Previous research has shown that no country currently meets the basic needs of its residents at a level of resource use that could be sustainably extended to all people globally. Using the doughnut-shaped ‘safe and just space’ framework, we analyse the historical dynamics of 11 social indicators and 6 biophysical indicators across more than 140 countries from 1992 to 2015. We find that countries tend to transgress biophysical boundaries faster than they achieve social thresholds. The number of countries overshooting biophysical boundaries increased over the period from 32–55% to 50–66%, depending on the indicator. At the same time, the number of countries achieving social thresholds increased for five social indicators (in particular life expectancy and educational enrolment), decreased for two indicators (social support and equality) and showed little change for the remaining four indicators. We also calculate ‘business-as-usual’ projections to 2050, which suggest deep transformations are needed to safeguard human and planetary health. Current trends will only deepen the ecological crisis while failing to eliminate social shortfalls.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Nature Communications Open Access 26 August 2022
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The data produced in the analysis are included in the Supplementary Information accompanying this article. The data are also available via an interactive website (https://goodlife.leeds.ac.uk), which allows users to query the dataset, generate visualizations and produce doughnut plots similar to Fig. 5 for all countries.
The R code used to generate the results is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Raworth, K. A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st century. Lancet Planet. Health 1, e48–e49 (2017).
O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F. & Steinberger, J. K. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 1, 88–95 (2018).
Rockström, J. et al. Identifying a safe and just corridor for people and the planet. Earth’s Future 9, e2020EF001866 (2021).
Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UNGA, 2015); http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E
Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist (Random House Business, 2017).
Hoornweg, D., Hosseini, M., Kennedy, C. & Behdadi, A. An urban approach to planetary boundaries. Ambio 45, 567–580 (2016).
Fanning, A. L. et al. Creating City Portraits: A Methodological Guide from the Thriving Cities Initiative (Thriving Cities Initiative, 2020); http://doughnuteconomics.org/Creating-City-Portraits-Methodology.pdf
Cooper, G. S. & Dearing, J. A. Modelling future safe and just operating spaces in regional social-ecological systems. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 2105–2117 (2019).
Turner, R. et al. Towards a Sustainable Cornwall: State of the Doughnut (Environment and Sustainability Institute, 2020); https://www.exeter.ac.uk/esi/research/projects/impact-towardsasustainablecornwall/
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).
Roy, A. & Pramanick, K. in Handbook of Environmental Materials Management (ed. Hussain, C. M.) 1–32 (Springer, 2020); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_210-1
Lamb, W. F. et al. Transitions in pathways of human development and carbon emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 014011 (2014).
Fanning, A. L. & O’Neill, D. W. The wellbeing–consumption paradox: happiness, health, income, and carbon emissions in growing versus non-growing economies. J. Clean. Prod. 212, 810–821 (2019).
Oswald, Y., Owen, A. & Steinberger, J. K. Large inequality in international and intranational energy footprints between income groups and across consumption categories. Nat. Energy 5, 231–239 (2020).
Vogel, J., Steinberger, J. K., O’Neill, D. W., Lamb, W. F. & Krishnakumar, J. Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use: an international analysis of social provisioning. Glob. Environ. Change https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102287 (2021).
Baltruszewicz, M. et al. Household final energy footprints in Nepal, Vietnam and Zambia: composition, inequality and links to well-being. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 025011 (2021).
Wackernagel, M., Hanscom, L. & Lin, D. Making the sustainable development goals consistent with sustainability. Front. Energy Res. 5, 18 (2017).
Knight, K. W. & Rosa, E. A. The environmental efficiency of well-being: a cross-national analysis. Soc. Sci. Res. 40, 931–949 (2011).
Abdallah, S., Thompson, S., Michaelson, J., Marks, N. & Steuer, N. The Happy Planet Index 2.0: Why Good Lives Don’t Have to Cost the Earth (New Economics Foundation, 2009); https://neweconomics.org/uploads/files/08f0708bcd8da25563_0n8m6j8bw.pdf
Steinberger, J. K., Lamb, W. F. & Sakai, M. Your money or your life? The carbon–development paradox. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 044016 (2020).
Randers, J. et al. Achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals within 9 planetary boundaries. Glob. Sustain. 2, e24 (2019).
Riahi, K. et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
D’Alessandro, S., Cieplinski, A., Distefano, T. & Dittmer, K. Feasible alternatives to green growth. Nat. Sustain. 3, 329–335 (2020).
Millward-Hopkins, J., Steinberger, J. K., Rao, N. D. & Oswald, Y. Providing decent living with minimum energy: a global scenario. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102168 (2020).
Rao, N. D., Min, J. & Mastrucci, A. Energy requirements for decent living in India, Brazil and South Africa. Nat. Energy 4, 1025–1032 (2019).
Gough, I. Defining floors and ceilings: the contribution of human needs theory. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 16, 208–219 (2020).
Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T. & Steinberger, J. K. Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat. Commun. 11, 3107 (2020).
Oswald, Y., Steinberger, J. K., Ivanova, D. & Millward-Hopkins, J. Global redistribution of income and household energy footprints: a computational thought experiment. Glob. Sustain. 4, e4 (2021).
Brand-Correa, L. I., Mattioli, G., Lamb, W. F. & Steinberger, J. K. Understanding (and tackling) need satisfier escalation. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 16, 309–325 (2020).
Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. Water Use and Stress (Our World in Data, 2017).
Hickel, J. Is it possible to achieve a good life for all within planetary boundaries? Third World Q. 40, 18–35 (2019).
Bouwman, A. F. et al. Lessons from temporal and spatial patterns in global use of N and P fertilizer on cropland. Sci. Rep. 7, 40366 (2017).
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 3 (IPCC, WMO, 2018).
Wackernagel, M. et al. The importance of resource security for poverty eradication. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00708-4 (2021).
Whitmee, S. et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 386, 1973–2028 (2015).
Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth system in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8252–8259 (2018).
Roberts, J. T. et al. Four agendas for research and policy on emissions mitigation and well-being. Glob. Sustain. 3, e3 (2020).
Hickel, J. & Kallis, G. Is green growth possible? New Polit. Econ. 25, 469–486 (2020).
Stratford, B. & O’Neill, D. W. The UK’s Path to a Doughnut-Shaped Recovery (Univ. Leeds, 2020); https://goodlife.leeds.ac.uk/doughnut-shaped-recovery
Hickel, J. Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World (Penguin, 2021).
Pirgmaier, E. & Steinberger, J. K. Roots, riots, and radical change—a road less travelled for ecological economics. Sustainability 11, 2001 (2019).
Stratford, B. The threat of rent extraction in a resource-constrained future. Ecol. Econ. 169, 106524 (2020).
Fanning, A. L., O’Neill, D. W. & Büchs, M. Provisioning systems for a good life within planetary boundaries. Glob. Environ. Change 64, 102135 (2020).
Hickel, J., Sullivan, D. & Zoomkawala, H. Plunder in the post-colonial era: quantifying drain from the global south through unequal exchange, 1960–2018. New Polit. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2021.1899153 (2021).
Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).
Sachs, J. D. et al. Six transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 805–814 (2019).
Kallis, G. et al. Research on degrowth. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 291–316 (2018).
Jackson, T. The post-growth challenge: secular stagnation, inequality and the limits to growth. Ecol. Econ. 156, 236–246 (2019).
Hardt, L. & O’Neill, D. W. Ecological macroeconomic models: assessing current developments. Ecol. Econ. 134, 198–211 (2017).
Daly, H. E. Toward a Steady-State Economy (W. H. Freeman, 1973).
Doyal, L. & Gough, I. A Theory of Human Need (Red Globe Press, 1991).
Gough, I. Universal basic services: a theoretical and moral framework. Polit. Q. 90, 534–542 (2019).
