22
M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska
phenomena, i.e. destabilization and standardization, or connected with the functioning of the individual in post-modern conditions determined by—more or less
visible—neoliberal work and leisure regimes (Bailey and Fernando 2017). These
regimes are impregnated with new technologies, at the forefront of which algorithmization begins to dominate (Margaris et al. 2017) and is often combined with
artificial intelligence (both based on big data).
2 Leisure and the Perspective of Sustainable Development:
Research Opportunities and Constraints
As a result of the changes that have taken place over the years in contemporary
societies, there has been an ever-growing call for rethinking about how societies
persist. One of the first and most cited global documents addressing such a call
was the Brundtland Commission Report (WCED 1987) that proposed an imminent
need for sustainable development, defined as development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: (a) the concept of “needs,” in
particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should
be given; and (b) the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social
organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs (WCED
1987, p. 43).
This understanding of sustainable development is a strategy for improving the
quality of life that encompasses society, the economy and the environment, and it
emphasizes the need for both development and sustainability in and between the
three areas (cf. Duran et al. 2015; Leitao 2018; Lekkai 2020; Vaugeois et al. 2017).
Those researchers of leisure who decided to consider it in the context of sustainable
development (cf. Blackshaw and Long 1998; Hemingway 1999; All 2011, Russel
2014; Ferguson and Alarcon 2015; Law and Wearing 2015) are actively devoted
to understanding and promoting more sustainable behaviors and decision-making
amongst both individuals and communities. Researchers emphasize that leisure has
also been shown to foster socialization, community cohesion, democratic engagement and ultimately, resiliency. Russel (2014) adds that leisure, as with sustainability,
is a complex concept with a contextual meaning depending on the individual, place
or time. Mainly, personal sustainability can be assessed in terms of quality of life,
“an individual’s perception of their position in life, in the context of the culture and
values in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and
concerns” (WHOQOL Group 1995; in Vaugeois et al. 2017, p. 299).
We can conceptualize quality of life through the concept of social welfare (Fig. 1),
i.e., general welfare, which consists of objective determinants as well as subjective
evaluation of physical, productive, material, social, as well as emotional and civil
well-being, carried out according to our values (Baranowski 2019a).
M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska
phenomena, i.e. destabilization and standardization, or connected with the functioning of the individual in post-modern conditions determined by—more or less
visible—neoliberal work and leisure regimes (Bailey and Fernando 2017). These
regimes are impregnated with new technologies, at the forefront of which algorithmization begins to dominate (Margaris et al. 2017) and is often combined with
artificial intelligence (both based on big data).
2 Leisure and the Perspective of Sustainable Development:
Research Opportunities and Constraints
As a result of the changes that have taken place over the years in contemporary
societies, there has been an ever-growing call for rethinking about how societies
persist. One of the first and most cited global documents addressing such a call
was the Brundtland Commission Report (WCED 1987) that proposed an imminent
need for sustainable development, defined as development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: (a) the concept of “needs,” in
particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should
be given; and (b) the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social
organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs (WCED
1987, p. 43).
This understanding of sustainable development is a strategy for improving the
quality of life that encompasses society, the economy and the environment, and it
emphasizes the need for both development and sustainability in and between the
three areas (cf. Duran et al. 2015; Leitao 2018; Lekkai 2020; Vaugeois et al. 2017).
Those researchers of leisure who decided to consider it in the context of sustainable
development (cf. Blackshaw and Long 1998; Hemingway 1999; All 2011, Russel
2014; Ferguson and Alarcon 2015; Law and Wearing 2015) are actively devoted
to understanding and promoting more sustainable behaviors and decision-making
amongst both individuals and communities. Researchers emphasize that leisure has
also been shown to foster socialization, community cohesion, democratic engagement and ultimately, resiliency. Russel (2014) adds that leisure, as with sustainability,
is a complex concept with a contextual meaning depending on the individual, place
or time. Mainly, personal sustainability can be assessed in terms of quality of life,
“an individual’s perception of their position in life, in the context of the culture and
values in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and
concerns” (WHOQOL Group 1995; in Vaugeois et al. 2017, p. 299).
We can conceptualize quality of life through the concept of social welfare (Fig. 1),
i.e., general welfare, which consists of objective determinants as well as subjective
evaluation of physical, productive, material, social, as well as emotional and civil
well-being, carried out according to our values (Baranowski 2019a).