Indicators of well-being and co-benefits of sobriety — Final report

📜🔗LINK to the source

1. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY

🧭 A poorly accepted sobriety, a link with well-being never documented

The report starts from a political observation: sobriety actions are poorly known, poorly implemented and perceived negatively by territorial actors, as they clash with consumerist culture (p. 8). However, the IPCC defines sobriety policies as a set of measures avoiding demand for energy, materials, land and water while ensuring the well-being of all in respect of planetary boundaries — six of which have already been exceeded (p. 8). The identified problem is a documentary gap: no literature review existed to uncover the social and environmental co-benefits of a sober lifestyle. The targeted audiences are twofold: territorial public decision-makers and action-research communities. The question posed is straightforward: is well-being associated with sobriety, and what dimensions of well-being are its levers? (p. 9)

🛠️ What the document provides: analytical frameworks, mapping, blind spots

The study scrutinises 16 French and international initiatives (p. 35-36) and provides three contributions. First, an operational vocabulary: the distinction between needs / response strategies derived from Max-Neef, with five types of responses — destructive, pseudo-response, inhibiting, univocal, synergistic — the synergistic response corresponding precisely to the co-benefit (p. 32-33). Next, a mapping matrix (table 6, p. 79-80) crossing 23 criteria for well-being and indicating, case by case, which approach documents which co-benefit — this is the most directly usable tool from the report. Finally, an honest mapping of the grey areas: difficulty in integrating socio-ecological inequalities, invisible survey populations, and a near-general absence of maximum thresholds (p. 60, 70). The 17 identity sheets (p. 109-170) document each approach: method, type of data, intended use and actual use.

2. KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT

1. Well-being relies on practices with a low material footprint — but with a required base of resources (p. 71-77). All the experiences studied integrate at least one dimension related to social ties. In the SPIRAL grid, stabilised participatively across hundreds of territories, 7 of the 9 dimensions of well-being are non-material; only the “means of living” and the “living environment” have a material footprint (p. 73). The ADEME/ObSoCo 2024 Barometer confirms on the opinion side: for 70% of the French, well-being does not oppose sobriety, but only 7% believe they can reduce their purchasing power without harming their quality of life (p. 71). The gap between these two figures is the heart of the political problem.

2. Classic social indicators describe the system, not the lived experience (p. 43). Exemplary demonstration with IBEST in Grenoble: the CMU-C coverage, often used in urban policy as a proxy for difficulties in accessing care, proves to be uncorrelated with actual non-use. The best-covered areas are not those with the highest number of people in poor health who are not receiving medical follow-up — which reflects the effectiveness of the system, never interpreted as such. A point directly transposable to any local diagnosis.

3. The method of construction determines the result (p. 65-67). Participatory approaches bring forth dimensions that expert approaches do not anticipate: in Gironde, residents placed the "ability to feed oneself" as future challenge no. 1; in Grenoble, citizen opinion brought forth "self-assertion and commitment" — surprising elected officials and professionals. A comparative study of European citizen assemblies on climate shows that sufficiency policies are 3 to 6 times more present there than in national energy-climate plans (Lage et al., 2023, p. 66).

4. Inequalities are the central barrier, not behaviours (p. 77 and p. 70). Inequalities erode community, trust, and respect for norms — conditions for collective action. Wilkinson and Pickett show across 22 countries that health, education, and social issues are not correlated with GDP per capita, but are significantly correlated with income inequalities. Symmetrically, approaches struggle to reach the most precarious audiences: online or telephone surveys poorly reach people in severe precarity, and the Brussels Donut had to turn to civil society due to a lack of public statistics on water insecurity.

5. The institutional framework conditions the very existence of co-benefits (p. 47-50). Documented examples: the IBEST shows that among those over 65, there is a tension between breaking isolation and car travel, which only has an institutional solution (carpooling, adapted transport); the Brussels-Capital Region has conditioned its subsidies to businesses on compliance with the Donut criteria; Amsterdam has created a label "Made in Amsterdam" that is prioritised in its public purchases. Éloi Laurent, cited p. 48, reminds us that the mortality rate of single people can be two to three times higher than that of people in couples (source INSEE): fighting against isolation is a public health investment.

3. ACTION PATHS FOR LOCAL ACTORS

1. Use table 6 (p. 79-80) as a starting point, not the entire report. It crosses 23 criteria for well-being and indicates in each box the actions that have produced documented results. Example given by the authors: for co-benefits linking housing quality and combating energy poverty, refer to the ISS, IWEPS, and Amsterdam Donut sheets. Point of caution: the table is very incomplete, which in itself is information about the state of knowledge.

2. Requalify territorial diagnostics by confronting administrative indicators and lived data (p. 43, 66-67). Take up the logic of the CMU-C example: never interpret an indicator of recourse to a system as an indicator of need. Table 4 (p. 66) distinguishes the contributions and limitations of data according to their mode of production — existing statistics inform about the conditions of well-being, surveys on its realisation.

3. Adopt the framework of the five types of responses to needs to evaluate an action (p. 32-33). Pass each intervention through the filter: synergistic, univocal, inhibitive, pseudo-response, destructive? A shared garden workshop simultaneously addresses food and leisure (synergistic); food aid alone is univocal. A collective work grid immediately usable in team meetings.

