Sustainable Wellbeing Operationalization and Measurement Based on the Capabilities Approach: The Case of Latin America

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The text examines the operationalisation and measurement of sustainable well-being based on the capabilities approach. The empirical field is Latin America. The subject is interesting but many corrections are needed.

The introduction (part 1) is too short and doesn’t contextualise the subject matter. The authors mention the concept of sustainable well-being but don’t contextualise it. They don’t cite the reference works. Nussbaum is cited but we know nothing about this work. There is a lack of a definitional approach that would enable well-being to be situated in society (what does it mean to be well in body and mind for individuals? Is this approach not subjective?). In this case, it is necessary to propose a synthesis on this subject. Similarly, the authors don’t present their objective. They don't propose any research hypotheses. It is succinct and problematic.

Part 2 is also too short. The historical overview needs to be developed. Different measures of well-being are mentioned but not discussed. Are we sure that freedom necessarily produces well-being?  Is it not also a source of anxiety for people in search of reference points and frameworks? The idea of sustainability is interesting because too many measures and actions, especially in the field of fitness and well-being, only have a short-lived and unsustainable effect. It is therefore relevant to discuss sustainability and how to increase it. But here too, this notion is poorly explained and considerably limits the interest of the text.

In part 3, the methodological choice (Nussbaum) is interesting (distinguishing between well-being through body, mind, relationships and control), but it is essential to justify this choice.  Why this choice of this method rather than another method? The choice of sample is not enough specified. The characteristics of the samples are not known. This lack of data considerably diminishes the quality of the text and raises questions about the scientific and rigorous nature of the study.

Part 4 presents the data obtained, which should be presented more clearly. The table in Figure 5 is interesting but in the absence of methodological framework (who collected these results and how?), the comparative approach remains limited.

Part 5 (discussion) usefully discusses the notion of sustainability. As the author points out (line 325), sustainability is multidimensional (economic, social, relational) but in the absence of a clear methodological framework, the authors give conclusions that are sometimes self-evident and sometimes little discussed. The authors apply a normative and conclusive approach, i.e. they try to verify what they think. They start from assumptions that are not really discussed. This poses a major problem for this text, which absolutely must be corrected and reworked to be scientifically presentable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is very interesting.  If done well, it will make a significant contribution to the field.  Here are my feedback for your consideration.

The main issue I have about this paper is the conceptualization of the sustainable wellbeing.  It needs a stronger conceptualization and justification.  To being with, why Central Capabilities of Martha Nussbaum?  There is a whole range of sustainable wellbeing concepts.  In my view, sustainable wellbeing is about self-reliance, immunity and resilience for oneself, a community, a company or even the entire world.  I think you need to review more literature in this area.  With an extensive review of the literature, you then will be able to define the concept of sustainable wellbeing succinctly and meaningfully.  

The fact that sustainable wellbeing is frequently defined as sustainability outcome suggests that the Triple Bottom Line or sustainability outputs are predictors of sustainable wellbeing.  This paper has not addressed the environmental, social and economic outputs in great detail.  In my view, a balance among these three domains actually brings about sustainable wellbeing.

Below are some suggested reading.

Avery, G.C. and Bergsteiner, H. (2020) Sufficiency Thinking.  Routledge, London.

Kantabutra S, Punnakitikashem P. Exploring the Process Toward Corporate Sustainability at a Thai SME. Sustainability. 2020; 12(21):9204. 

Once you have a strong conceptualization of the sustainable wellbeing concept, you can then proceed with the statistical process of operationalizing it.

Hope my comments are useful.  Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments enclossed 

By the way we actually use a lot Multiariate Analyses for developing Synthetic Indicators and it works OK eventhough they may  be not precisse if one have a lot of data (The Central LImit Theorem); and Corresponde Analyses in particular only to reinforce contexts. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have not sufficiently addressed my concerns in the manuscript.  Please integrate your responses to me in the manuscript wherever you can so that the manuscript is well argued and justified.

Author Response

Thank you. We have incorporated some of his suggestions into the paper. Greetings.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf