Fair and inclusive environmental/social transition alternatives 2016-2017

Bell, Karen (2019). Fair and inclusive environmental/social transition alternatives 2016-2017. [Data Collection]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Service. 10.5255/UKDA-SN-853786

This project addresses the urgent question of how to carry out an equitable, just and effective transition to a sustainable society. It provides evidence and analysis which can inform current social science debates regarding the relative usefulness and role of markets/governments, economic growth/de-growth, structures/agents and technology/politics to achieve balanced social, economic and environmental goals. In order to examine these overarching questions, two newly emerging environmental/social paradigms, the market-based 'Green Economy' and the redistributive 'Living Well' approaches are investigated and contrasted. They are examined in terms of their relative merits for enabling sustainable development and environmental justice goals to be met, according to the new, post-2015, United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN, 2014) and Environmental Justice Indicator (EJI) criteria (Bell, 2014). The project assesses the efficacy, efficiency, equitability, political acceptability, administrative viability and transferability of the two contrasting environmental/social transition pathways/paradigms through (1) secondary analysis of relevant international, longitudinal (2000-2016), country-level quantitative datasets; and (2) primary collection and analysis of relevant qualitative data in South Korea (a recognised international leader of the Green Economy approach) and Bolivia (at the forefront of developing the Living Well approach).
This involves identifying the essential components and contexts of the Green Economy and Living Well paradigms; mapping their associated policies, programmes and processes; establishing commonalities and divergences, in theory and in practice; assessing their relative ability to achieve selected SDGs and EJI criteria; distinguishing the most and least beneficial aspects of the paradigms and their related policies; ascertaining the opportunities and risks that each creates; and pinpointing the barriers to related policy implementation.
Data is derived from SDG and EJI relevant longitudinal statistical data from a range of sources; repeated interviews with 50 stakeholders (i.e. policy-beneficiaries, policy-makers, policy-implementers); and participatory observations in four communities (one rural, one urban in each country).
This work is original in that, though there have been some separate descriptive studies and new initiatives on these overarching policy paradigms (see, for example UNEP, 2013a; 2013b; 2013c; 2013d; 2014), there has been no published academic work which systematically examines their potential, actual and relative impact on delivering the SDGs and meeting EJI criteria. Through the evidence and analysis produced, the project will inform the creation of more effective, integrated and coherent environmental/social transition policies and practices by facilitating policy makers and policy implementers to make better decisions regarding the steps to a sustainable society. In addition, policy informers and activists can use the information to better substantiate their demands and decide upon strategy. Furthermore, the study will provoke and deepen debate among academics engaged in research on political ecology, development, political science, environmental studies and other related areas. This expanded knowledge base and debate will contribute to the improvement of local, national and global environments, leading to greater security, health and wellbeing for all of us.

Data description (abstract)

The FIESTA project addressed the question of how to carry out an equitable, just and effective transition to a sustainable society. The environmental/social paradigms, 'Green Economy' and 'Living Well' approaches were investigated and contrasted. They were examined in terms of their relative merits for enabling sustainable development goals to be met, according to the new, post-2015, United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN, 2014), and also considering environmental justice (Bell, 2014).
This data contains most of the transcripts of the 84 interviews carried out for the project.

Data creators:

Creator Name	Affiliation	ORCID (as URL)
Bell Karen	University of West of England	https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7585-3540

Sponsors:

Economic and Social Research Council

Grant reference:

ES/N00079X/1

Topic classification:

Natural environment
Social welfare policy and systems
Politics
Health
Economics

Keywords:

sustainable development, environment policy

Project title:

Fair and Inclusive Environmental and Social Transition Alternatives: Learning from the 'Living Well' and 'Green Economy' pathways to sustainability

Grant holders:

Karen Bell

Project dates:

From	To
15 February 2016	14 February 2019

Date published:

28 Jun 2019 11:27

Last modified:

28 Jun 2019 11:27

Coverage and Methodology

Collection period:

Date from:	Date to:
1 December 2016	1 September 2017

Country:

Bolivia, South Korea

Data collection method:

The research methodology encompassed both secondary (macro-level) and primary (micro-level) data collation/collection and analysis to enable a robust, contextualised and in-depth understanding of the effectiveness and viability of the Living Well approach. Data was derived from SDG relevant longitudinal statistical data from a range of sources to provide macro context, as well as participatory observations in four communities and interviews with local stakeholders.The secondary aspect used a range of reputable,longitudinal international and comparative surveys as well as national data sets, where available, to investigate specific issues. The factors tracked primarily related to morbidity and mortality, emissions, energy consumption, inequality, poverty, access to environmental resources, green investment, quality of living environment, waste production, labour rights, employment levels, political empowerment, subjective well-being and social protection. The participatory observation component entailed living in the communities of interest and at-tending relevant meetings and events for a three-month period overall. In Bolivia, the four communities were two cities—La Paz and Cochabamba—and two villages—Mecapaca (in the state of La Paz) and Tarata (in the state of Cochabamba). In South Korea, the four communities were Seoul and Busan, as well as two villages in the North and South of the country. These communities were selected because they represented a range of sizes, political contexts (e.g. Cochabamba had an opposition led local government), dominant ethnic groups (Aymara in La Paz and Quechua in Cochabamba) and environmental and social issues. The interview component included 84 participants, made up of a range of experts, government officials, NGO representatives, trades union organisers, community leaders, programme beneficiaries, and the wider public. The interviews were intended to understand how people conceptualized Vivir Bien/Green Economy, whether and how they were contributing to its implementation and whether and how they considered that the policy was making a difference to their lives or the lives of others. For example, people were asked ‘What does Vivir Bien/Green Economy mean to you?’ or ‘What has changed here as a result of the Vivir Bien/Green Economy policy?’. Interviewees were selected using the following sampling strategies: Purposive sampling, using participants who have particularly relevant knowledge and experience, snowball sampling, using networks to gain access to information-rich participants, opportunistic sampling, making the most of opportunities to meld the sample around the unfolding fieldwork context, and maximum variation sampling, selecting participants who lived and worked in the maximum diversity of environmental and social situations (in order to increase the opportunities to identify the varying factors and influences). The interviews were analysed thematically, using NVivo. These methods aimed to comprehensively capture needs, visions, objectives, processes, impacts, as well as the barriers to implementation and impact of the paradigms.

Observation unit:

Individual

Kind of data:

Text

Type of data:

Qualitative and mixed methods data

Resource language:

English

Access and Administration