The wellbeing economy and urban systems

Giving a new function to an object, which according to traditional standards would have been devoid of it, increasing its initial value and transforming waste (now synonymous with pollution and an affront to urban decorum) into a resource through renewal and recycling operations, are the cornerstones of the C2C model and should be increasingly adopted. This perspective informs more than one of the flagship initiatives of the Europe 202051 strategy: in line with the principles and objectives of a circular economy, it promotes the efficient use of resources to foster the development of green jobs and sustainable growth52 .

The Wellbeing economy and Urban systems

An interesting further development of the circular economy, which completes the reasoning that began with the Chicago School of Sociology, is the concept of the Wellbeing Economy53 . An economy oriented according to the priority objective of increasing the GDP is destined to exceed the limits of the

51 European Commission 2010, EUROPE 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Communication from the Commission, Brussels. 52 “…To reduce resource depletion and the environmental degradation that can result, we need to replace our current production and consumption patterns with more resilient and sustainable ones, in line with the principles of a ‘circular economy’. Shifting to a more productive and less resource-intensive economy requires investment in eco-innovation and can bring significant benefits in terms of both competitiveness and job creation. In a more circular economy, the value of products, materials and resources is retained in the economy for as long as possible and waste generation is minimized”. European Commission 2017, Resource Efficiency (Fact Sheet for the European Semester), Brussels, p. 1. 53 Fioramonti L. et al. 2018, Toward a Sustainable Wellbeing Economy, «Sustainability», vol. 9, n. 11.

planet’s capacity. By not attributing any value to natural resources and not including any judgement regarding the quality, meaning and consequences of production and consumption, this indicator inevitably conflicts with natural and social balances. These considerations in 2015 led Fioramonti and others to question the GDP as a reliable measure of ‘all’ economic activities54 . As GDP is currently conceived, it only takes into account what is formally traded on the market. This means that economic activities, taking place in the ‘informal’ economy or within households, as well as a variety of other services freely available, are usually not taken into account for the evaluation of the economic growth, despite the fact that those activities and services, from volunteering to ecosystem services, are the enabling functions of our economies and societies. In contrast to this fundamentally destructive path, the ‘Wellbeing Economy’ model strengthens social and natural capital and promotes human development based on the virtuous approach of the circular economy. Those ecosystem services which the GDP model considers to be worthless, are instead fully factored into the social infrastructure, making people completely aware of the importance of natural ecosystems for their daily lives.

54 “GDP is not a measure of ‘all’ economic activities. Because of its design, it only counts what is formally transacted in the market, which means that other economic activities occurring in the ‘informal’ economy or within households as well as a variety of services made available free of charge, from volunteering to the ecosystem services provided by nature that allow our economies to function, are not counted as part of economic growth” Fioramonti L. 2015, We Can’t Eat GDP, «Global Trends», p. 299.

According to this model, economic growth can no longer be based on exploiting natural resources in an indiscriminate way, but rather on improving the quality and effectiveness of people’s interactions with each other and with ecosystems: among other things, through the use of appropriate enabling technologies. It is surprising that, despite the practical evidence that the theoretical pillars of traditional economics are no longer functional, in essence they continue to guide the choices of governments and multilateral bodies that control the global economy, whose paradoxes are in stark contrast to the principles and objectives of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 55 56. Approved by the United Nations General Assembly for the period 2015/2030, these are subject to continuous global assessment to determine the state of their implementation57 . Starting in 2018 a network called Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGo), linked to the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll), was created to engage with governments. Its aim is to advance the three key principles of a wellbeing economy, namely: living

55 UN General Assembly 2005, Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1), New York, p. 18. 56 The Sustainable Development Goals are: 1) No Poverty; 2) Zero Hunger; 3) Good Health and Well-being; 4) Quality Education; 5) Gender Equality; 6) Clean Water and Sanitation; 7) Affordable and Clean Energy; 8) Decent Work and Economic Growth; 9) Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure; 10) Reducing Inequality; 11) Sustainable Cities and Communities; 12) Responsible Consumption and Production; 13) Climate Action; 14) Life Below Water; 15) Life On Land; 16) Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions; 17) Partnerships for the Goals. 57 Sachs J., Schmidt-Traub G., Kroll C., Lafortune G., Fuller G. 2019, Sustainable Development Report, Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network, New York.

within planetary ecological boundaries; ensuring a fair distribution of wealth and opportunity; and allocating resources (including environmental and social public goods) scientifically, while bringing wellbeing to the center of decision-making processes of governments at every level and in particular in economic policies. The new Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WE-All)58 is designed to facilitate this transformation. The fundamental objective of a wellbeing economy must be to implement economic/financial instruments that guarantee everyone favourable conditions of mental and physical health, greater equality and fairness, good social relations: all in an ecologically healthy context that guarantees ecosystem services, whether in a natural or urban environment. The wellbeing economy will therefore have to value economic activities based on collaboration and sharing, as well as on the principles of recycling and upcycling. This, however, will require a redefinition of the roles of producers and consumers, blurring the traditional boundaries between the two categories, focusing on macro and micro production of renewable energy and on socially and environmentally oriented enterprises, concentrating on measures of progress that reflect real value creation59. A wellbeing economy must place certain unavoidable commitments at the center of its development policies, namely:

58 The Wellbeing Economies Alliance, or We-All, is a global movement that is engaging different countries around the need to shift economies from a narrow focus on traded goods and services (e.g. GDP) to one more broadly focused on sustainable well-being. 59 Fioramonti L. et al., Sustainability, Op. cit., p.10.

• living within the limits of the planet, in order to achieve environmental sustainability; • achieving and maintaining an equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity, both within and across generations; • allocating available resources efficiently in order to ensure high levels of human well-being60 .

60 Ibidem.

elements of demographic, socio-cultural and historical evolution of human settlements

The concept of Urban Metabolism explored in the previous chapter, taking into account the balance between incoming and outgoing exchanges of materials and energy, is a useful model to describe the functioning of cities. Using the models and approaches described – such as life cycle assessment, circular economy, and cradle to cradle, and including the principles of the wellbeing economy – the integrated urban metabolism concept allows us to analyse the interactions between the contemporary city and its territory, i.e. between infrastructures and urban services, as well as between natural systems and the human species. In this chapter, the metabolic model is used as a tool for analysing the different phases of the evolution of the city and urban society, tracing the structural, social and cultural changes that in history have led to the consolidation of human beings’ ways of life, eventually leading to the formation of what we now call the ‘contemporary city’. A reflection on the 21st century city, as indeed on the historical evolution of urban systems over the last ten thousand years, must involve an analysis of the related technologies that have always been ‘Smart’ with respect

to their cultural context. In fact, urban settlements have always implicitly been ‘Smart’, i.e. capable of adapting to new scenarios and needs thanks to innovative approaches and solutions. It is a question of understanding how the city fits into its territorial context of reference and how its citizens respond to ‘boundary conditions’. When faced by demographic change on any scale, the impact of migration or climate change, the urban metabolism has needed to respond appropriately to ensure the well-being of its citizens, and its responses have always been technological in nature. In the early days of urban settlements, the scale of the phenomena was small, in correlation with the small size of the human communities that inhabited them. Despite their seemingly primitive simplicity, the technologies employed were of astonishing technological innovativeness and provided the desired responses to the changes and challenges our ancestors had to face over time. Each of these technical innovations, from the preservation and reproducibility of fire, to the invention of agriculture, to the processing of primitive ceramics and then metals, took hundreds and sometimes thousands of years to discover and consolidate, through trial and error. Urban settlements themselves and all the related technological and design transformations, accompanied by progress in the use of materials and building techniques, have been the result of a slow and constant ‘intelligent’ evolution which, in relation to the era and the tools in use, have made every city a ‘Smart’ city. The analysis of this urban evolutionary phenomenon, from a technological, management perspective, is key to understanding contemporary and future cities; it must