Mattioli, G., Roberts, C., Steinberger, J. K. & Brown, A. The political economy of car dependence: a systems of provision approach. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 66, 101486 (2020).
Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K. & Geschke, A. Building Eora: a global multi-region input–output database at high country and sector resolution. Econ. Syst. Res. 25, 20–49 (2013).
Lucas, P. L., Wilting, H. C., Hof, A. F. & van Vuuren, D. P. Allocating planetary boundaries to large economies: distributional consequences of alternative perspectives on distributive fairness. Glob. Environ. Change 60, 102017 (2020).
Wugt Larsen, F. & Lung, T. Is Europe Living Within the Limits of Our Planet? Report No. 01/2020 (EEA, 2020); https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/is-europe-living-within-the-planets-limits
Hickel, J. Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary. Lancet Planet. Health 4, e399–e404 (2020).
World Population Prospects 2019 (UN Population Division, 2020); https://population.un.org/wpp/
Oita, A. et al. Substantial nitrogen pollution embedded in international trade. Nat. Geosci. 9, 111–115 (2016).
Roux, N., Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H. & Haberl, H. Does agricultural trade reduce pressure on land ecosystems? Decomposing drivers of the embodied human appropriation of net primary production. Ecol. Econ. 181, 106915 (2021).
Galli, A. et al. Questioning the ecological footprint. Ecol. Indic. 69, 224–232 (2016).
Dearing, J. A. et al. Safe and just operating spaces for regional social–ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 227–238 (2014).
Edward, P. & Sumner, A. in Sustainable Development Goals and Income Inequality (eds van Bergeijk, P. A. G. & van der Hoeven, R.) Ch 5 (Edward Elgar, 2017).
Reddy, S. G. & Pogge, T. How Not to Count the Poor (Inititative for Policy Dialogue, 2009); https://doi.org/10.7916/D8P274ZS
Allen, R. C. Poverty and the labor market: today and yesterday. Annu. Rev. Econ. 12, 107–134 (2020).
Moatsos, M. Global absolute poverty: behind the veil of dollars. J. Glob. Devel. 7, 20160033 (2017).
Allen, R. C. Absolute poverty: when necessity displaces desire. Am. Econ. Rev. 107, 3690–3721 (2017).
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).
Hyndman, R. J. & Khandakar, Y. Automatic time series forecasting: the forecast package for R. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v027.i03 (2008).
Hyndman, R. J. & Athanasopoulos, G. Forecasting: Principles and Practice (OTexts, 2019).
Wiedmann, T. & Lenzen, M. Environmental and social footprints of international trade. Nat. Geosci. 11, 314–321 (2018).
We are grateful to K. Raworth, J. K. Steinberger and M. Wackernagel for their kind reviews and constructive comments on earlier drafts. A.L.F. was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 752358. N.R. was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 765408. This research was further supported by funding from Research England’s QR Strategic Priorities Fund and an ESRC Impact Acceleration Account.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Luca Coscieme, Kai Fang and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended Data Fig. 1 Average number of biophysical boundaries respected and social thresholds achieved per country (1992–2015).
Average values are calculated from the sample of countries with data for all six biophysical indicators, and at least 9 of the 10 social indicators that span the analysis period (N = 91). Ideally, countries would achieve all social thresholds while respecting all biophysical boundaries, as indicated by the “Safe and Just Space” line at the top of the figure.
Supplementary Discussion and Tables 1 and 2.
This spreadsheet contains the country-level data for the 6 biophysical and 11 social indicators generated in our analysis. The data include historical observations (1992–2015), and business-as-usual (BAU) projections (2016–2050) with 66% upper and lower confidence intervals.
About this article
Cite this article
Fanning, A.L., O’Neill, D.W., Hickel, J. et al. The social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations. Nat Sustain 5, 26–36 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00799-z
Nature Communications (2022)
Nature Sustainability (2022)