Analysis Assessment of Sustainable Well-being in the Italian Regions: An Activity Analysis Model Maria Francesca Cracolici ⁎, Miranda Cuffaro, Valerio Lacagnina Department of Economics, Business and Statistics, V.le delle Scienze Ed. 13, Palermo 90128, Italy abstract article info Article history: Received 1 February 2016 Received in revised form 15 May 2017 Accepted 8 July 2017 Available online xxxx Applying the theoretical framework of productive analysis, the paper proposes an evaluation of regional sustain- able well-being (SWB) in terms of efficiency. By means of an Activity Analysis Model (AA) (Färe et al., 1996), de- sirable and undesirable outcomes of development have been simultaneously used to evaluate the sustainable well-being of Italian regions. Data on equal and sustainable well-being provided by the Italian Statistical Office for the year 2010 has been used. The analysis reveals that only four regions achieve sustainable well-being, balancing socio-economic and environmental outcomes and resources. Finally, the study points out the advan- tages of AA for policy purposes by comparing it to a composite indicator of SWB. © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sustainable well-being Activity Analysis Efficiency 1. Introduction According to the World Commission on Environment and Develop- ment (WCED), ‘sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987, p. 43). This statement epitomizes the combining of the benefits in GDP growth with the environmental and social costs of that growth. This leads to the conclusion that GDP per capita is actually a very limited measure of the level of a country's well-being, because it does not consider the consequences of economic development on the lives of people (e.g. air, sea and water pollution, in- creases in certain rare diseases, congestion, cost of urbanization, and so on); nor does it capture the real-life conditions of populations (UNDP, 1990; Hobijn and Franses, 2001; Neumayer, 2003; Marchante and Ortega, 2006). In other words, growth should be expanded to include both certain costs (i.e. pollution, urban concentration, commuting, etc.) and positive returns (i.e. better health, greater longevity, more lei- sure, less income inequality, etc.). It is opportune, therefore to move away from the concept of (mate- rial) growth, measured by GDP, to that of development. As the World Bank has stated: ‘the basic objective of development is to create an en- abling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives. However, it is often confused in the immediate concern with the accumula- tion of commodities and financial wealth’ (World Bank, 2001). From an operational point of view, these considerations have recent- ly fostered the debate among researchers about how to evaluate sustainability by combining the economic, social and environmental as- pects of human life (see e.g. Pulselli et al., 2006; Distaso, 2007; Floridi et al., 2011; Salvati and Carlucci, 2014). From a theoretical point of view, empirical studies have been based on the basic hypothesis that economic systems contribute to the well- being of people by the production of outputs (e.g. GDP). GDP, among others, is a measure of the ability of a country to provide its inhabitants with the opportunity of enjoying good economic, social, and environ- mental conditions. An increase in per capita GDP is a basic prerequisite for improvements in living standards like better health services, more secure livelihoods, greater access to education, better working condi- tions, security against crime, more satisfying leisure time, a healthy and sustainable environment and so on. In turn, better living standards are a good basis for enhancing productivity with a corresponding effect on GDP. This process implies both the use of inputs, such as labour, cap- ital and natural resources, and the production of negative effects like the increase of waste, air and water pollution, congestion and so forth. Thus, a more in depth framework of well-being should include both economic (material) and social (immaterial) aspects. As shown by Cuffaro et al. (2008), a high level of economic well-being may conflict with a high level of social well-being and while improved economic well-being is deemed necessary, it does not guarantee improvements in the standard of living in terms of a better quality of life. Additionally, a wider approach to the analysis of well-being should also pay attention to the relation between the economic and environ- mental systems. As argued by ecological economists …the economic system is a subsystem of the system which is the envi- ronment. The economy depends upon the environment, what happens in the economy affects the environment, and changes in the environ- ment affect the economy. Regarded as two systems, the economy and Ecological Economics 143 (2018) 105–110 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: mariafrancesca.cracolici@unipa.it (M.F. Cracolici), miranda.cuffaro@unipa.it (M. Cuffaro), valerio.lacagnina@unipa.it (V. Lacagnina). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.010 0921-8009/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon