Quality of Life and Environmental Degradation: An Empirical Assessment of Their Interactions and Determinants in Latin America and the Caribbean

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you, Authors, for comming out with this research which is much needed. Please see the attached for the comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study integrates data from three dimensions: economic, social, and ecological. It takes 24 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean from 2007 to 2020 and explores the relationship between quality of life and environmental degradation in depth. The two research topics have good comparison and connection, and it is also worth exploring the relationship between quality of life and environmental degradation in different countries. My main concerns are:
(1) The second paragraph of the introduction is too long, which increases the reading burden of readers.
(2) The structure of the introduction needs to be layered from the introduction of research background, literature review, research innovation and research objectives. The current version is too confusing.
(3) In 1.1. Theoretical Framework, the author proposed the core content and related indicators of each dimension, but in actual operation (Line 319-324), the author only selected a few easily accessible indicators, and these indicators are not comprehensive enough to characterize the quality of life and environmental degradation in the region. This is also my biggest concern, that is, the evaluation indicators cannot truly reflect the research theme.
(4) The data source is not clearly stated, and the author should attach a website link.
(5) The discussion needs to be structured and the comparison with previous results should be strengthened. It is best to divide it into 2-3 paragraphs. In addition, the author does not seem to mention the limitations of this paper, such as the lack of timeliness of the research indicators and research time period.

Author Response

 

Responses to Revisor 2

We sincerely thank Editor for the valuable and constructive feedback provided. Each of the comments has contributed to significantly improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript. Below we present our detailed responses and the corresponding modifications made to the revised version of the paper.

1. The second paragraph of the introduction is too long, which increases the reading load for readers.

Response

 

The authors have revised the entire introduction to improve clarity and readability.

 

In recent decades, the relationship between quality of life and environmental degra dation has gained increasing prominence in academic and policy debates. It has become clear that human well-being cannot be adequately assessed using conventional economic indicators alone, such as gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Instead, it is essential to incorporate substantive environmental dimensions—such as air quality, thermal regulation, biodiversity conservation, and secure access to water resources—into the analysis [1]. This integrative approach acknowledges that healthy ecosystems directly influence physical health, psychological balance, and social cohesion [2], positioning them as fundamental pillars for truly sustainable human development [3–5].      

Globally, numerous reports warn that environmental degradation has intensified its impact on human well-being.  According to WHO [6], air pollution causes over seven million premature deaths annually, with particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) as major contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Although Africa emits only 3% of global greenhouse gases, it faces disproportionate consequences such as extreme droughts, loss of arable land, and increasing food insecurity [7]. These inequalities   are further exacerbated by geopolitical asymmetries and institutional weaknesses in the most vulnerable regions [8].

In Latin America and the Caribbean, environmental degradation reflects a complex interplay between the region’s extraordinary biodiversity, dependence on extractive industries, and deep-rooted socioeconomic inequalities. Deforestation in the Amazon, drive by agricultural expansion and illegal mining, threatens to transform critical ecosystems into degraded landscapes, disrupting water regulation and carbon sequestration processes [9]. Simultaneously, cities such as Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Santiago face persistent air pollution stemming from unsustainable transportation systems and industrial emissions, directly affecting urban quality of life [10]. Coastal areas in the Caribbean are increasingly vulnerable to sea level rise and ocean acidification, with direct repercussions on sectors like tourism [11].

Academic research on the link between environmental degradation and subjective well-being has produced both converging and diverging findings. For instance, [1] and [12] show that air pollution, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity have a negative and statistically significant impact on happiness and well-being indices. These results align with habitability theories, which emphasize the critical role of preserved natural environments for maintaining public mental and physical health [2]. However, studies such as [13] stress that the effects of environmental degradation are not uniform and tend to disproportion lately affect low-income populations with limited adaptive capacity. Tiwari and Mutascu [14] even suggest that the correlation between environmental factors and happiness is not always robust, as it can be moderated by cultural, institutional, and community-level variables.     

