.svg Albania
36.8 5.5 77.3 17% 2.2
14th Uruguay
Flag of Uruguay.svg Uruguay
36.1 6.4 76.9 18% 2.9
15th Spain
Flag of Spain.svg Spain
36.0 6.3 82.2 10% 3.7
16 Indonesia
Flag of Indonesia.svg Indonesia
35.7 5.4 68.5 21% 1.6
17th ElSalvador
Flag of El Salvador.svg El Salvador
35.6 5.9 72.5 22% 2.1
18th Netherlands
Flag of the Netherlands.svg Netherlands
35.3 7.5 81.2 4% 5.3
19th Argentina
Flag of Argentina.svg Argentina
35.2 6.5 75.9 16% 3.1
20th Philippines
Flag of the Philippines.svg Philippines
35.0 5.0 67.9 26% 1.1
21st Peru
Flag of Peru.svg Peru
34.6 5.8 74.1 21% 2.3
22nd Palestine
Flag of Palestine.svg Palestine
34.5 4.6 72.6 24% 1.2
23 Brazil
Flag of Brazil.svg Brazil
34.3 6.9 73.9 22% 3.1
24 Switzerland
Flag of Switzerland.svg Switzerland
34.3 7.8 82.6 6% 5.8
25th Tajikistan
Flag of Tajikistan.svg Tajikistan
34.2 4.5 69.0 26% 0.9
26th Guatemala
Flag of Guatemala.svg Guatemala
34.2 5.9 71.4 27% 1.9
27 Belize
Flag of Belize.svg Belize
33.8 6.1 69.8 18% 2.5
28 Sri Lanka
Flag of Sri Lanka.svg Sri Lanka
33.8 4.2 74.6 17% 1.3
29 Venezuela
Flag of Venezuela.svg Venezuela
33.6 7.1 73.9 19% 3.6
30th Algeria
Flag of Algeria.svg Algeria
33.3 5.6 74.3 24% 2.1
31 Kyrgyzstan
Flag of Kyrgyzstan.svg Kyrgyzstan
33.1 5.2 69.7 18% 1.9
32 Denmark
Flag of Denmark.svg Denmark
32.7 7.5 79.8 7% 5.5
33 Morocco
Flag of Morocco.svg Morocco
32.7 5.0 73.4 25% 1.7
34 United Kingdom
Flag of the United Kingdom.svg United Kingdom
31.9 6.9 80.4 9% 4.9
35 Chile
Flag of Chile.svg Chile
31.7 6.6 81.1 14% 4.4
36 Pakistan
Flag of Pakistan.svg Pakistan
31.5 5.1 65.7 40% 0.8
37 Finland
Flag of Finland.svg Finland
31.3 7.4 80.4 6% 5.9
38 New Zealand
Flag of New Zealand.svg New Zealand
31.3 7.2 81.4 8th % 5.6
39 Iceland
Flag of Iceland.svg Iceland
31.1 7.6 82.2 5% 6.4
40 Georgia
Flag of Georgia.svg Georgia
31.1 4.3 74.6 20% 1.6
41 Cyprus rep
Flag of Cyprus.svg Republic of Cyprus
30.7 6.2 79.8 12% 4.2
42 Nepal
Flag of Nepal.svg Nepal
30.5 4.2 68.8 27% 1.0
43 oesterre
Flag of Austria.svg Austria
30.5 7.4 81.0 7% 6.1
44 France
Flag of France.svg France
30.4 6.6 81.8 9% 5.1
45 Dominican Republic
Flag of the Dominican Republic.svg Dominican Republic
30.3 4.8 73.1 30% 1.5
46 Malaysia
Flag of Malaysia.svg Malaysia
30.3 5.9 74.4 10% 3.7
47 Croatia
Flag of Croatia.svg Croatia
30.2 6.0 77.0 12% 3.9
48 Ireland
Flag of Ireland.svg Ireland
30.0 7.0 80.5 8th % 5.6
49 Germany
Flag of Germany.svg Germany
29.8 6.7 80.6 8th % 5.3
50 India
Flag of India.svg India
29.2 4.6 67.3 31% 1.2
51 Uzbekistan
Flag of Uzbekistan.svg Uzbekistan
29.1 6.0 68.2 30% 2.3
52 Serbia
Flag of Serbia.svg Serbia
29.0 5.2 74.5 19% 2.7
53 Malta
Flag of Malta.svg Malta
29.0 6.0 80.2 13% 4.4
54 Israel
Flag of Israel.svg Israel
28.8 7.1 81.9 8th % 6.2
55 Romania
Flag of Romania.svg Romania
28.8 5.2 74.3 19% 2.7
56 Bhutan
Flag of Bhutan.svg Bhutan
28.6 5.6 68.7 27% 2.3
57 Haiti
Flag of Haiti.svg Haiti
28.6 4.4 62.1 37% 0.6
58 Japan
Flag of Japan.svg Japan
28.3 6.0 83.2 9% 5.0
59 Slovakia
Flag of Slovakia.svg Slovakia
28.2 5.9 75.9 13% 4.1
60 Italy
Flag of Italy.svg Italy
28.1 5.8 82.7 12% 4.6
61 Sweden
Flag of Sweden.svg Sweden
28.0 7.6 81.8 6% 7.3
62 Poland
Flag of Poland.svg Poland
27.5 5.9 76.9 11% 4.4
63 Mauritius
Flag of Mauritius.svg Mauritius
27.4 5.5 74.0 17% 3.5
64 Czech Republic
Flag of the Czech Republic.svg Czech Republic
27.3 6.3 78.2 9% 5.2
65 Honduras
Flag of Honduras (2008 Olympics) .svg Honduras
27.2 4.6 72.8 31% 1.7
66 Ethiopia
Flag of Ethiopia.svg Ethiopia
26.7 4.6 62.8 36% 1.0
67 Iraq
Flag of Iraq.svg Iraq
26.5 4.7 69.0 27% 1.9
68 Turkey
Flag of Turkey.svg Turkey
26.4 5.3 74.7 19% 3.3
69 Hungary
Flag of Hungary.svg Hungary
26.4 4.7 74.9 15% 2.9
70 Ukraine
Flag of Ukraine.svg Ukraine
26.4 5.0 70.3 17% 2.8
71 Tunisia
Flag of Tunisia.svg Tunisia
26.2 4.5 74.6 22% 2.3
72 Chinese people
Flag of the People's Republic of China.svg People's Republic of China
25.7 5.1 75.4 17% 3.4
73 Armenia
Flag of Armenia.svg Armenia
25.7 4.3 74.4 22% 2.2
74 Cambodia
Flag of Cambodia.svg Cambodia
25.6 3.9 67.5 28% 1.2
75 Suriname
Flag of Suriname.svg Suriname
25.4 6.3 70.8 19% 4.3
76 Bosnia and Herzegovina
Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina.svg Bosnia and Herzegovina
25.3 4.8 76.2 19% 3.1
77 Zambia
Flag of Zambia.svg Zambia
25.2 5.0 58.4 41% 1.0
78 Montenegro
Flag of Montenegro.svg Montenegro
25.1 5.2 75.8 16% 3.8
79 Portugal
Flag of Portugal.svg Portugal
24.9 5.0 80.3 16% 3.9
80 South Korea
Flag of South Korea.svg South Korea
24.8 6.0 81.3 11% 5.7
81 Myanmar
Flag of Myanmar.svg Myanmar
24.7 4.4 65.5 32% 1.4
82 Slovenia
Flag of Slovenia.svg Slovenia
24.6 6.1 80.0 10% 5.8
83 Kenya
Flag of Kenya.svg Kenya
24.2 4.5 60.3 38% 1.0
84 Iran
Flag of Iran.svg Iran
24.0 4.6 74.8 23% 2.8
85 Canada
Flag of Canada.svg Canada
24.0 7.4 81.7 9% 8.2
86 Egypt
Flag of Egypt.svg Egypt
23.8 4.2 70.0 23% 2.2
87 Belgium
Flag of Belgium.svg Belgium
23.7 6.9 80.4 9% 7.4
88 Mozambique
Flag of Mozambique.svg Mozambique
23.7 5.0 54.3 43% 0.9
89 Greece
Flag of Greece.svg Greece
23.6 5.1 80.5 16% 4.4
90 North Macedonia
Flag of North Macedonia.svg North Macedonia
23.4 4.6 75.1 18% 3.3
91 Paraguay
Flag of Paraguay.svg Paraguay
23.3 5.8 72.6 22% 4.2
92 Bolivia
Flag of Bolivia.svg Bolivia
23.3 6.0 67.5 35% 3.0
93 Comoros
Flag of the Comoros.svg Comoros
23.1 4.0 62.6 36% 1.0
94 Yemen
Flag of Yemen.svg Yemen
22.8 4.1 63.3 39% 1.0
95 Nigeria
Flag of Nigeria.svg Nigeria
22.2 5.5 52.1 44% 1.2
96 Liberia
Flag of Liberia.svg Liberia
22.2 4.4 60.2 38% 1.2
97 Tanzania
Flag of Tanzania.svg Tanzania
22.1 4.0 63.5 33% 1.3
98 Malawi
Flag of Malawi.svg Malawi
22.1 4.3 60.1 45% 0.8
99 Zimbabwe
Flag of Zimbabwe.svg Zimbabwe
22.1 5.0 53.7 37% 1.4
100 Lebanon
Flag of Lebanon.svg Lebanon
21.9 4.6 78.8 19% 3.8
101 Senegal
Flag of Senegal.svg Senegal
21.9 3.7 65.4 33% 1.2
102 Belarus
Flag of Belarus.svg Belarus
21.7 5.7 70.9 13% 5.1
103 Namibia
Flag of Namibia.svg Namibia
21.6 4.7 64.0 26% 2.5
104 Ghana
Flag of Ghana.svg Ghana
21.4 5.1 61.0 38% 2.0
105 Australia
Flag of Australia.svg Australia
21.2 7.2 82.1 8th % 9.3
106 Oman
Flag of Oman.svg Oman
21.1 6.9 76.3 13% 7.5
107 Lithuania
Flag of Lithuania.svg Lithuania
21.0 5.8 72.8 11% 5.8
108 United States
Flag of the United States.svg United States
20.7 7.0 78.8 13% 8.2
109 Bulgaria
Flag of Bulgaria.svg Bulgaria
20.4 4.2 73.9 19% 3.3
110 Afghanistan
Flag of Afghanistan.svg Afghanistan
20.2 3.8 59.7 43% 0.8
111 Rwanda
Flag of Rwanda.svg Rwanda
19.6 3.3 63.1 37% 0.9
112 Uganda
Flag of Uganda.svg Uganda
19.4 4.3 57.1 41% 1.2
113 Syria
Flag of Syria.svg Syria
19.1 3.2 70.4 30% 1.5
114 Kazakhstan
Flag of Kazakhstan.svg Kazakhstan
19.1 5.8 68.6 18% 5.6
115 Congorep
Flag of the Republic of the Congo.svg Republic of the Congo
18.8 3.9 61.0 40% 1.3
116 Russia
Flag of Russia.svg Russia
18.7 5.6 69.5 16% 5.7
117 Mauritania
Flag of Mauritania.svg Mauritania
18.0 4.7 62.6 37% 2.5
118 Estonia
Flag of Estonia.svg Estonia
17.9 5.4 76.2 12% 6.9
119 BurkinaFaso
Flag of Burkina Faso.svg Burkina Faso
17.9 4.0 58.0 43% 1.2
120 Gabon
Flag of Gabon.svg Gabon
17.5 4.0 63.3 36% 2.0
121 Latvia
Flag of Latvia.svg Latvia
17.1 5.1 73.6 14% 6.3
122 Niger
Flag of Niger.svg Niger
16.8 3.8 60.0 40% 1.6
123 Hong Kong
Flag of Hong Kong.svg Hong Kong
16.8 5.5 83.6 10% 8.8
124 Cameroon
Flag of Cameroon.svg Cameroon
16.7 4.2 54.6 47% 1.2
125 Lesotho
Flag of Lesotho.svg Lesotho
16.7 4.9 48.9 42% 1.7
126 Botswana
Flag of Botswana.svg Botswana
16.6 4.8 64.2 28% 3.8
127 Djibouti
Flag of Djibouti.svg Djibouti
16.4 4.4 61.3 42% 2.2
128 South Africa
Flag of South Africa.svg South Africa
15.9 5.1 56.3 33% 3.3
129 Guinea
Flag of Guinea.svg Guinea
15.9 3.7 57.7 42% 1.4
130 Trinidad and Tobago
Flag of Trinidad and Tobago.svg Trinidad and Tobago
15.7 6.4 70.1 21% 7.9
131 Burundi
Flag of Burundi.svg Burundi
15.6 3.4 55.8 48% 0.8
132 Swaziland
Flag of Eswatini.svg Swaziland
15.5 4.9 48.9 41% 2.0
133 SierraLeone
Flag of Sierra Leone.svg Sierra Leone
15.3 4.5 49.8 50% 1.2
134 Turkmenistan
Flag of Turkmenistan.svg Turkmenistan
14.6 5.5 65.3 31% 5.5
135 Ivory Coast
Flag of Côte d'Ivoire.svg Ivory Coast
14.4 3.8 50.8 45% 1.3
136 Mongolia
Flag of Mongolia.svg Mongolia
14.3 4.9 68.6 22% 6.1
137 Benin
Flag of Benin.svg Benin
13.4 3.2 59.2 44% 1.4
138 Togo
Flag of Togo.svg Togo
13.2 2.9 58.6 43% 1.1
139 Luxembourg
Flag of Luxembourg.svg Luxembourg
13.2 7.0 81.1 7% 15.8
140 Chad
Flag of Chad.svg Chad
12.8 4.0 50.8 51% 1.5
Happy Planet Index 2007, highest value to lowest value

Relationship to prosperity and quality of life

Since life satisfaction is divided by the ecological footprint, both components are weighted equally. The ranking of the countries according to the HPI is therefore neither ordered according to life satisfaction nor according to their ecological footprint. The HPI is therefore not a direct indicator for life satisfaction or the ecological footprint, but for the ecological efficiency of generating satisfaction. It receives maximum values ​​when life satisfaction is as high as possible and the ecological footprint is as small as possible. However, this combination is seldom found in the real world, since high satisfaction usually goes hand in hand with a high ecological footprint. Conversely, a low ecological footprint is usually due to the country's low level of prosperity. With an increase in prosperity, an increase in the ecological footprint can be expected. Very poor countries tend to be found in the lower half of the global rankings due to their low life expectancy and satisfaction. These are mainly the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. European countries are predominantly represented in the upper half, as they have a very high level of life satisfaction and life expectancy. Nevertheless, due to their high ecological footprints, a fifth of European countries are represented in the lower half. Accordingly, Luxembourg, with the highest ecological footprint in the world, ranks next to last. In a continental comparison, the countries of South America have the best HPI values, by dividing the values ​​of medium to high life satisfaction and life expectancy by medium ecological footprints. A desirable goal is to increase the global mean of the HPI and to keep the variance of the countries low. In concrete terms, this means that western countries, as well as some of the transition countries and Southeast Asia, have to reduce their ecological footprint. African and South Asian countries, the Middle East, as well as some of the transition countries and Southeast Asia, on the other hand, must be given a higher quality of life without increasing the ecological footprint.

Both objectives strive for a ratio of high life satisfaction and a low ecological footprint.

Personal contribution to life satisfaction

Although a large number of factors determine individual life satisfaction, one's own thoughts and actions can have the greatest influence. The NEF presented in this context on a concept for the life satisfaction depends on the one hand from the experience, to feel good. These positive experiences are generated through feelings such as happiness, contentment and pleasure, as well as curiosity and activity. On the other hand, your own functionality is decisive for your well-being. These include functioning interpersonal relationships, being in control of your own life and seeing meaning in life.

The NEF identified five essential factors that are easy for people to implement and help to achieve greater life satisfaction.

  • Connect - Social relationships are critical to individual wellbeing and reduce the risk of mental illness.
  • Be Active - Physical activity increases feelings of happiness and reduces the risk of depression and anxiety.
  • Take Notice - Mindfulness towards the environment and one's own feelings leads to greater inner satisfaction. Experiences reflected through attention can reveal what is a priority in life.
  • Keep Learning - Constant learning improves self-esteem and brings a social and active life with it.
  • Give - giving builds a positive connection to other people, which is an added value for your own satisfaction.

Using these five factors, life satisfaction can be increased with simple means, without having to harm nature.

Meaningfulness of the HPI and criticism

The HPI combines objective and subjective measured values ​​in economic, social and ecological areas. The focus is clearly on individual wellbeing and ecological sustainability. At this point, the HPI summarizes the existing indices, HLY (Happy Life Years) and EFP (Ecological Footprint). Nevertheless, the HPI contains comparatively few measured variables. The attempt to limit oneself to essential aspects has the consequence that further important factors, for example in the areas of politics, social affairs and culture, are missing. This leads to questionable results in which z. B. Albania (13th place) and Bangladesh (8th place) score well in the HPI ranking despite critical circumstances.

A general problem of empirical science must also be viewed critically: Findings based on measurements go hand in hand with the fact that their operationalization is always associated with a radical reduction in the complexity of the observed phenomenon. This problem becomes apparent with the HPI in that the selection of the criteria themselves and their relevance are assessed by the NEF. In addition, according to the critical self-image of science, findings are not considered absolute. In particular, life satisfaction as a subjective and personal measured value can be culturally and situationally conditioned, as well as the problem of social desirability. From a cultural point of view, it can be assumed that collectivist cultures tend to rate their satisfaction with life more positively than individualistic ones. The assessment varies depending on the situation, for example through surveys in the rainy season, in summer or winter. External influences have great effects on the current state of mind of the individual.

Due to the linking of reliable databases, originating from the Gallup World Poll (measurements of subjective well-being), the WWF (measurement of the ecological footprint) and the Human Development Report (data on life expectancy), a high level of validity and the possibility of presentation as quotient or graphic plot, the HPI shows a favorable ratio between low complexity and high informative value compared to other indices. Clear statements can be made about the relationship between life expectancy, well-being and ecological sustainability and GDP. There is a causal relationship between increasing life expectancy and increasing GDP . In contrast, from a certain economic development onwards, life satisfaction is independent of economic growth. The ecological sustainability is clearly negatively influenced by an increasing GDP. This shows that life satisfaction and ecological sustainability cannot be achieved by increasing GDP.

Due to the general index problem, the HPI, as one of many alternatives to GDP, is not an absolutely all-encompassing solution. It makes strategic sense to consider many alternatives in order to obtain a comprehensive picture of selected countries and to be able to compare them with one another. The HPI can function as a useful supplement, but cannot replace the GDP for reasons of acceptance, as the GDP is strongly anchored politically and socially.

outlook

According to the New Economics Foundation (NEF), with the current global economic framework, designed for economic growth, it is not possible to combine high life satisfaction and life expectancy with so-called "one-planet-living". Prosperity must be reduced to a medium level, since middle-income countries, such as Latin America or Southeast Asia , have the highest HPI values. In order to achieve this goal, possibilities would have to be shown which the countries favor of themselves and which do not perceive as a burden based on laws. This requires a new form of communication that conveys that a good life in harmony with nature is possible. The overconsumption of rich countries represents a barrier to sustainable wellbeing. Avoiding overconsumption not only has a positive effect on the same country, but also has global effects. This is due to the link between the overconsumption of many rich countries and the exploitation of poor countries.

The aim is to focus on economic models that do not aim at permanent growth, but aim at stable prosperity. For this purpose, regular measurements of satisfaction and the state of the environment should take place in order to perceive their relationship to one another as a guideline for the future.

The aim of the NEF by 2050 is to achieve an HPI of 89 worldwide. Concrete demands for well-developed countries are the reduction of the ecological footprint by 1 / gha. At the same time, life satisfaction should be increased to a value of eight and a life expectancy of 87 years should be achieved. In order for developing countries to achieve a score of 89, help from the international community and richer countries is expected.

In general, two approaches towards a higher HPI can be distinguished. One strategy is based on the principle of “Living better, using less”. The strategy focuses on the three components: health, positive life experiences and ecological footprint and requires approaches in economics, community and changing lifestyles. It is similar to the economic model of postal growth according to Paech , which aims at a socially stable and globally fair supply structure within the ecological load limits. The second approach is based on the principle of green growth, which the OECD represents. The focus here is on using and developing more efficient, so-called green technologies and methods, for example in the field of energy generation through solar systems or wind turbines. Thus the ecological footprint can be reduced and at the same time the quality of life can be maintained or even increased.

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. Meinert, S. / Stollt, M .: Gross Domestic Happiness : In Search of Qualitative Development . S. 1 .
  2. Happy Planet Index. In: Lexicon of Sustainability. Retrieved September 26, 2017 .
  3. Meinert, S. / Stollt, M .: Gross Domestic Happiness : In Search of Qualitative Development . S. 1 .
  4. Meinert, S. / Stollt, M .: Gross Domestic Happiness : In Search of Qualitative Development . S. 7 .
  5. Meinert, S. / Stollt, M .: Gross Domestic Happiness : In Search of Qualitative Development . S. 7 .
  6. Happy Planet Index. In: Lexicon of Sustainability. Retrieved September 26, 2017 .
  7. Abdallah, Saamah et al .: The Happy Planet Index. 2016, accessed September 26, 2017 .
  8. ^ NEF: Happy Planet Index: Methods Paper . 2016, p. 2 .
  9. Happy Planet Index. In: Lexicon of Sustainability. Retrieved September 26, 2017 .
  10. Abdallah, Saamah et al .: The Happy Planet Index. 2016, accessed September 26, 2017 .
  11. Aked, Jody et al .: Five ways to wellbeing. NEF, 2008, accessed September 26, 2017 .
  12. ^ IZW: HPI Happy Planet Index. Retrieved September 26, 2017 .
  13. ^ Raith, D .: Measurement is power .
  14. Spörrle, M. et al .: Network research in a cultural context . 2009.
  15. Cahen, a .: The importance of culture for social information processing . 2002.
  16. ^ IZW: HPI Happy Planet Index. Retrieved September 26, 2017 .
  17. Abdallah, Saamah et al .: The Happy Planet Index 2.0. 2016, accessed September 26, 2017 .
  18. ^ Peach, N .: Liberation from Abundance . 2012.
  19. OECD Publishing (Ed.): Towards Green Growth . 2011, doi : 10.1787 / 9789264111318-en .