Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
in Global Sustainability Science

Doughnut Hedonism
Can we use the double dividend of alternative hedonism to
get us into the ‘safe and just space’ of the doughnut model?
Submitted by:
Markus Heinz Lilje
Leuphana matriculation number: 3029327
ASU ID: 1212342454
markuslilje@gmail.com
Compeweg 5
21073 Hamburg, Germany
Examined by:
Prof. Dr. David Abson (Erstprüfer, Co-chair)
david.abson@leuphana.de
Leuphana University of Lüneburg
Universitätsallee 1, C11.303
21335 Lüneburg, Germany
Prof. Dr. Tyler DesRoches (Zweitprüfer, Co-chair)
Tyler.Desroches@asu.edu
School of Sustainability
Arizona State University
PO Box 875502
Tempe, AZ 85287-5502, USA
Prof. Dr. Rimjhim Aggarwal (Member of the committee)
Rimjhim.Aggarwal@asu.edu
School of Sustainability
Arizona State University
PO Box 875502
Tempe, AZ 85287-5502, USA

Submitted on: 4 July 2018

Abstract

Globally we are struggling to match the need for development with the
available resources. Kate Raworth’s (2012) developed the idea of a “safe
and just space” as a balance between the planetary boundary approach
and ensuring a level of basic needs satisfaction for everyone. O’Neill et al.
(2018) argue that countries are currently not able to provide their
populations with basic needs without concurrently exceeding planetary
boundary measures. While attempts have been made to get people to
change their habits through moral self-sacrifice, this has not been
successful. Kate Soper (2008) argues that a change towards sustainability
will only be possible if an alternative to high consumption is offered,
without trade-offs in well-being. Technological improvements are often
thought to end up providing solutions to the problem of overconsumption,
but as Jackson (2005) shows convincingly, this is highly unlikely due to
the overwhelming scale of changes required. ‘Alternative hedonism’
(Soper 2008) is a philosophical approach that has been proposed to solve
this dilemma. By changing what humanity pursues to be less focused on
consumption and more linked to community interaction and living healthy,
fulfilling lives, we would simultaneously reduce stress on the globally
limited resources and sinks. By developing and understanding satiation
points – the point beyond which well-being no longer increases because of
increased

consumption

-

affluence

that

wastes

resources

without

improving well-being could be reduced. This paper explores

how

‘alternative hedonism’ and the development of ‘satiation points’ could be
helpful in getting humanity closer to the ‘safe and just space’. The paper
concludes with a discussion of some of the challenges that taking up of
‘alternative hedonism’ would entail.

i

Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................... i
Introduction .................................................................................... 1
Raworth's doughnut model ................................................................ 7
Satisfaction, satiation and well-being ................................................ 10
Do improvements in well-being come at environmental costs .............. 12
Alternative hedonism ...................................................................... 13
Energy, income and nutrition as examples...................................... 17
Energy .............................................................................. 17
Income .............................................................................. 19
Nutrition ............................................................................ 20
What tradeoff? ............................................................................... 22
Problems with this solution .............................................................. 24
Conclusion .................................................................................... 27
Publication bibliography .................................................................. 28
Eidesstattliche Erklärung ................................................................. 33

List of Tables
Table 1 – Raworth’s 11 social dimensions and threshold values..............................................8

List of Figures
Figure 1 – Raworth’s Doughnut model .....................................................................................4
Figure 2 – Points on the development curve ..........................................................................11

ii

Introduction
Ecological systems and the finite resource bases on which they depend
are being compromised and the services they provide for economic
activity are being threatened by our current lifestyles (Arrow et al. 1995;
Beddoe et al. 2009; Ripple et al. 2017). Humans cannot, in the long run,
continue with our current conditions and trends in ecological and
biophysical terms as well as in economic and social realms, without
destroying the climate and harming the people and biodiversity of the
planet (Speth 2017; Gibson 2006).
Interest in sustainability has increased in the past decades as ecological
deterioration through increased consumption has led to greater depletion
of coal, oil and other important resources (Wu 2013). The mere fact that
‘the Paris agreement’ on climate change was signed and ratified by so
many nations showed that some of these issues have at least moved to
the forefront of global discussions and negotiations to some degree. Wu
(2013) claims that in the last decade, some of the recommendations,
which were first proposed in “Our Common Journey” (NRC 1999), have
become more widely accepted as a basic requirement for sustainability.
This includes the supply of high quality fresh water, protection of the
oceans, limiting atmospheric emissions and ecosystem maintenance.
What hasn’t changed much in some ways is how we have illustrated this
predicament or a way forward.
Probably still the most widely used definition of sustainable development
is the “Brundtland definition” from the United Nations (UN) report “Our
Common Future”: ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs’’ (WCED 1987, p.41). Perhaps one of the reasons this definition has
been so successful, is that it is quite vague – what for example are
“needs” and how can it be decided what qualifies and what does not? At
what point is a need met? If we struggle with understanding our current

1

needs and how to meet these, then it is clearly much more difficult to
understand what the needs of future generations could be and how to
guarantee them now, with imperfect information. Yet, as a starting point
this definition positions sustainability as being, at its core, concerned with
inter- and intra-generational equity, by providing for needs provisions
now and in the future. But how can change towards this greater equity be
initiated?
There have been a number of attempts at operationalizing the Brundtland
definition, including the Millennium and Sustainable Development Goals
for the UN. The concept has also become more relevant in business and
economics, with the advent of the ‘triple bottom line’ (Gimenez et al.
2012), where social and environmental impacts are taken into account in
addition to the usual profit motive, as well as sustainable yield (Briggs
2017) and attempts to redefine corporations (Sjåfjell 2018) among
others.
In the last decade, the development of the planetary boundary concept
has made an impact, with the defining of a ‘safe operating space’ for
humanity being one big step forward (Rockström et al. 2009; Steffen et
al. 2015). This concept considers limits within which humanity needs to
keep its environmental impacts, in order to maintain the conditions that
are currently ideal for our survival. The planetary boundaries are informed
by

our

increasing

understanding

of

tipping

points,

and

various

biogeographical dynamics that affect earth’s resilience (Leach et al.
2013). Exceeding these planetary boundaries over the long-term can lead
to unexpected and catastrophic changes (Rockström et al. 2009). The
planetary boundary concept is very focused on intergenerational equity
and long-term sustainability as the aim is to keep conditions persistent
and similar to how they are now. Some of the boundaries considered in
this concept include: climate change, biodiversity loss, and nitrogen and
phosphorus use, all of which are considered to have already been
exceeded (Rockström et al. 2009). Stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean

2

acidification,
boundaries

land
not

use

yet

change

exceeded.

and

global

Finally,

the

freshwater
remaining

are

several

boundaries

considered by this concept: atmospheric aerosol pollution and chemical
pollution have not yet been quantified, thus it is not clear whether they
have exceeded their boundaries.
Also important in this context is that different boundaries interact and
that the precautionary principle should be implemented so as not to risk
overshooting boundaries that are interlinked. Once one boundary has
been exceeded for an extended period, other boundaries are likely to
change, thus themselves becoming more likely to be exceeded. Therefore,
there is a great urgency in the attempt to stay within all the 9 measures
that are often used (Rockström et al. 2009). Although the precise figures
of all boundaries are by no means agreed upon, this approach has been
popular due to its ability to formulate exact targets and to help in
managing human impact by providing limits (Ragnarsdottir et al. 2011).
However, the focus of the planetary boundary approach approach is
limited in its scope as it is focused primarily on intergenerational equity.
The planetary boundaries approach does not examine current needs, or
consider what has caused the situation humans are in. It has been
criticized for downplaying the need for more fundamental changes and
supporting top-down decision-making structures that restrict power of
some communities (Leach 2014). Kofinas and Chapin (2009) suggest that
if basic material human needs are not met, there is likely to be ecological
damage because these needs have a higher ranking than long-term goals
of stewardship. Raworth (2012) proposed a doughnut model to address
precisely this gap, by incorporating 11 basic social needs dimensions as a
counterweight to the planetary boundaries (as can be seen in figure 1). In
this model, success and progress would effectively be measured by our
ability to get all of humanity into the ‘safe and just space’. This means a
level of increased justice due to the basic needs being met globally, while
safety comes from the planetary boundaries not being exceeded. This

3

would be a significant change from the current focus on much narrower
measures
growth
domestic

of
such

economic
as

product

gross
(GDP),

which is “not up to the task
of measuring what matters
for

social

justice

environmental

and

integrity”

(Raworth 2012, p. 6).
The doughnut model has a
lot of potential to make it
clearer

where

humanity

needs to head to become
Figure 1 Raworth's Doughnut model (Raworth 2012)

sustainable,

providing

guidelines for both social and planetary boundaries. The model is also
operationalizable because humans can measure if we are achieving the
aims or thresholds that are set out by the model, or if we are moving
further away from them. O’Neill et al. (2018) show, for example, that no
countries are currently able to provide their populations with at least a
level of basic needs, while staying within the planetary boundary
measures they used. In general, either a country does well on social
measures, while also exceeding planetary boundaries; or it does not
achieve the social minima, while also staying below planetary boundary
levels. Yet it is not clear at all from the model, how the social foundations
are related to the planetary boundaries. No attempt is made to illustrate
at which level of social needs satisfaction the planetary boundaries will be
exceeded.
Some of the questions developed to guide this paper are as follows: at
what level can the social aims outlined by Raworth be considered to have
been met? Is it possible to modify what constitutes individual ‘wants’ to

4

better align with ‘needs’ for such social measures? This latter question
forms the core question of this thesis.
It is not the meeting of minimum material needs that is causing us to
exceed planetary boundaries, but rather the frivolous consumptive
behavior of affluent societies and the continued increase in use of
resources after basic material needs have been met. It is the material
‘wants’ that seem unlimited, where many affluent people seem to never
reach satiation, where they would no longer seek increased consumption.
In other words, although the model provides guidance regarding where
the social foundation is, the model provides no ‘acceptable’ point where
the maximum sustainable social level could be.
To achieve a life for everyone within the doughnut, or ‘safe and just
space’, transformative system changes are required. O’Neill et al. (2018)
suggest the provisioning systems will need to be completely overhauled
for the basic needs to be achieved at far reduced input from what we are
currently achieving. This is a technical solution that Jackson (2005) claims
cannot be achieved due the sheer scale of the changes we would need.
Rather than looking for technical solutions, one option would be creating
‘satiation points’ by finding a level of consumption beyond which there is
little or no improvement of well-being in the different social dimensions
Raworth uses. This point would be a subjective point at which an
individual is satisfied with the amount of well-being they receive from that
particular social dimension. For example, beyond a certain level of
income, it has been shown that subjective well-being no longer improves
with income, but rather that expectations increase and well-being remains
flat (Easterlin 2001, 1974). This satiation point could then be compared to
the level at which this social dimension causes planetary boundaries to be
exceeded.
It is often assumed that sacrifices will need to be made in well-being or
quality of life in order for us to be able to achieve sustainability or

5

sustainable development (Dodds 1997; Broome 2010), or in this case, to
end up in the ‘safe and just space’. Jackson (2005), however, argues that
we do not need to make these trade-offs between a better life and
sustainability, we just need to change our approach to what we want to
achieve to receive a double dividend – improvements in both the quality
of our lives and our environmental impact. For example, we can walk to
the local grocery store to reduce our carbon footprint and contribute to
our health, or on a larger scale reduce working hours to reduce stress
levels, which could in turn reduce the need to consume as a way of
compensating for high stress.
It seems like one of the proposed ways this double dividend could be
achieved is through ‘alternative hedonism’ (Soper 2008). This philosophy
does “not deny the complexities of human desires, including…quests for
novelty, excitement, distraction, self-expression” Soper (2016, p. 50), but
rather focuses on achieving this by non-consumptive measures. Through
changes in what values humans act on and the maximization of these
outcomes, systematic changes could be achieved. These changes increase
social interconnectedness and improve the quality of our lives, while also
making our communities more sustainable. However, the question
remains whether these changes could be sufficient to move us into
Raworth’s (2012) ‘safe and just space’, which no country is currently
achieving (O’Neill et al. 2018).
In this paper I will examine Raworth’s (2012) doughnut model and the
associated ‘safe and just space’ in more detail, as well as at the potential
to develop satiation points for the different dimensions on a development
curve. Next, I will scrutinize Soper’s (2008) ‘alternative hedonism’ as a
possible way to enter the ‘safe and just space’. I then discuss energy,
income and nutrition as three examples of Raworth’s (2012) social goals
where a satiation points would be a step forward. The chosen measures
are ones in which humanity generally is still not satisfied once levels well
above a basic needs level have been achieved, even when there is little or

6

no further well-being improvement from greater consumption. I will end
with a look at some of the possible problems and barriers ‘alternative
hedonism’ would face in challenging existing dominant global philosophies
and development pathways, including the obsession with growth and
measuring GDP.