Environmental degradation is thus not merely an ecological issue, but a multidimensional crisis that affects health, economic stability, and social justice—particularly in marginalized communities [15]. These impacts are neither homogenous nor inevitable but rather mediated by local governance quality and entrenched structural inequalities [7,16]. In many countries, biodiversity loss has intensified poverty and food insecurity, perpetuating cycles of exclusion [17,18].     

Despite the growing literature, there remains a critical research gap regarding how environmental degradation affects quality of life across social and geographic contexts. There is a lack of integrative models that connect environmental conditions to both objective and subjective indicators of well-being, particularly in regions where poverty, ecological stress, and climate vulnerability intersect—such as Latin America and the Caribbean. Moreover, little attention has been given to institutional and territorial governance mechanisms that could mitigate these effects [19,20].    

Accordingly, the present study seeks to analyze the relationship between environmental degradation and quality of life, with a focus on Latin America and the Caribbean. The aim is to identify the mechanisms through which environmental factors—such as biodiversity loss, air pollution, and water insecurity—impact human well-being, particularly in contexts marked by structural vulnerability. The research also highlights successful policy innovations, such as Costa Rica’s payment for environmental services schemes [19] and the regional Escazú Agreement [10], to show how ecological protection can be reconciled with social equity. In doing so, this study offers both theoretical and policy-relevant contributions to the emerging field of environmental justice and sustainable development.

 

2. The structure of the introduction should be layered, starting from the background of the research, followed by the literature review, research innovation, and research objectives. The current version is too confusing.

 

Response

 

The authors have revised the entire introduction for better understanding and readability.

 

In recent decades, the relationship between quality of life and environmental degra dation has gained increasing prominence in academic and policy debates. It has become clear that human well-being cannot be adequately assessed using conventional economic indicators alone, such as gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Instead, it is essential to incorporate substantive environmental dimensions—such as air quality, thermal regulation, biodiversity conservation, and secure access to water resources—into the analysis [1]. This integrative approach acknowledges that healthy ecosystems directly influence physical health, psychological balance, and social cohesion [2], positioning them as fundamental pillars for truly sustainable human development [3–5].      

Globally, numerous reports warn that environmental degradation has intensified its impact on human well-being.  According to WHO [6], air pollution causes over seven million premature deaths annually, with particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) as major contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Although Africa emits only 3% of global greenhouse gases, it faces disproportionate consequences such as extreme droughts, loss of arable land, and increasing food insecurity [7]. These inequalities   are further exacerbated by geopolitical asymmetries and institutional weaknesses in the most vulnerable regions [8].

In Latin America and the Caribbean, environmental degradation reflects a complex interplay between the region’s extraordinary biodiversity, dependence on extractive industries, and deep-rooted socioeconomic inequalities. Deforestation in the Amazon, drive by agricultural expansion and illegal mining, threatens to transform critical ecosystems into degraded landscapes, disrupting water regulation and carbon sequestration processes [9]. Simultaneously, cities such as Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Santiago face persistent air pollution stemming from unsustainable transportation systems and industrial emissions, directly affecting urban quality of life [10]. Coastal areas in the Caribbean are increasingly vulnerable to sea level rise and ocean acidification, with direct repercussions on sectors like tourism [11].

Academic research on the link between environmental degradation and subjective well-being has produced both converging and diverging findings. For instance, [1] and [12] show that air pollution, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity have a negative and statistically significant impact on happiness and well-being indices. These results align with habitability theories, which emphasize the critical role of preserved natural environments for maintaining public mental and physical health [2]. However, studies such as [13] stress that the effects of environmental degradation are not uniform and tend to disproportion lately affect low-income populations with limited adaptive capacity. Tiwari and Mutascu [14] even suggest that the correlation between environmental factors and happiness is not always robust, as it can be moderated by cultural, institutional, and community-level variables.     

Environmental degradation is thus not merely an ecological issue, but a multidimensional crisis that affects health, economic stability, and social justice—particularly in marginalized communities [15]. These impacts are neither homogenous nor inevitable but rather mediated by local governance quality and entrenched structural inequalities [7,16]. In many countries, biodiversity loss has intensified poverty and food insecurity, perpetuating cycles of exclusion [17,18].     

Despite the growing literature, there remains a critical research gap regarding how environmental degradation affects quality of life across social and geographic contexts. There is a lack of integrative models that connect environmental conditions to both objective and subjective indicators of well-being, particularly in regions where poverty, ecological stress, and climate vulnerability intersect—such as Latin America and the Caribbean. Moreover, little attention has been given to institutional and territorial governance mechanisms that could mitigate these effects [19,20].    

Accordingly, the present study seeks to analyze the relationship between environmental degradation and quality of life, with a focus on Latin America and the Caribbean. The aim is to identify the mechanisms through which environmental factors—such as biodiversity loss, air pollution, and water insecurity—impact human well-being, particularly in contexts marked by structural vulnerability. The research also highlights successful policy innovations, such as Costa Rica’s payment for environmental services schemes [19] and the regional Escazú Agreement [10], to show how ecological protection can be reconciled with social equity. In doing so, this study offers both theoretical and policy-relevant contributions to the emerging field of environmental justice and sustainable development.

 

 

3. In section 1.1 Theoretical Framework, the author proposed the core content and related indicators for each dimension, but in the actual operation (Lines 319-324), the author only selected a few easily accessible indicators, and these indicators are not comprehensive enough to characterize the quality of life and environmental degradation in the region. This is also my main concern, namely, the evaluation indicators cannot truly reflect the research topic.

 

Response

The authors have revised the theoretical framework section at the request of another reviewer, thus organizing the information in a better way. Furthermore, in each paragraph, the selection of indicators is supported and justified, explaining how they contribute to the research topic.

 

1.1.           Theoretical Framework

To understand the complex relationship between environmental degradation and quality of life in Latin America and the Caribbean, it is essential to draw upon interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives that transcend purely economic interpretations of well-being. This study is anchored in three complementary frameworks—Human Needs Theory, the Capabilities Approach, and the Economics of Happiness—which provide the conceptual foundation to link environmental conditions, institutional capacity, and individual well-being. These perspectives not only offer insights into the underlying mechanisms that shape quality of life but also inform the selection and operationalization of the variables used in the empirical model. Each framework contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how environmental and social factors interact to influence human development in the context of growing ecological stress.    

 

1.2.           Quality of Life 

Quality of life (QoL) is a multidimensional construct encompassing both objective and subjective dimensions of human well-being. According to the World Health Organization [6], QoL refers to an individual’s perception of their position in life within the cultural and value systems they inhabit, and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns. [1] expand this concept by explicitly incorporating environmental factors, arguing that well-being cannot be fully assessed using traditional economic metrics—such as GDP per capita—but requires attention to interrelated components: material well-being (income, employment, access to services), social well-being (security, participation), emotional well-being (happiness, satisfaction), and environmental well-being (air and water quality, biodiversity, climate resilience).   

In line with this framework, this study uses a composite index of quality of life that integrates material, social, and environmental dimensions, offering a more holistic measure than economic indicators alone. This index reflects the influence of both structural conditions (e.g., access to sanitation) and ecological variables (e.g., PM2.5, forest cover) on the overall life experience of individuals.

 

1.3.           Theory of Human Needs          

The Theory of Human Needs by Max-Neef [21] posits that well-being depends on the satisfaction of universal and interrelated needs such as subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, leisure, and identity. Environmental degradation threatens several of these, notably subsistence—by restricting access to clean air, water, and food—and protection,  by increasing vulnerability to natural disasters and pollution. This justifies the inclusion of PM2.5 concentration, average temperature, and forest area loss as empirical proxies for environmental stressors that undermine basic human needs.

The matrix of needs and satisfiers, central to Max-Neef’s framework, provides a conceptual tool to understand how socio-environmental conditions mediate well-being. Yet, as Boltvinik [22] notes, the presence of material satisfiers may generate an illusory sense           of need fulfillment if environmental conditions deteriorate, thus masking deep structural deficiencies. These insights are reflected in this study’s approach, which avoids reductionist proxies of development and instead examines how unmet environmental needs correlate with lower quality of life scores.  

 

1.4.           Economics of Happiness          

“Easterlin Paradox” by Easterlin [23] demonstrated that beyond the satisfaction of basic needs, income growth does not necessarily lead to greater happiness. This insight challenges GDP-centric development models and underscores the value of non-material determinants of well-being—such as environmental quality, public trust, and emotional health. Gutiérrez [13] highlight that access to clean air and water, natural landscapes, and community cohesion are intangible goods that significantly enhance life satisfaction. Recent studies in Latin America confirm that air pollution, water insecurity, and climate stress diminish subjective well-being, even amid periods of economic growth [24,25]. These findings reinforce the inclusion of PM2.5 concentration and temperature, as they represent environmental burdens that materially and emotionally affect populations, particularly in urban and vulnerable settings. Thus, by including GDP per capita alongside environmental indicators, this study explicitly examines whether income growth offsets or exacerbates declines in subjective well-being—an essential debate within the economics of happiness.

 

1.5.           Capabilities Approach 

The Capabilities Approach [26] defines quality of life not in terms of material assets, but as the effective freedom to achieve valuable life outcomes. Environmental degradation constrains these freedoms by limiting access to essential natural resources, undermining health, and amplifying climate vulnerability. For example, rising temperatures and declining forest cover reduce agricultural productivity, damage ecosystems, and restrict people’s   

ability to live healthy, autonomous lives [17].

Access to improved sanitation, meanwhile, reflects both material and institutional capacities to support fundamental capabilities such as health, safety, and dignity [27]. In this sense, the inclusion of sanitation access in the empirical model operationalizes key elements of the capabilities approach, linking environmental conditions to the effective exercise of individual freedoms.

Furthermore, the approach supports multidimensional assessments of QoL, integrating health, education, environmental quality, and political voice. The study’s inclusion of structural and ecological variables—rather than relying solely on income—responds directly to [26] critique of narrow metrics and reflects a rights-based approach to human development.

 

 

4. The data source is not clearly indicated, and the author should provide a link to a website.

 

Response

A sample of 24 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean was selected for this study, based on the availability of consistent and comparable data provided by the World Bank, ECLAC, and WHO for the period 2007–2020.

https://ourworldindata.org/data

 

5. The discussion should be structured and the comparison with previous results should be strengthened. It is recommended to divide it into two or three paragraphs. Moreover, the author does not seem to mention the limitations of this work, such as the lack of up-to-date research indicators and the time period of the study.

 

Response

The authors have restructured the discussion section as requested.

 

The econometric results establish a clear relationship between key environmental variables and quality of life in Latin America and the Caribbean, revealing patterns consistent with previous studies. In particular, the reduction of forest areas is significantly associated with a decline in well-being, which aligns with the findings of [31], who highlight the role of urban ecosystems in promoting health and social cohesion. Likewise, recent research indicates that the loss of vegetation cover affects biodiversity, microclimate, and equitable access to green spaces, especially in vulnerable regions [32,33]. This effect is more severe in communities with a high dependence on ecosystem services, as observed in contexts of artisanal mining or accelerated deforestation [7,34].

On the other hand, air pollution is confirmed as a key factor in the deterioration of quality of life.  The negative and statistically significant relationship is consistent with the studies of [35], who identifies both physical and mental health effects, and with the findings of [36], which show an inverse relationship between subjective well-being and exposure to fine particulate matter. More recent research has also documented that even emerging pollution events generate multidimensional impacts on health, the economy, and the environment [2,37]. This reflects a persistent paradox in the region: economic growth indicators may not translate into improvements in well-being if the negative effects of environmental degradation are not addressed.

In contrast, access to basic sanitation services shows a strong positive relationship with quality of life. This association has been documented by [38] and more recently by [39], who emphasize their role in reducing disease, improving public health, and promoting social equity. In contexts such as the Brazilian Amazon, the availability of drinking water and sewage systems has proven to be a key factor in reducing territorial gaps in well-being [40]. In addition, various studies in community health confirm that improvements in basic infrastructure have significant effects on the perception of well-being and quality of life [27,41].

Finally, GDP per capita, included as a control variable, maintains a positive and significant relationship with quality of life, in line with the empirical literature [36,42]. However, recent research warns that while economic growth is necessary, it is not sufficient to achieve sustainable development. For example, [3] show that the natural environment acts as a determinant of productive investment in emerging economies. Similarly, [43] and [44] highlight the need to rethink economic foundations to integrate environmental, social, and institutional dimensions. In this regard, the study demonstrates that quality of life does not depend solely on income, but also on environmental and structural factors that must be addressed through integrated public policies.          

One of the main limitations of this study lies in the availability and timeliness of the environmental and social indicators used, which, in some cases, do not reflect the most recent changes in sustainability practices or institutional transformations that have occurred after 2020. Likewise, the temporal coverage of the analysis (2005–2020) may limit the detection of emerging effects related to climate change, the energy transition, or the implementation of new public policies in the region. These data constraints may affect the explanatory power of the model and the generalizability of the results to more recent contexts.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Title: Quality of Life and Environmental Degradation: An Empirical Assessment of Their Interactions and Determinants in Latin America and the Caribbean

Recommendation: Major Revision

This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic by examining the relationship between environmental degradation and quality of life (QoL) across 24 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. The topic fits well within the scope of Sustainability, and the authors demonstrate commendable effort in integrating a multidimensional theoretical framework with robust panel data econometric methods.

However, the manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication. Several concerns regarding the clarity and interpretation of empirical results need to be revised. Additionally, the theoretical discussion could benefit from better focus and integration with the empirical findings. Acceptance should only be considered after addressing the following concerns:

1. In the “Discussion” section, the narrative emphasizes the negative impact of air pollution on QoL. However, Table 1 reports a positive and significant coefficient for air pollution. This inconsistency needs to be addressed. Either the variable is misinterpreted, or the model requires re-specification. Please clarify whether the air pollution variable is inverted or positively coded, and ensure the narrative aligns with the actual regression direction.
2. The model includes four explanatory variables but key socioeconomic controls such as GDP per capita, education, or unemployment rate are omitted. Their absence may bias the results or overstate the role of environmental variables. Please justify this exclusion or consider including robustness checks with these controls.
3. The manuscript presents an extensive theoretical foundation (human needs theory, capabilities, happiness economics), but their direct operationalization or relevance to model variables is not that clear. Please explicitly map how each theory informs the selection of variables, and consider summarizing the framework more concisely to maintain great shape.
4. While many diagnostic tests are included (e.g., VIF, Shapiro-Wilk, Wooldridge), the results of “fixed vs. random effects models” and the “Prais–Winsten regression” are not quite synthesized. Please clarify the reason why Table 9 is presented after fixed effect selection, and explain whether “Prais–Winsten regression” serves as a robustness check or main model. Avoid confusion by clarifying model hierarchy.
5. The conclusion could be significantly improved by providing more concrete and regionally relevant policy recommendations based on your findings (e.g., targeting sanitation infrastructure, afforestation policies, urban air quality standards). The policy discussion remains general and detached from model outcomes.
6. I noticed that there are no figures in the manuscript, please consider visualizing some tables
7. Please check and correct inconsistent formatting in the tables

e.g., Table 1 lacks full variable descriptions and units

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Ok, the authors have basically addressed my question and it could be accepted  in present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been well revised and could be accepted.