Thailand has experienced strong economic growth in recent decades. Indeed, by 2011, Thailand had gained the status of an upper-middle income country (Gil Sander and Burgard 2011). In 2019, the gross domestic product (GDP) of Thailand amounted to US$543.7 billion, which made it the second-largest economy in Southeast Asia, and the eighth-largest economy in Asia (World Bank 2019). Despite these positive changes in the national economy, gains in the levels of human development in Thailand have been inconsistent over time and across population subgroups. Moreover, the levels of development in different locations of the country have varied (Yang et al. 2020). In particular, the provinces in the north and north-eastern regions are notably poorer than other parts of the country. For example, from 2011 to 2013, Bangkok experienced annual economic growth of 10%, while the north and north-eastern regions had growth rates below 5%. In addition, while consumption growth has been increasing in the poorer regions, income growth has remained unchanged (Yang et al. 2020). When assessing growth and development in a given society, GDP offers some information, but it has limitations, as it only measures national aggregates, while failing to account for non-economic determinants of human development (Stiglitz et al. 2010).

Over the past 50 years, a wide range of well-being indices have been introduced to assist policymakers seeking to improve the quality of human life and contribute to the broader discussion of what constitutes sustainable development. These indices include the Better Life Index from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Ecological Footprint (EF), the Global Well-Being Index (GWI), the Happy Planet Index (HPI), the Human Development Index (HDI) and the Sustainable Society Index (SSI), to mention a few (Mclean 2014; Strezov et al. 2017). This wide variety of indices points to differences in the understanding of quality of life based on the country context and/or the agency’s objectives (Mclean 2014), and signals the need for a more holistic approach to studying well-being.

Most of these indices look beyond the measurement of GDP, and devote more attention to a broader spectrum of social and ecological issues, including the sustainability of social and natural capital and good governance (i.e., OECD Better Life Index, Social Progress Index, Happy Planet Index). The OECD Better Life Index, for example, integrates multiple dimensions of well-being through an interactive online interface, which allows the user to choose from 11 domains, ranging from current conditions in housing to life satisfaction and work-life balance. Although these indices cover dimensions relevant for human well-being beyond simple economic growth, using them to measure well-being has certain disadvantages. As various commodities and technological regimes can change across places and over time, the nature of the determinants included in human development indices can also change, and may thus become difficult to compare (Dasgupta 2004).

There are also indices that completely ignore economic factors, such as the Happy Planet Index, which combines information on mortality and life satisfaction in different countries with data on their respective ecological footprints. While mortality and stated life satisfaction are measures of current well-being, a country’s ecological footprint is not directly reflected in its current conditions, but instead measures possible impacts on future well-being. Therefore, this index has a dual function that makes its direct interpretation difficult.

While each of these proposed indices covers various aspects of human well-being, there is an increasing recognition that quality of life measures should place more emphasis on the conditions experienced by people at the individual and household levels, rather than on the performance of economic systems at the macro level (Veneri and Edzes 2017). Highly aggregated indicators conceal large inequalities in the distribution of well-being within a society. Utilising individual characteristics aggregated at the subpopulation level can help to overcome the aforementioned limitations of national-level indicators (Mascarenhas et al. 2010). This is particularly important when considering well-being from a sustainability science perspective. Thus, the objective of “leaving no one behind” can be realised by recognising the social gradients in well-being determined by gender and urban-rural residence, among other factors.

In addition, these improved indices should acknowledge the multidimensional nature of human well-being. The academic literature has recognised that no single measure can capture all aspects of human well-being (Chakravarty 2017), and has yet to agree on its most important dimensions. A related point is that different cultures may have different understandings of what constitutes a good life.

Efforts have been made to apply the different aspects of the aforementioned human development indices in the context of Thailand, and thus to move beyond an exclusive focus on economic growth. A study that aimed to describe well-being at the local level was conducted in the north-eastern and southern regions of Thailand (McGregor 2008). In the study, several qualitative and quantitative techniques were used to assess the profile of each community, including its quality of life, expenditures, resources, health and well-being regime. However, a major limitation of the study’s approach was its lack of applicability to other communities, or even to countries. Another study aimed to formulate indicators of development based on focus group discussions with local community leaders in the north-eastern region of Thailand (Weeranakin and Promphakping 2018). The result was the identification of a set of themes, such as community trust, well-being, security and strength. However, no further attempts were made to achieve universal applicability. In addition, the methods of analysis used in both studies were intrinsically subjective because they involved qualitative assessments made by researchers.

