Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A good life for all within planetary boundaries

Abstract

Humanity faces the challenge of how to achieve a high quality of life for over 7 billion people without destabilizing critical planetary processes. Using indicators designed to measure a ‘safe and just’ development space, we quantify the resource use associated with meeting basic human needs, and compare this to downscaled planetary boundaries for over 150 nations. We find that no country meets basic needs for its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use. Physical needs such as nutrition, sanitation, access to electricity and the elimination of extreme poverty could likely be met for all people without transgressing planetary boundaries. However, the universal achievement of more qualitative goals (for example, high life satisfaction) would require a level of resource use that is 2–6 times the sustainable level, based on current relationships. Strategies to improve physical and social provisioning systems, with a focus on sufficiency and equity, have the potential to move nations towards sustainability, but the challenge remains substantial.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Analytic framework showing the link between planetary processes and human well-being.
Fig. 2: Number of social thresholds achieved versus number of biophysical boundaries transgressed for different countries (scaled by population).
Fig. 3: National performance relative to a ‘safe and just space’ for two countries.
Fig. 4: Estimated level of resource use needed to achieve a sufficient level of performance on each social indicator.

References

  1. 1.

    Raworth, K. A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can We Live Within the Doughnut? (Oxfam, Oxford, UK, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist (Random House, London, 2017).

  3. 3.

    Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hoekstra, A. Y. & Wiedmann, T. O. Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint. Science 344, 1114–1117 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Fang, K., Heijungs, R. & De Snoo, G. R. Understanding the complementary linkages between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a footprint-boundary environmental sustainability assessment framework. Ecol. Econ. 114, 218–226 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Sandin, G., Peters, G. M. & Svanström, M. Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1684–1700 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Häyhä, T., Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., Cornell, S. E. & Hoff, H. From planetary boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space—how can the scales be bridged? Glob. Environ. Chang. 40, 60–72 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Nykvist, B. et al. National Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries. (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Dao, H. et al. Environmental Limits and Swiss Footprints Based on Planetary Boundaries. (UNEP/GRID-Geneva and University of Geneva, Geneva, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hoff, H., Nykvist, B. & Carson, M. Living Well, Within the Limits of Our Planet? Measuring Europe’s Growing External Footprint (Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Cole, M. J., Bailey, R. M. & New, M. G. Tracking sustainable development with a national barometer for South Africa using a downscaled “safe and just space” framework. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, E4399–E4408 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dearing, J. A. et al. Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Chang. 28, 227–238 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Baer, P. The greenhouse development rights framework for global burden sharing: reflection on principles and prospects. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 4, 61–71 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F. & Kallis, G. Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era (Routledge, New York, 2014).

  16. 16.

    Hoekstra, A. Y., Mekonnen, M. M., Chapagain, A. K., Mathews, R. E. & Richter, B. D. Global monthly water scarcity: blue water footprints versus blue water availability. PLoS. ONE 7, e32688 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lenzen, M., Murray, J., Sack, F. & Wiedmann, T. Shared producer and consumer responsibility: theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 61, 27–42 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Max-Neef, M. Human-Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections (Apex, London, 1991).

  19. 19.

    Doyal, L. & Gough, I. A Theory of Human Need (Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, 1991).

  20. 20.

    Gough, I. Climate change and sustainable welfare: the centrality of human needs. Cambr. J. Econ. 39, 1191–1214 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    United Nations Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015).

  22. 22.

    Daly, H. E. Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable. Ecol. Econ. 6, 185–193 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C. & De Groot, R. A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 44, 165–185 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Daly, H. E. Toward a Steady-State Economy (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).

  25. 25.

    Meadows, D. H. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development: A Report to the Balaton Group. (The Sustainability Institute, Hartland, VT, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Fanning, A. L. & O’Neill, D. W. Tracking resource use relative to planetary boundaries in a steady-state framework: a case study of Canada and Spain. Ecol. Indic. 69, 836–849 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    O’Neill, D. W. The proximity of nations to a socially sustainable steady-state economy. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 1213–1231 (2015). Part A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Meadows, D. Leverage points: places to intervene in a system. Solutions 1, 41–49 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Cullen, J. M., Allwood, J. M. & Borgstein, E. H. Reducing energy demand: what are the practical limits? Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 1711–1718 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Jo, T.-H. Social provisioning process and socio-economic modeling. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 70, 1094–1116 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Brand-Correa, L. I. & Steinberger, J. K. A framework for decoupling human need satisfaction from energy use. Ecol. Econ. 141, 43–52 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Steinberger, J. K. & Roberts, J. T. From constraint to sufficiency: the decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975–2005. Ecol. Econ. 70, 425–433 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Lamb, W. F. & Rao, N. D. Human development in a climate-constrained world: what the past says about the future. Glob. Environ. Chang. 33, 14–22 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Knight, K. W. & Rosa, E. A. The environmental efficiency of well-being: a cross-national analysis. Soc. Sci. Res. 40, 931–949 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Hoornweg, D., Hosseini, M., Kennedy, C. & Behdadi, A. An urban approach to planetary boundaries. Ambio 45, 567–580 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H. & Haberl, H. Global human appropriation of net primary production for biomass consumption in the European Union, 1986–2007. J. Ind. Ecol. 19, 825–836 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Running, S. W. A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. Science 337, 1458–1459 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Costanza, R. et al. Quality of life: an approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecol. Econ. 61, 267–276 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    O’Neill, J. Citizenship, well-being and sustainability: Epicurus or Aristotle? Anal. Krit. 28, 158–172 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Haberl, H. et al. Natural and socioeconomic determinants of the embodied human appropriation of net primary production and its relation to other resource use indicators. Ecol. Indic. 23, 222–231 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    United Nations World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, DVD Edition (Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, 2015).

  42. 42.

    Princen, T. The Logic of Sufficiency (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Costanza, R. et al. Time to leave GDP behind. Nature 505, 283–285 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Dietz, R. & O’Neill, D. W. Enough Is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 2013).

  45. 45.

    Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 413–510 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2014).

  46. 46.

    Creutzig, F. et al. The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change. Nat. Energy 2, 17140 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    McGlade, C. & Ekins, P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 517, 187–190 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Polimeni, J. M., Mayumi, K., Giampietro, M. & Alcott, B. The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements (Earthscan, London, 2008).

  49. 49.

    Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R. & Sachs, J. World Happiness Report 2015 (Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2015).

  50. 50.

    Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better (Allen Lane, London, 2009).

  51. 51.

    Grasso, M. Sharing the emission budget. Polit. Stud. 60, 668–686 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Gallup International Association Voice of the People Millennium Survey, 2000 (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009); https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR24661.v1

  53. 53.

    Lenzen, M., Kanemoto, K., Moran, D. & Geschke, A. Mapping the structure of the world economy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 8374–8381 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K. & Geschke, A. Building Eora: a global multi-regional input-output database at high country and sector resolution. Econ. Sys. Res. 25, 20–49 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach 2nd edn (Springer, New York, 2002).

  56. 56.

    World Bank World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2015); http://data.worldbank.org/.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank T. Kastner for providing the eHANPP data used in the analysis, and H. Haberl for his thoughts on the eHANPP results. We are grateful to A. Gouldson, K. Raworth and P. Victor for their helpful comments, and the Barcelona Degrowth Reading Group for further suggestions. D.W.O. was supported by an International Academic Fellowship from the Leverhulme Trust, which permitted research visits at the Centre for Global Studies (University of Victoria) and Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona). A.L.F. was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 752358, while J.K.S. was supported by a Leverhulme Research Leadership Award on 'Living Well Within Limits'.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

D.W.O. designed the study. D.W.O., A.L.F, W.F.L. and J.K.S. assembled the data, performed the analysis and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel W. O’Neill.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

The theoretical framework (text), Supplementary References 1–92, Supplementary Figures 1–3, Supplementary Tables 1–5.

Supplementary Data

Country-level data for the 7 biophysical and 11 social indicators analysed in the Article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Neill, D.W., Fanning, A.L., Lamb, W.F. et al. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat Sustain 1, 88–95 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing