Subjective Wellbeing Evaluation — Wellbeing Intelligence Network

The Wellbeing Intelligence Network employs statistical subjective wellbeing to identify the predictors of wellbeing unique to community and sectors collectively and by subgroups, working to continually measure what matters for wellbeing, now and in the future.
‍
The OECD recognises three characterisations of subjective wellbeing. [1]

Evaluative or life satisfaction
Experiential (or Hedonic) relates to someone’s feelings, states and emotions (both positive and negative)
Eudaimonia relates to intrinsic aspirations and whether life has meaning.

Rather than using an index-based approach, which uses assumptions to create artificial metrics for wellbeing, subjective wellbeing evaluation seeks to avoid imposing cultural norms or prescribe notions of what a ‘good life’ should constitute. Instead, statistical analysis of the relationship between wellbeing inputs, and the overall score of subjective wellbeing, reveals the nuances of what matters for people’s wellbeing across different contexts and has the utility of being a comparable metric across different people, places, programs and sectors.

Placing subjective wellbeing as an overarching indicator of human wellbeing enables decision-makers to use statistically verified insights that demonstrate the relationship between subjective wellbeing and particular domains and indicators to determine policy priorities and strategy. Furthermore, while policy decisions are traditionally based on the avoidance of negative social outcomes, such as poverty, understanding the drivers of wellbeing as provided by the lived experience of people in Australia may reveal a need to focus on positive wellbeing outcomes (as the result of particular strengths-based policy interventions, for example) which might not otherwise be obvious. [2]

Although subjective wellbeing measures how an individual is experiencing their life, its use as a common yardstick to measure overall wellbeing does not intend to prioritise the individual over the community. Instead, this recognises that the best measure we have of collective wellbeing are data and insights that illustrate the collective of individual subjective wellbeing. This is particularly important to acknowledge in recognition of cultures that value community wellbeing over the individual. Indeed, for people whose personal wellbeing is inseparable to community and kin wellbeing, it is expected that the value of this will be evident in subjective wellbeing evaluation. If community wellbeing is suffering, so too will individual wellbeing.

Notably, subjective wellbeing acts as a measure of human wellbeing and incorporates environmental wellbeing through the lens of how it affects people. This recognises the need to consider both human and non-human wellbeing and does not see planetary wellbeing as important only to the extent that it contributes to human wellbeing. This view is aligned with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspective of wellbeing that acknowledge and value the needs of both human and nonhuman wellbeing (and the inherent interconnectedness between the two) for their own sake for intergenerational sustainability. Whilst subjective wellbeing can be used as an overall lighthouse measure of progress, both subjective and objective measures can be incorporated into a wellbeing framework. As in medical assessments, we require subjective data to understand the ‘symptoms’ and objective data to observe the ‘signs’; the two work together to diagnose the issue and identify treatment.

For further information on Subjective Wellbeing Evaluation, refer to the resources at the bottom of the page.

How the Wellbeing Intelligence Network employs Subjective Wellbeing Evaluation

‍The following section outlines how the WIN employs subjective wellbeing evaluation to identify what matters for people's wellbeing across different contexts and evaluate how effectively programs are working.

Following adequate engagement to determine the holistic scope of wellbeing factors to be measured, a baseline is measured with a focus on ensuring the composition and size of the measurement sample adequately reflects the target population.

Subjective wellbeing evaluation may is then employed to identify predictors of wellbeing that are

consistent to the community, sector or group
unique for specified sub-groups, providing the target outcomes for decision makers, helping to inform investment, policy and service design.

Where a factor is identified as a predictor of wellbeing, and is also scoring low, this helps to inform a priority need.

The use of statistical subjective wellbeing evaluation to identify predictors of wellbeing will provide an evidence base for factors that are unique to Australians not necessarily reflected in existing frameworks such as the OECD Framework for Measuring Well-being and Progress. [5]

For impact management, subjective wellbeing evaluation then provides the means to monitor progress, as well as continually evaluate the target outcomes. Ongoing measurement can track ‘shifts’ in overall subjective wellbeing as an indicator of whether Australian’s wellbeing is improving overall, and analysis can check whether predictors of wellbeing have changed, to continually confirm or redefine priority needs.

[1] Stiglitz, J., J. Fitoussi and M. Durand (2018), ‘Beyond GDP: Measuring What Counts for Economic and Social Performance’, OECD Publishing (n 6).
[2] Department of Finance Canada (2021), Measuring What Matters: Toward a Quality-of-Life Strategy for Canada.
[3] JYU.Wisdom community (2021). Planetary well-being. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8, 25. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00899-3
[4] Cresswell, D., Janke, T., & Johnston, E (Lead Authors). (2022) Australia State of the Environment Report 2021. Commonwealth of Australia ‍
[5] OECD (2020). Better Life Initiative: Measuring Well-Being and Progress.