Thus, several issues concerning the use of the existing human development measures have been raised. To gather information about the various aspects that contribute to human well-being, indices must be constructed to ensure that they reflect how the lives of the people in a given society are improving. However, indices that use aggregated indicators to capture a complex reality face limitations and challenges. From a methodological perspective, the weights assigned to indicators in some of these indices are arbitrary (Lorenz et al. 2017). Thus, the values reported for different populations can be difficult to compare. Moreover, when looking at the temporal comparability of these indices, it is clear that the selected indicators and how they are computed may change over time, which can cause the values of a given index to be different in each period (Ghislandi et al. 2019).

The preference for using objective or subjective indicators constitutes another rift in the academic literature on well-being (Easterlin 1974; Diener et al. 1999, 2017; Kahneman 1999). While some scholars have pointed out the cultural and other sources of bias in self-reported measures, such as life satisfaction and happiness, proponents of subjective measures have argued that individuals are best equipped to evaluate their own life circumstances (Frey and Stutzer 2002). Moreover, subjective measures can capture aspects of well-being that are important to individuals, but that may not be seen as such by external evaluators. However, the use of objective or subjective measures need not be mutually exclusive (Lutz et al. 2021).

The rest of this paper focuses on a new and improved well-being indicator, Years of Good Life (YoGL), which was recently introduced by researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Lutz et al. 2018, 2021). This indicator addresses the shortcomings of the existing well-being measures discussed above, as it is based on individual-level data that can be flexibly aggregated at the subpopulation level; it is designed to be comparable over time; and it is based on universally shared values. Another advantage of the YoGL indicator is that unlike more abstract indices, it can be interpreted directly. It also allows researchers to assess objective and subjective dimensions of well-being, without involving arbitrary weights.

The YoGL indicator rests on the notion that while being alive is a prerequisite for having any quality of life, mere survival is not enough. Using a demographic life table approach, the indicator adjusts overall life expectancy by counting only the number of years in which individuals have a positive score in each of the following four dimensions: (1) being physically healthy; (2) being cognitively able; (3) being out of poverty; and (4) being subjectively satisfied with life. Each of the four dimensions is captured by a single indicator. The YoGL project builds on the existing work on “Healthy Life Expectancy” (Salomon et al. 2012), and provides a more holistic representation of well-being over the life span. A detailed discussion of YoGL and its dimensions is available in Lutz et al. (2021).

In this paper, we present a practical example of how YoGL can be calculated in the context of two Thai provinces, Chiang Rai and Kalasin, which are located in the northern and the north-eastern regions, respectively. Previous studies have shown that these two locations have experienced above-average rates of poverty in recent decades (McGregor 2008; Weeranakin and Promphakping 2018; Yang et al. 2020). Given the level of development Thailand has achieved based on national-level measures, it is important to understand how progress varies at the subnational level, especially in areas where poverty and other social challenges persist. To this end, data were collected for each of the four YoGL dimensions, and were then applied to a life table by adjusting the age- and sex-specific person-years lived within the population by the share of people who had positive scores in all four dimensions. We also discuss alternative measures for each of the four dimensions of well-being, and we present the YoGL results based on a set of preferred indicators.

