Quality of life as a social issue in science for sustainable development

INTRODUCTION

Quality of life is a concept that has gained prominence in contemporary discussions on sustainable development and social well-being. In the context of a world facing environmental crises, social inequalities, and economic challenges, quality of life stands as a key indicator for measuring societal progress.

Quality of life can be defined in many ways, but it typically includes variables such as health, access to education, safety, culture, and the environment. Throughout history, various disciplines have sought to understand and improve people’s quality of life.

From medicine and psychology to sociology and economics, each field has contributed insights and metrics that have enabled a more comprehensive approach to human well-being. UN human development reports, such as the Human Development Index (HDI), have provided a quantitative framework for assessing quality of life across different nations (1,2).

However, despite these efforts, many countries continue to face significant challenges that negatively affect the quality of life of their population. In this context, science plays a crucial role not only in understanding these problems but also in finding solutions that enable sustainable development.

Quality of life is linked to other concepts, and its influence is such that one cannot speak of quality of life without considering the meaning of well-being, the satisfaction of needs, sustainable development, resource conservation (sustainability), economic growth, or ecological balance.

The objective of this research is to analyze quality of life as a social issue within the field of science and its relationship to sustainable development. The importance of this research lies in its comprehensive view of quality of life, which could contribute to communities that are interested in improving their quality of life on the basis of the authors’ recognition that achieving this depends on the development model adopted, educational policies, and societal perceptions of reality.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted using academic databases such as Scopus, SciELO, Redalyc, Dialnet, and Google Scholar. A total of 43 references published in scientific journals or documents issued by international institutions or organizations were analyzed. Empirical (documentary analysis) and theoretical (analytical-synthetic, inductive-deductive, historical-logical analysis, systems approach) methods were used to conduct the research.

DEVELOPMENT

The social dimension of sustainable development, which includes quality of life, is fundamental to ensuring that economic and environmental development is aligned with the well-being of individuals and communities.

Quality of life is closely linked to sustainable development. A healthy environment, access to educational resources, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making are aspects that constitute a quality of life. On the other hand, sustainable development requires forms of production and consumption that are not only economically viable but also socially equitable and environmentally responsible. (3,4)

Various initiatives have sought to integrate quality of life into sustainable development. For example, the concept of “sustainable cities” focuses on designing urban spaces that are not only economically efficient but also promote the health and well-being of their inhabitants. Studies on urban regeneration in various cities have demonstrated that thoughtful planning can significantly improve quality of life (2,5).

Comprehensive analysis of quality of life and sustainable development as a social science issue

Some critics argue that the pursuit of sustainable development may serve as an excuse to implement policies that limit economic growth. However, various studies suggest that, in the long term, sustainable development is, in fact, a path toward more inclusive and equitable development. (2,6)

Quality of life not only has an immediate effect on individuals’ health and well-being but is also linked to social stability and community cohesion. Societies with a high quality of life tend to be more peaceful and cooperative, while those facing significant inequalities are more prone to violence and conflict. (2-4)

Quality of life is a key social issue for science within the framework of sustainable development, as it involves improving human well-being without compromising resources or the environment for future generations. Sustainable development seeks to guide productive and social models toward a rational management of resources that ensures the continuous improvement of quality of life, integrating economic, social, and environmental aspects (7,8).

From a scientific perspective, strengthening the interdisciplinary research capacity is essential for assessing and managing environmental and social impacts and promoting knowledge-based policies that enable balanced and responsible development. Citizen participation and social values are essential for identifying environmental and social problems and for building sustainable development that ensures an environment conducive to human well-being (9-11).

Furthermore, science and technology play crucial roles by offering innovations that improve health, food production, energy, and other sectors, directly contributing to quality of life. However, scientific progress must be accompanied by oversight and a focus on sustainability to prevent environmental and social harm (11,12).

In their quest to achieve maximum social well-being, humans have engaged in activities that have generated environmental problems. The issues raised above have prompted reflection on the need to overcome these problems to improve quality of life.

According to Castañeda (13), the concept of quality of life “…is generally associated with the material conditions in which individuals live and, more specifically, with the personal experience resulting from those conditions.” This author’s statement leads us to break down the two terms that make up the concept: quality and life.

The noun “quality” refers to the more or less satisfactory nature of a thing or, if one prefers, to those properties inherent in a thing that allow it to be assessed as equal to, better than, or worse than others of its kind. This statement suggests that it essentially concerns the conditions in which each person lives compared with those of any other human being.

The expression “quality of life” has almost always been interpreted from an anthropocentric perspective. Castañeda (13) argues that the term “life” refers to human life and that “… ‘life’ is equated with ‘activity’ as the most specifically human way of relating to the world.”

The authors acknowledge the need to include nature as an entity entitled to a quality of life, since biotic and abiotic components constitute the source of material resources that sustain human activity. Therefore, they are susceptible to modifications and treatments that can degrade their quality depending on how they are used or abused.

The background outlined above allows us to affirm that quality of life is a concept that in turn implies the definition of well-being. For Ferrer (14), well-being depends on environmental conservation, which is a human activity, “…conceived by man, for man; by virtue of this, conservation means guaranteeing and ensuring the permanent and sustained benefits—tangible or intangible—that human beings derive from the use of the environment and its natural resources,” possible only “through the maintenance of harmony in the interactions among the components of the whole.”

Another concept implicit in well-being is equity, which is widely used in economic and social contexts; Brown, Flavio, and Postel (15) specify that it is an essential objective in its own right in a world striving to meet basic needs while simultaneously protecting the natural environment.

When speaking of equity, the principles of justice and freedom practiced by all individuals to enjoy, according to Caride and Meira (16), “…their right to consume certain minimum quantities of specific goods” are involved; however, in reality, it is evident that these principles are not upheld in much of the world, hence the high rates of poverty.

The preceding ideas allow us to reflect on the human thought that guides behavior and establishes the parameters of well-being and, with them, those of quality of life. In the 18th century, humanity, as a social entity, adopted the capitalist model that came hand in hand with the Industrial Revolution, the origin of technology and technological research.

The idea of progress as a synonym for happiness has entailed a sacrifice for nature, which, according to Ferguson and Lanz (17), is presented as “…that wild-strange, potentially dangerous space——which must be tamed, a reservoir of exploitable resources and goods, and finally, a realm of ‘blind forces’ that man must control.”

That presumed control of which these authors speak, in the authors’ view, has not been possible, as demonstrated by the parallel existence of conditions of backwardness and progress, as well as the coexistence of misery alongside opulence, exposing marked differences in standard of living and quality of life among the inhabitants of the globe. If the way of thinking is what matters when seeking the path to quality of life, it must be acknowledged that there are different ways of viewing the world.

While quality of life should not be separated from growth and the availability of resources, it also cannot be divorced from relationships among human beings and between them and the environment—cultural relationships that lead to valuing life, nature, and emotions to achieve well-being.

As Tyler (18) states, “…cooperation, integrity, and honesty, humility, friendship, and love must be the guidelines for our behavior toward our fellow human beings and toward the planet of life.” In this case, seeking quality of life without harming the environment is thus considered an ethical issue.

Unlike other living beings, according to Savater (19), “we can invent and, to some extent, choose our way of life. We can choose what seems good to us—that is, what is convenient for us—over what seems bad or inconvenient. Since we can invent and choose, we can make mistakes, which is something that rarely happens to beavers, bees, and termites. Therefore, it seems prudent to pay close attention to what we do and strive to acquire a certain know-how that allows us to make the right choices.”

Natural resources are considered factors of production in the economic system, and their exploitation depends on the type of system adopted by each particular group. According to Tyler (18), “economic decisions influence the use of resources and the quality of life in the environment”; coupled with this, rapid population growth demands that governments adopt development models that allow for the satisfaction of needs without degrading the natural resources that sustain economic activity, but this is not what usually happens.

Economic growth is measured through gross domestic product (GDP), which in turn is used to measure quality of life. In the authors’ view, it is a poor indicator of quality of life, as illustrated by the following example: if there is high cigarette production, GDP increases, but so do cancer, cardiovascular, and respiratory diseases. In the case described, GDP includes the production of harmful goods and services; therefore, it is worth asking the following question: is GDP an adequate indicator of quality of life?

One might accept the idea that the term GDP should be replaced with “gross domestic pollution,” and in that case, the quality-of-life index would show a negative balance, which would lead to the depletion of natural resources and the failure to meet needs, resulting in ecological imbalance on the planet.

According to Escalona (20), any effort made to promote national development must be guided by “… the preservation of the balances within that vast ecosystem; consequently, the criterion of maximum productivity (…) must be replaced by maximum conservation and optimal maintenance of ecological balances…”. This statement encourages reflection on alternatives that can guide a shift in thinking, such as “Environmental Education,” “Food Sovereignty and Security,” and “Education, Health, Science, and Innovation for Sustainable Development,” among others, which aim to develop and strengthen environmental awareness to foster coexistence and improve the quality of life for current generations without compromising that of future generations.

There is no direct correlation between economic growth and improving quality of life; the changes reflected in the environment constitute clear evidence of a social practice that disregards its value as a provider of resources, and social groups adopt economic systems that have generated more poverty and deterioration of the environment in which they live.

Various specialists, particularly those in economics, have joined forces to develop a quality-of-life indicator other than GDP. In this regard, Tyler (18) notes that economists William Nordhaus and James Tobin have developed an indicator called net economic well-being (NEB) to estimate the annual change in a country’s quality of life. They calculate NWB by assigning a nominal price to pollution and other “negative” goods and services included in GDP—those that do not improve quality of life. The costs of these negative factors are then subtracted from GDP to obtain NWB.

From a social perspective, the average quality of life in a country can be assessed using an indicator created by the UN, the so-called Human Development Index (HDI), which, as Tyler (18) notes, is measured on a scale from 0 to 1 and results from the combination of three indicators: life expectancy at birth, literacy rate, and GDP per capita.

Another indicator, known as the Human Suffering Index (HSI), developed by the Population Crisis Committee, uses ten scales: GDP per capita, inflation, job growth, population growth, access to good-quality drinking water, infant mortality, adult literacy, food sufficiency, energy sufficiency, and personal freedom (18). In the authors’ view, using this index, which is based on indicators of suffering, is shameful for humanity, given the extensive discussion surrounding economic policies to overcome poverty.

Such policies should generate an increase in productive employment, which would improve the economic conditions of the poor, coupled with a policy that expands and improves public education services at all levels.

Another index, that of the acute depletion of natural resources, was created by researchers at the World Resources Institute, who proposed its inclusion in a country’s net domestic product (NDP). Tyler (18) notes that “a simple model” was created and was successfully applied in Indonesia, where between 1970 and 1984, its GDP increased by 7% annually; however, when the values of forest, soil, and oil depletion were subtracted, its NIP increased by only 4%. That index does not seem to be the most appropriate either, since it is a measure based on resource depletion, when what should truly matter is reducing degradation and promoting the environment.

The same author discusses a model developed by Daly and Cobb, the Index of Sustainable Economic Well-being (ISEW), applied in the United States. It is considered the most comprehensive indicator of well-being currently available (18), although in the authors’ view, it has a drawback: it relies on data available only for certain countries.

Globally, efforts have failed to solve environmental problems or eradicate poverty. Many development models have been tested in Latin America; however, development ideals do not align with genuine well-being or with the goals of a healthy environment.

In the authors’ view, a new vision of life must be offered as a cooperative relationship among all the components of planet Earth so that it becomes a space where everyone’s rights are equally respected. Furthermore, interactions must be established that implicitly incorporate the principles of conservation and equity, hand in hand with actions aimed at achieving peace and social justice.

Quality of life as a social issue in the science of sustainable development requires a comprehensive approach that combines technological progress, responsible environmental management, and social justice. Quality of life must be a central indicator in the formulation of public policies.

Government decisions must be guided not only by economic considerations but also by the impact those decisions will have on the well-being of the population. The inclusion of quality of life measures in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals is an important step in that direction. (1,2,4)

A Health Perspective on Quality of Life and Sustainable Development

Health and quality of life are fundamental social issues for science within the framework of sustainable development, as they ensure the physical, mental, and social well-being of populations—an indispensable condition for economic, social, and environmental progress. Health is both an outcome and a key indicator of the dimensions of sustainable development, and its promotion contributes to equity, economic recovery, and social cohesion (22,23).

Universal access to quality health services without financial hardship is a central objective to prevent diseases from pushing people into poverty and to develop resilient societies (23,24). Furthermore, health is closely linked to the environment: a healthy environment reduces the burden of disease and improves quality of life, making environmental management crucial for public health and sustainable development (23,25,26).

Science faces the challenges of integrating health into all public policies, promoting resilient and sustainable health systems, and fostering citizen participation to identify and address social and environmental problems that affect quality of life (9,25). Technologies such as telemedicine have proven key to expanding coverage and facilitating access to health care, contributing to global sustainability (22).

Finally, health promotion in settings such as the workplace is vital for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially Goal 3, which seeks to ensure healthy lives and well-being for all at all ages, which in turn drives productivity and social development (27).

Health is important as a criterion in development policies because health is a key indicator and an essential component of sustainable human development. Mainstreaming health into all policies allows the social determinants—which often lie outside the health sector, such as housing, education, and socioeconomic conditions—to be addressed, thus improving the general well-being of the population (28,29).

Furthermore, a healthy population improves labor productivity and learning capacity, strengthens families and communities, and contributes to environmental and social sustainability. This creates a virtuous cycle in which health drives economic and social development, and in turn, development improves health and equity (30,31).

The Adelaide Declaration on Health in All Policies emphasizes that incorporating health as a criterion in policymaking facilitates more effective government, improves governance, and promotes social equity, poverty reduction, and inclusion. It also helps avoid unsustainable healthcare costs that can hinder overall development (31).

Investment in health has a positive effect on sustainable economic growth because it improves labor productivity by keeping the population healthy and active, thereby extending working lives and reducing mortality (32,33). Furthermore, strong and accessible health systems reduce out-of-pocket expenses, preventing illness from pushing people into poverty and promoting social equity (34).

Investment in infrastructure, personnel, and medical technologies improves the quality and accessibility of care, which prevents diseases and reduces long-term costs, contributing to economic stability (35). Examples such as the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines demonstrate how investment in health can facilitate economic reopening and prevent prolonged lockdowns (35).

At the macroeconomic level, improving the population’s health can increase GDP, generating a multiplier effect on productive activity and increasing social well-being (33). Therefore, health should be viewed as a strategic investment that drives sustainable development and not merely as an expense(32,36).

The sustainability of health systems requires long-term investments and intersectoral collaboration to address challenges such as population aging and chronic diseases, ensuring resilient and equitable economic growth (37).

Investment in health reduces poverty and inequality because it guarantees universal access to medical services, preventing diseases from generating catastrophic expenses that push families into poverty (38,39). By strengthening health systems and reducing out-of-pocket expenses, the most vulnerable population is financially protected, and their quality of life is improved (38).

Furthermore, health directly influences people’s productive and educational capacity, increasing their income and opportunities and breaking the poverty–disease cycle(39-41). Primary health care, with a focus on social determinants, is key to preventing inequalities and promoting social inclusion (39).

Improved health also contributes to social cohesion and inclusive economic development, reducing gaps between social groups(39,42). For this reason, organizations such as the ECLAC and PAHO call for prioritizing investment in health as a fundamental strategy for achieving sustainable development goals and advancing toward more just and equitable societies (38,39,43).