4. Cross tools rather than adopt just one (p. 84-85). The most enlightening initiatives are those that articulate several approaches in the same territory: SDGs + SPIRAL in Gironde, IBEST + Donut + ad hoc surveys in Grenoble, quantitative and qualitative surveys + mappings in Occitanie. A single indicator creates a blind spot.

5. Explicitly plan access for the invisible audiences of surveys (p. 68-70). People without homes, migrants, and those living in very precarious housing are neither represented in the general population nor in participatory mechanisms — except for SPIRAL. The authors refer to the qualitative field component deployed in Occitanie as a model. Clearly identified unmet need: specific tools still need to be built.

6. Anticipate the risk of reproducing inequalities in participatory processes (p. 70, note 84). The report cites Loisel and Rio (2024): participatory approaches can reinforce representation inequalities by not considering the absent, and participatory bodies can be places of power relationship reproduction. Participation does not guarantee procedural justice. To be integrated from the design of the mechanism, not in evaluation.

4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

1. OTTAVIANI Fiona, MERCIER VALERO Lola, Indicators of well-being and sobriety: how to navigate the uses in terms of public policies?, ADEME / Chair Territories in Transition, December 2025, 102 p. Direct and operational follow-up to the analysed report, designed as a non-linear guide for territorial actors. Illuminates about fifteen key uses divided into five areas (support for emerging actions, well-being reference, knowledge, evaluation, management), each addressed according to six questions including "what points of vigilance?". It is the response to the main gap in the 2024 report. 🔗 https://librairie.ademe.fr/societe-et-politiques-publiques/8979-indicateurs-de-bien-vivre-et-sobriete-comment-s-orienter-dans-les-usages-en-termes-de-politiques-publiques-.html (verified — online 19/01/2026)

2. ADEME, L'ObSoCo, Barometer of Sobriety and Lifestyles — 2nd wave, November 2025. Survey of 4,000 people representative of the metropolitan population aged 18 to 75, on six areas (mobility, tourism, food, consumption, digital, housing) and on the representations associated with sobriety. Directly updates the figures cited p. 71 of the analysed report. Thematic summaries and infographics downloadable separately — usable as animation support. 🔗 https://librairie.ademe.fr/societe-et-politiques-publiques/8688-barometre-sobrietes-et-modes-de-vie-2-eme-vague.html (verified)

3. BERTHELOT Marie-Mélaine, CAMBON Marjorie, Health-friendly urban planning. Resource guide, GRAINE Occitanie / Health Promotion Occitanie, November 2025, 20 p. Commented selection intended for health promotion and EEDD professionals, structured in five parts including one dedicated to methodologies and one to intervention tools (games, kits). Bridges the living environment, health-environment co-benefits, and animation practices — a bridge that the ADEME report does not make. 🔗 https://promotion-sante-occitanie.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Bibliographie_Urbanisme-favorable-a-la-sante_202511.pdf (verified)

5. FAQ

1. What does « co-benefit » mean exactly in this report, and how does it differ from a « positive effect »?

The co-benefit corresponds to a synergistic response in the sense of Max-Neef: an action that positively impacts several elements of the needs system at once (p. 33). The authors adopt a systemic and pluralistic approach, breaking away from unidirectional causal modelling and monetary valuation (p. 25-26). The mirror term is « co-benefit » — sometimes written « co-cost » depending on the passages. Response: p. 21-26 and p. 32-33.

2. Does the report prove that sobriety makes you happy?

No, and it explicitly refrains from doing so. It establishes that the key components of well-being are largely non-material (p. 73), thus compatible with sobriety, and that the articulation between social and environmental sustainability remains insufficiently addressed in the studied approaches (p. 90). Hypothesis 3 (p. 36) also highlights that an apparent co-benefit may conceal a suffered deprivation — using a bike due to not being able to own a car. Response: p. 36 and p. 90.

3. How to distinguish chosen sobriety from suffered precariousness in a diagnosis?

The report treats this question as central (p. 43). Classic quantitative indicators may reveal a territory in great difficulty while a fine qualitative analysis uncovers forms of cooperation, empowerment, or « sobriety-sharing ». The authors cite the case of the Cévennes and Couserans. The response is methodological: systematically cross quantitative data and qualitative knowledge of the field. Response: p. 42-44.

4. What approaches are actually transferable to a small structure?

SPIRAL is presented as the most enabling to democratise the subject (p. 85) and as the only one to reach audiences distant from participatory devices (p. 68). It allows for the identification of opportunities to increase well-being with very few resources — the report cites social pharmacies in Greece and neighbourhoods re-greened through citizen action (p. 66). Detailed sheet: p. 160-163.

5. What to do about the fact that no country achieves "living well within the planet's limits"?

The observation is established by the Happy Planet Index (Abdallah et al., 2024) and by the work of the University of Leeds on 150 countries: no country has met the basic needs of its inhabitants while sustainably using resources (p. 73). Some come closer (Vanuatu, Sweden, Costa Rica). In animation, this is an observation to make without turning it into a fatality: the report emphasises the institutional configurations that enable better joint performance. Response: p. 72-73.

6. Does the report set thresholds not to be exceeded?

No, and it precisely documents this shortcoming. Most approaches set minimum thresholds (social floors); maximum thresholds are almost absent, only the VIVE experiment sets one (p. 60). The literature on consumption corridors addresses this issue and recommends a bottom-up definition, based on the real institutional constraints and opportunities of individuals. Response: p. 59-63.

7. Can planetary limits be locally adapted?

Not directly. The report distinguishes the spatialisation (local translation of planetary biophysical data) of the territorialisation (reconstruction of the concept with the actors of the territory), and notes that only the first has actually been attempted, to the detriment of the sociological scope of the concept (p. 62). The approach of the Grand Geneva Donut proposes an articulation at three levels (state of the territory / operational indicators / qualification of public policies). Response: p. 61-63.

6. REWRITING IN PLAIN LANGUAGE

What is this document?

It is a report from ADEME. ADEME is a public agency. It works on ecology.

The report was released in October 2024. It is 170 pages long.

Three researchers wrote it.

What does this report talk about?

The report talks about two things.

The first thing is sobriety. Sobriety means consuming less. It means using less energy. It means using fewer objects.

The second thing is well-being. Well-being means feeling good in your life.

The report poses a simple question.

Can we consume less and still live well?

What the report found

The researchers studied 16 experiences. These experiences come from France and other countries.

Here is what they found.

1. What makes people happy costs little.

People say that the most important thing is:

• to have good relationships with others,
• to help each other,
• having time for oneself,
• being close to nature.
  All these things pollute very little.

2. People agree, but they are afraid.

7 out of 10 French people think you can live well by consuming little.

But very few people are willing to earn less money.

3. Official figures are sometimes wrong.

One example: it was believed that a neighbourhood with a lot of health support was doing poorly.

In fact, it's the opposite. The support works well.

So we also need to talk to the residents. The figures are not enough.

4. Inequalities are the real problem.

When there are many inequalities, people trust each other less.

So they act less together.

It is the inequalities that prevent action for ecology. It is not the people.

5. The rules must change.

An elderly person alone takes their car to see people.

We cannot ask them to stop.

We must first create suitable transport. Otherwise, they stay alone at home.

To remember

Living well and consuming less often go together.

But not everyone can achieve it alone.

We need to change the rules and reduce inequalities.

7. CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES

📖 Literacy. The report itself is difficult to approach — dense, academic, based on demanding theoretical references — but it identifies this issue as an obstacle and recommends designing accessible introductory tools, including a "mural of well-being" (p. 87).

💪 Empowerment. Participatory approaches are described as bringing forth dimensions of well-being that are unexpected by experts, and as enabling the identification of what individuals can enhance themselves with very few resources (p. 65-66).

🗣️ Participation. Several co-construction mechanisms are documented: hybrid forums, citizen opinions, heterogeneous working groups over a year (ISS), residents considered as sociological informants rather than information boxes (p. 82-83).

🤝 Community health. The collective dimension is structurally integrated: the vitality of communities and social protection are highlighted in almost all experiences as joint foundations of well-being and sobriety (p. 78).

⚖️ Ethics. The different ontological and ethical anchors of the approaches are clarified (p. 13-17), and the report assumes its own positioning — virtue ethics, pluralistic, constructivist, and pragmatist stance (p. 26).

✊ Human rights. Equity is treated as a condition and not as an addition: the report reminds us with the IPCC that equity, inclusion, and just transitions allow for deeper societal ambitions (p. 77).

🔗 Intersectorality. The report advocates for a move away from the siloed functioning of public policies and cites the need for new institutional coordinations with stakeholders in food, mobility, and housing (p. 49, p. 89).

🧩 Partnership. Formalised models are described: the Grenoble Obs'Y bringing together 15 partners (p. 83), the Amsterdam Donut Deals engaging partners on at least three social floor issues and one environmental ceiling issue (p. 44).

🚫 Fight against discrimination. The subject is approached from the angle of socio-ecological inequalities and the statistical invisibility of certain groups (homeless people, migrants, slum dwellers, p. 68-70); however, discrimination related to gender, origin, or disability is not specifically addressed — only a mention of women in poor health and modest categories as a public facing multiple difficulties (p. 49).

8. EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE

🔬 Scientific relevance: high.

Identified public sponsor, referenced research contract, clearly located university team. Bibliography of 14 pages (pp. 92-105) mobilising the structuring references of the field (Sen, Nussbaum, Max-Neef, Raworth, Jany-Catrice, Gadrey, Laurent, Chancel, Wilkinson & Pickett) and top-tier international sources (IPCC AR6, IPBES, OECD, Stockholm Resilience Centre). Methodology explained in four steps over six months, with named research sources (Scopus, Medline, Cap Bien Vivre resource centre). Selection criteria for initiatives detailed and exclusions justified — the Happy Planet Index was excluded for having too restrictive a view of well-being (p. 36). The limitations of the study are stated by the authors themselves, which is a marker of rigor.