As was mentioned above, the YoGL indicator has four dimensions that can be subsumed under two main themes: capable longevity and years with positive life satisfaction (Lutz et al. 2021). Capable longevity is measured based on objectively assessable criteria of what constitutes a good life that reflect the three capabilities of basic health, basic material subsistence and cognitive functioning (Desai et al. 1992). These three components are in line with the general approach that was employed in the Human Development Index. However, for the purposes of measuring YoGL, the conceptualisation and operationalisation of these components were refined (Lutz et al. 2021). One of the core dimensions of YoGL is physical health, and, in particular, having no severe activity limitations. Asking a person about his/her difficulties in activities of daily living (ADLs) or testing his/her physical performance limitations, such as getting up from a chair or walking, can provide an objective approximation of the person’s overall health (Weber 2016). Cognitive abilities represent another dimension of YoGL that, like health, declines with age. Cognitive abilities can be assessed through standard numeracy and literacy tests. It should be emphasised that a person’s cognitive abilities are not the same as his/her educational attainment. Being out of poverty is the third objective dimension of YoGL, which measures the economic aspects of well-being. An absolute measure of poverty is preferred to a relative measure that reflects social inequalities. Household assets can be used as a proxy for material living conditions, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where individual reporting on income is less reliable (Lok-Dessallien 2000). The final dimension of YoGL is life satisfaction, which is assessed through an individual’s perception of his/her own life. Whether the four proposed indicators are adequate to measure human well-being has yet to be determined in a series of simultaneous studies.

The rest of this paper is organised as follows: In Section 2, we describe the survey design and data collection in the context of two Thai provinces. The results of the survey are presented in Section 3, along with a practical example of how YoGL can be calculated. Section 4 concludes.

As the economy of Thailand continues to grow, it is often assumed that human development in the country has been increasing as well. But because this perspective masks the heterogeneity of the population, the varying levels of poverty experienced by people with different characteristics are not granted sufficient attention. We addressed this issue by utilising the YoGL as a well-being indicator. Gathering data from Chiang Rai and Kalasin, which are located in regions of the country with a high prevalence of poverty, we demonstrated the extent to which social and economic indicators contributed to years of good life among a sample of men and women.

The application of YoGL as a well-being indicator was demonstrated in this study based on survey data collected from two province in Thailand. This “bottom-up” approach to measuring human well-being is flexible, and can easily be applied to different development contexts and population subgroups. While the sample used in this study was sufficient for the purposes of this project, its generalisability is limited. The collection of larger samples would allow for more in-depth comparisons to be made across population subgroups. In this paper, we demonstrated how YoGL can be used to compare the well-being of men and women. This approach can also be used to investigate heterogeneities based on level of education, residence status and occupational status, among many other characteristics. The techniques used to construct YoGL allow for such comparisons to be made between population subgroups and over time. Moreover, the individual constituents of YoGL can be examined to determine the sources of these heterogeneities.

Part A

Item	Questions	Label	Skip to
A1	Time of interview.......................................hours.......................................minutes ...................
A2	Sex (Interviewer’s observation)	Male.......................................1 Female.......................................2
A3	Where were you born?	Province.................................. Country.................................. Was born here.....................77
A4	How long have you lived in this community?	..................................years Don’t know.....................999
A5	When is your birthday?	Month..................................................Don’t know.....................99 Year .......................................... Don’t know.....................9999
A6	How old are you?	Age................................years...............
A7	At present, can you read? (At least one language including Braille)	Cannot read at all.........................0 Can read with difficulty.........................1 Can read without any problems.........................2
A8	At present, can you write? (At least one language including Braille)	Cannot write at all.........................0 Can write with difficulty.........................1 Can write without any problems.........................2
A9	Highest educational qualification	Never been to school.........................000 Level................................
A10	Marital status	Single (never married)................................1 Married and living together with spouse .........................2 Married but spouse not living in the household .........................3 Widow/Widower.........................4 Divorced.........................5 Separated.........................6	Skip to A13
A11	How many living children do you currently have?	None .........................0 Number of Children................................ NA (single).........................7777
A12	Any sons or daughters who have died	No children have died.........................0 Number of children who have died ..................................... NA (single).........................7777
A13	What is your main occupation?	Currently not working......................... 0 Studying ......................... 1 Please specify occupation .........................................................................	Skip to B1
			Skip to B1
A14	Working status	Employer.........................1 Self-employed.........................2 Family business.........................3 Public sector employee.........................4 State enterprise employee.........................5 Private sector employee.........................6 Temporary employee.........................7 Member of cooperative.........................8 Not able to specify working status...............9 Other (specify).........................10

Part B

Item	Questions	Label	Skip to
B1	Chair rise (Please Test)	Extreme or cannot do.........................1 Able to do with assistance.........................2 None of difficulty.........................3 Refuse to do the test.........................7

Item	In the past 30 days, how much difficulty did you have in: Please choose the appropriate answers below:	None	Able to do with assistance	Extreme or cannot do	NA
B2	Standing for long periods such as 30 minutes	3	2	1	7
B3	Walking a long distance such as a kilometer [or equivalent]	3	2	1	7
B4	Washing your whole body	3	2	1	7
B5	Getting dressed	3	2	1	7
B6	Taking care of your household responsibilities	3	2	1	7
B7	Joining in community activities (for example, festivities, religious, or other activities) in the same way as anyone else can	3	2	1	7
B8	Concentrating on doing something for 10 minutes	3	2	1	7
B9	Dealing with people you do not know	3	2	1	7
B10	Maintaining a friendship	3	2	1	7
B11	Your day-to-day work/school	3	2	1	7
B12	Learning a new task, for example, learning how to get to a new place	3	2	1	7
B13	How much have you been emotionally affected by your health problems	3	2	1	7

Item	Questions	Label	Skip to
B14	For at least the past six months, to what extent have you been limited because of a health problem in activities people usually do?	Severely limited.........................1 Limited but not severely.........................2 Not limited at all.........................3
B15	Could you tell us until which age do you think you will live?	Will live until.........................years Don’t know.........................9 Up to god.........................1 No one know when he/she will die.....................2

Part C

Item	Questions	Label	Skip to
C1	Now I would like you to read this sentence to me.	Cannot read at all.........................0 Able to read part of the sentence.........................1 Able to read almost the whole sentence .........................2 Able to read the whole sentence.........................3 Refuse to read.........................8 Blind/visually impaired.........................9	Skip to D1
			Skip to D1
			Skip to D1

Part C1

	Rice farming is a hard work.
	The student passed the exam with an excellent score.
	After he finished work, he went to bed.

Item	Question	Label	Skip to
C4	Circle the word that matches the picture:	car.................................1 hand...............................2 moon.............................3 hair ................................ 4

Item	Read the sentences below. Circle YES if the sentence makes sense. Circle NO if the sentence does not make sense.	No	Yes
C5	A ball has a square shape.	1	2
	The son of my sister is my niece.	1	2
	When the traffic light turns green, cars can go.	1	2
	A bird can fly.	1	2
	A 50 kilograms bag of rice is heavier than a 70 kilograms bag of rice.	1	2

Item	Question	Label
C6	Can you tell me what day of the week it is?	Day of week given correctly...............................1 Day of week given incorrectly/doesn’t know day...............................2

Part D

Item	Questions	Label	Skip to
D1	In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat fewer meals in a day because there was not enough food?	Never ...............................1 Yes ...............................2	Skip to D3
D2	How often did this happen in the past four weeks?	Rarely (once or twice in the past for weeks)....1 Sometimes (three to 10 times in the past for weeks)....2 Often (More than 10 times in the past for weeks) ...............................3
D3	In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat a limited variety of foods due to a lack of resources?	Never...............................1 Yes ...............................2	Skip to D5
D4	How often did this happen in the past four weeks?	Rarely (once or twice in the past for weeks)....1 Sometimes (three to 10 times in the past for weeks)....2 Often (More than 10 times in the past for weeks)...............................3
D5	In the past 12 months, how much did you earn in all of your jobs? (including non-monetary income)	...............................Bahts per day Working ..................... days per month ...............................Bahts per month ...............................Bahts per year
D6	Do you think that your total income is enough for a living?	More than enough...............................1 Enough ...............................2 Sometimes enough...............................3 Not enough ...............................4
D7	Do you have a welfare card (low-income card)?	No ...............................1 Yes ...............................2
D8	How is the current financial situation of your household?	Very bad...............................1 Bad ...............................2 Neither good nor bad ...............................3 Good ...............................4 Very good ...............................5
D9	Compared to the past five years (2013), did the financial situation of your household get...?	Much worse ...............................1 Worse ...............................2 Styed the same ...............................3 Better ...............................4 Much better ...............................5

Part F

Using the 1–5 scale below, indicate your agreement with each item by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding that item. Please be open and honest in your responding.

Table A.1

	Health	Cognition	Out of poverty	Life satisfaction
Note: Indicators that are different from the main specification are marked in grey.
Main YoGL	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Can read a full sentence	Does not skip meals	Reports life satisfaction score of five or higher
Sensitivity 1	Can stand up from a chair with assistance	Can read a full sentence	Does not skip meals	Reports life satisfaction score of five or higher
Sensitivity 2	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Can read parts of a sentence	Does not skip meals	Reports life satisfaction score of five or higher
Sensitivity 3	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Can read a full sentence	Does not skip meals	Reports life satisfaction score of four or higher
Sensitivity 4	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Can read a full sentence	Does not skip meals	Reports life satisfaction score of six or higher
Sensitivity 5	Positive scores on all five-item ADLs	Can read a full sentence	Does not skip meals	Reports life satisfaction score of five or higher
Sensitivity 6	Positive scores on all 12-item ADLs	Can read a full sentence	Does not skip meals	Reports life satisfaction score of five or higher
Sensitivity 7	GALI: does not report severe limitation	Can read a full sentence	Does not skip meals	Reports life satisfaction score of five or higher
Sensitivity 8	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Reports being able to read without difficulty	Does not skip meals	Reports life satisfaction score of five or higher
Sensitivity 9	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Reports being able to write without difficulty	Does not skip meals	Reports life satisfaction score of five or higher
Sensitivity 10	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Able to answer correctly all reading with understanding questions	Does not skip meals	Reports life satisfaction score of five or higher
Sensitivity 11	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Can read a full sentence	Does not limit variety of foods due to a lack of resources	Reports life satisfaction score of five or higher
Sensitivity 12	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Can read a full sentence	Does not own a welfare card	Reports life satisfaction score of five or higher
Sensitivity 13	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Can read a full sentence	Flush toilet available in the house	Reports life satisfaction score of five or higher
Sensitivity 14	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Can read a full sentence	Does not skip meals	Life close to ideal (reports score of three or higher)
Sensitivity 15	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Can read a full sentence	Does not skip meals	Satisfied with life (reports score of three or higher)
Sensitivity 16	Can stand up from a chair without assistance	Can read a full sentence	Does not skip meals	Would change almost nothing in life (reports score of three or higher)

Table A.2

Sex	Age group	YoGL	Healthy	Cognitively able	Satisfied	Out of poverty
Female	20	0.76	1	0.76	1	0.9
Female	25	0.73	1	0.87	0.93	0.83
Female	30	0.72	1	0.84	0.94	0.91
Female	35	0.53	1	0.74	0.95	0.77
Female	40	0.56	1	0.67	1	0.85
Female	45	0.42	1	0.52	0.96	0.81
Female	50	0.36	0.98	0.43	0.92	0.81
Female	55	0.31	0.97	0.39	0.94	0.81
Female	60	0.29	0.97	0.31	0.98	0.91
Female	65	0.14	0.95	0.17	0.9	0.8
Female	70	0.18	0.82	0.21	0.94	0.82
Female	75	0.24	0.83	0.29	0.95	0.93
Female	85	0.24	0.83	0.29	0.95	0.93
Female	80	0.24	0.83	0.29	0.95	0.93
Male	20	0.6	1	0.7	1	0.9
Male	25	0.91	0.91	0.91	1	1
Male	30	0.67	1	0.67	1	0.83
Male	35	0.79	0.93	0.93	1	0.79
Male	40	0.67	1	0.79	1	0.83
Male	45	0.31	1	0.47	0.87	0.73
Male	50	0.5	0.91	0.71	0.94	0.79
Male	55	0.5	0.98	0.57	0.93	0.91
Male	60	0.33	1	0.43	0.92	0.82
Male	65	0.42	1	0.45	1	0.81
Male	70	0.52	1	0.57	0.96	0.87
Male	75	0.19	0.9	0.24	1	0.71
Male	85	0.19	0.9	0.24	1	0.71
Male	80	0.19	0.9	0.24	1	0.71