Health and quality of life are social issues that science must address to achieve comprehensive sustainable development, encompassing human well-being, social equity, and environmental protection. Science has the capacity to generate knowledge that enables the formation of individuals who are more aware of their rights and responsibilities. Scientific initiatives must be promoted to ensure that communities can benefit from a better quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of life remains a complex social issue that demands an interdisciplinary approach within the context of sustainable development. Quality of life cannot be addressed in isolation; it is an interconnected concept that encompasses health, the environment, the economy, and social factors. Given the environmental challenges we face and the increasingly pronounced social inequalities, understanding quality of life as part of sustainable development is crucial. Collaboration among governments, scientists, communities, and the private sector is essential to creating solutions that benefit everyone and ensure an equitable and sustainable future.

References

1. 1 Organización de Naciones Unidas. Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. 2015.
2. 2 PNUD. Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano. 2019.
3. 3 Sen A. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press. 1999.
4. 4 World Health Organization. WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life. 2003.
5. 5 Sachs JD. The Age of Sustainable Development. Columbia University Press. 2015.
6. 6 Raworth K. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing. 2017.
7. 7 Desarrollo Sostenible y la proyección de una mejor calidad de vida. https://www.galileo.edu/ids/historias-de-exito/desarrollo-sostenible-y-la-proyeccion-de-una-mejor-calidad-de-vida/
8. 8 La ciencia, el desarrollo tecnológico y la innovación como ... https://vinculacion.ipicyt.edu.mx/la-ciencia-el-desarrollo-tecnologico-y-la-innovacion-como-herramientas-para-lograr-el-bienestar-social/
9. 9 [PDF] Calidad de vida y desarrollo sustentable - cursos o no. AIU https://cursos.aiu.edu/contaminacion%20y%20gestion%20ambiental/pdf/tema%204.pdf
10. 10 División de Desarrollo Sostenible de las Naciones Unidas https://www.un.org/spanish/esa/sustdev/agenda21/agenda21spchapter35.htm
11. 11 [PDF] Desarrollo sostenible a partir de los enfoques de los problemas ... https://red.pucp.edu.pe/ridei/files/2011/11/231.pdf
12. 12 La ciencia, el desarrollo tecnológico y la innovación como ... https://vinculacion.ipicyt.edu.mx/la-ciencia-el-desarrollo-tecnologico-y-la-innovacion-como-herramientas-para-lograr-el-bienestar-social/
13. 13 Castañeda E. Calidad de vida y cambio: reformas institucionales. Caracas, Venezuela: Conciencia. 1986.
14. 14 Ferrer E. Conservación ambiental. Barquisimeto, Lara: FUDECO. 1994.
15. 15 Brown L, Flavio C, Postel S. La salvación del planeta: cómo luchar por un mundo nuevo. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Sudamérica. 1992.
16. 16 Caride J, Meira P. Educación ambiental y desarrollo humano. Barcelona, España: Ariel. 2001.
17. 17 Fergusson A, Lanz R. El desarrollo sustentable: ¿paradigma de fin de siglo? Revista Venezolana de Economía y Ciencias Sociales. 2001; 3(1): 105-112.
18. 18 Tyler G. Ecología y medio ambiente. México: Iberoamericana. 1994.
19. 19 Savater J. Ética para Amador. Barcelona, España: Ariel. 2000.
20. 20 Escalona J. Hacia una ecología del bienestar. Caracas, Venezuela: FACES-UCV. 1998.
21. 21 Flores C. Calidad de vida y conservación. Estado Sucre: Coord de Publicaciones UDO. 1986.
22. 22 ¿Cuál es el papel de la salud en el desarrollo sostenible? https://amchamcolombia.co/business-mail/ed-178-sostenibilidad-2022/cual-es-el-papel-de-la-salud-en-el-desarrollo-sostenible/
23. 23 La salud, en el centro del desarrollo sostenible - OPS/OMS - PAHO https://www.paho.org/es/noticias/19-6-2012-salud-centro-desarrollo-sostenible
24. 24 Salud - Desarrollo Sostenible https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/es/health/
25. 25 Salud, ambiente y desarrollo sostenible: hacia el futuro que queremos https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/3472/Salud,%20ambiente%20y%20desarrollo%20sotenible%20hacia%20el%20futuro%20que%20queremos%20SDE.pdf
26. 26 Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible y salud https://www.plataforma2030.org/es/objetivos-de-desarrollo-sostenible-y-salud-una-mirada-desde-el-enfoque-de-servicios-de-los-ecosistemas?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=302&element=0da2a8a3-f985-4a8a-9d56-d911e8b03bce&method=download&args%5B0%5D=0
27. 27 Tres casos de éxito sobre la promoción de la salud y el bienestar en la empresa. https://www.observatoriorh.com/personas-y-empresas/tres-casos-de-exito-sobre-la-promocion-de-la-salud-y-el-bienestar-en-la-empresa.html
28. 28 Políticas de salud https://openaccess.uoc.edu/bitstream/10609/76025/3/Pol%C3%ADticas%20de%20salud%20y%20planes%20de%20salud_M%C3%B3dulo%201_Pol%C3%ADticas%20de%20salud.pdf
29. 29 [PDF] La importancia de los determinantes sociales de la salud en las ... https://www.insp.mx/images/stories/Produccion/pdf/131209_determinantesSociales.pdf
30. 30 Salud en el desarrollo humano: escenarios y prioridades. https://iris.paho.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/6208/Salud-en-desarrollo-humano_doc357.pdf?sequence=1
31. 31 Declaración de Adelaida sobre la Salud en Todas las Políticas. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44391/9789243599724_spa.pdf
32. 32 La OPS/OMS aboga por la inversión en salud como motor. PAHO. https://www.paho.org/es/noticias/30-1-2025-opsoms-aboga-por-inversion-salud-como-motor-desarrollo-foro-economico
33. 33 Salud Como Inversión en América Latina | Fifarma https://fifarma.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Salud-Como-Inversion-en-America-Latina-White-Paper.pdf
34. 34 Invertir en la salud universal en la Región de las Américas https://journal.paho.org/es/articulos/invertir-salud-universal-region-americas
35. 35 Análisis de la inversión pública en salud: tendencias, impacto. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/7497/749780131041/html/
36. 36 El gasto en salud debe verse como una inversión para el crecimiento y desarrollo de los países. https://fedefarma.org/noticias/el-gasto-en-salud-debe-verse-como-una-inversion-para-el-crecimiento-y-desarrollo-de-los-paises/
37. 37 Por qué debemos pensar a largo plazo para crear sistemas de salud sostenibles a largo plazo. https://es.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/por-que-debemos-superar-los-ciclos-politicos-y-pensar-los-sistemas-de-salud-sostenibles-a-largo-plazo/
38. 38 CEPAL y OPS llaman a priorizar la inversión en salud para reducir la desigualdad https://www.paho.org/es/noticias/21-10-2024-cepal-ops-llaman-priorizar-inversion-salud-para-reducir-desigualdad-alcanzar
39. 39 Salud y Desigualdad en América Latina y el Caribe: - CEPAL https://www.cepal.org/sites/default/files/presentations/maria_luisa_marinho_panel_1_0.pdf
40. 40 La pobreza, el mayor obstáculo para la salud - Manos Unidas https://www.manosunidas.org/noticia/pobreza-mayor-obstaculo-salud
41. 41 Una reflexión acerca de la pobreza y la salud http://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1315-01382015000100008
42. 42 Las políticas para disminuir las desigualdades en salud http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0213-91112008000500012
43. 43 CEPAL y OPS llaman a priorizar la inversión en salud para reducir la desigualdad https://www.cepal.org/es/comunicados/cepal-ops-llaman-priorizar-la-inversion-salud-reducir-la-desigualdad-alcanzar-ods