Raworth’s Doughnut Model
Ideally, a model aimed at showing what we need to be able to achieve
sustainability, needs to deal with both inter- and intra-generational
equity. It needs to show the interrelated planetary boundaries within
which our progress needs to occur, but it must also indicate a minimum
social level of basic needs satisfaction that all people should reach. The
doughnut model (Raworth 2012, p. 6) achieves the former by using the
planetary boundaries approach for the upper bound of the ‘safe and just
space’, calling it ‘environmental ceiling’ while the latter is achieved by
introducing the ‘social foundation’ as the minimum boundary (see figure
1). This model is described as a “compass” for us to understand our
current position by indicating where we stand relative to these boundaries
of the ‘safe and just space’. This space can be seen as a target zone, to
achieve a society where “both human well-being and planetary well-being
are assured, and their interdependence is respected” (Raworth 2012,
p. 7). Well-being here refers to a post-consumerist understanding, where
basic material needs are met and there is the chance of striving towards
subjective happiness, with people leading a life of fulfilment and
creativity. The measures used in the model are based on both the
millennium development goals and the UN human rights declarations
(Musabasic 2015).
Within the doughnut model, the social foundation is measured in 11
dimensions (see table 1), that need to be met to provide a social
foundation for people to have a chance of living a dignified life. These 11

7

dimensions were most mentioned issues in government submissions to
the Rio+20 conference (Raworth 2012).

Table 1. Raworth’s 11 social dimensions and threshold values. Adapted from
Raworth (2012).

Social
dimension
Water
/
sanitation
Income
Education
Resilience
Political
Voice
Jobs
Energy
Social
Equity
Gender
Equality
Health
Food

Description / measure
% with access to drinking water / sanitation
Population with under $1.25 per person per day
Children not enrolled in primary school
Population facing multiple poverty dimensions
Restrictions on political participation and freedom of expression
Labor force without decent work
% lacking access to electricity and clean cooking facilities
Population with less than median income in countries with
GINI>0.35
Employment gap between men and woman in waged work /
parliamentary gender representation gap
Without regular access to essential medicines
Population undernourished

In the model, the environmental ceiling has nine different dimensions that
should not be crossed if we want to ensure the pressure we exert on the
planet is such that we can “safeguard critical processes that regulate
Earth’s ability to sustain Holocene-like conditions” Raworth (2017, pg.
48). A challenge with understanding precise effects of exceeding
planetary boundaries is that there are often no immediate consequences
for exceeding them. There is good theoretical and model evidence that
time-lag after an action, delays negative effects on well-being (RaudseppHearne et al. 2010). When consequences do occur, they are also often
hard to follow back to their origin. Due to reinforcing feedback loops and
complex interrelationships between different factors, true repercussions
are often slow to manifest. In addition to the high costs of mitigation and
the threat that necessary policy changes pose to powerful industrial
players (Levy 2003), the above may be some of the reasons why the
response to global climate change and other sustainability problems have
been so slow (Heltberg et al. 2009).

8

For example, a slowly warming atmosphere is causing areas with
permafrost to melt very gradually, releasing large amounts of methane (a
greenhouse gas) which further speeds up the warming process. Also, the
large amounts of CO2 being absorbed by the ocean, are causing ocean
acidification, which in turn reduces the oceans ability to absorb more CO2
– but because of the size of the systems under discussion, changes occur
very slowly and are very difficult to stop or reverse, once started.
Planetary boundaries are also not static and are related to important
biophysical functions that keep systems in the atmosphere, the oceans
and on land stable. The longer these boundaries are exceeded, or the
more sink capacity is filled, the more a biophysical system’s ability to
perform its current ‘function’ will be compromised, lowering planetary
boundaries. Some effects may only be gradual, but none of these
boundaries can be exceeded for extended periods without jeopardizing
the ideal conditions humans have been living in for thousands of years
(Musabasic 2015). This is an issue of intergenerational equity, it is our
obligation to take these issues into account, because future generations
have no say in our decisions (Summers and Smith 2014).
Within this doughnut framework there is recognition of well-being relying
on everyone’s right to “dignity and opportunity, while also safeguarding
the integrity of Earth’s life-supporting systems” Raworth (2017, p. 48).
While it is clear that some specific social foundations need to be set, it is
less clear how meaningful these are. Differences in cultural, educational,
geographical and socio-economic backgrounds will cause these to differ
markedly in different contexts. For example, an acceptable basic income
in some developing countries would only be a small percentage of
minimum wage or the poverty line in many western countries. Once this
income has been achieved in a western country, this person would hardly
have a chance of living in Raworth’s ‘safe and just space’!

9

Satisfaction, satiation and well-being
O’Neill et al. (2018) claim that the amount of resources used to achieve
basic needs need to be drastically reduced for everyone to lead a good life
within planetary boundaries. Increased resource use threatens the
transgression of planetary boundaries because, among others, the
acquisition of resources converts more land, destroys habitat, contributes
to biodiversity loss and creates pollution. However, O’Neill et al. (2018)
seem to not question to what level the basic needs must be satisfied.
Health and life satisfaction, dimensions with intrinsic value, are seen by
O’Neill et al. (2018) as necessary for well-being, while all other
dimensions of social outcomes are assumed to be related to ‘basic needs’.
Soper (2016), on the other hand, claims that it would only require a slight
increase in resource use to achieve a basic needs level globally. Let us
consider basic needs to have been met once the inner circle or “social
foundation” level in the doughnut has been reached. The problem of not
satisfying needs within planetary boundaries occurs due to consumption
and resource use that far exceeds the ‘social foundation’. This would
mean that it is the inability of humans to be satisfied with what we have
after we have achieved basic needs and the fact that we continue to aim
(directly or indirectly) for higher and higher consumption levels that
causes the sustainability problems. We need to find a maximum ‘want’
level, a level of needs achievement that does not need to be exceeded.
This is especially so for wants that only have instrumental value – income
for example has no real intrinsic value, but has instrumental value as long
as things can get purchased with it that improve our well-being.
Searching for a maximum want level would not apply to some wants with
intrinsic value, such as increase in voice that would improve well-being
directly by giving people a greater feeling of self-worth and being an
integral part of a community

10

For the sake of clarity, we should define a few concepts as they are used
here (see Figure 2). The illustrated solid line curve is the development
trajectory associated with consumption – at low levels of well-being,
increased consumption leads to higher well-being, which levels off later.
Everything along the development trajectory to the left of ‘a’, is below
Raworth’s (2012) social foundation level. The social foundation level (see
figure 1) is point ‘a’ in figure 2. Beyond this point, we find ourselves in the
‘safe and just space’. Satiation point (‘b’ in Figure 2) is the subjective
point beyond which there is generally no further or only a very marginal
improvement in well-being with a further increase in consumption, in
some cases the association is even negative. The satiation point can be

boundary

a

Planetary

Well-being

b

Consumption

Figure 2. Points on the development curve

The solid line is the wellbeing curve associated with consumption. The
dotted line is the assumption that seems prevalent in many Western
societies, where greater consumption is expected to continue to increase
well-being. The planetary boundary line indicates at which level of
consumption of resources, planetary boundaries are exceeded. This line can
be can be further to the left or right – meaning the satiation point could be
within or outside the planetary boundary. The dashed line indicates an
‘alternative hedonism’ curve that gets covered later in the paper. Raworth’s
‘safe and just space’ exists to the right of and above ‘a’ and left of the
planetary boundary line – indicated by the lightly shaded area. This figure
would look slightly different for every dimension illustrated, depending on
the intensity of resource consumption required for its improvement.

11

sited differently for different individuals and can change when values
placed on social dimensions change in that person’s life. These satiation
points would also vary for the different social dimensions. For example,
income might have a relatively high satiation point as someone starts out
in a job for the first time, but as they get older this may lower as other
dimensions such as health or social equity for example might get more
important for the individual. The dotted line in the figure is the trajectory
we would expect if we look at Western economies and the seeming lack of
satiation

points

for

consumption.

In

this

context,

affluence

is

conceptualized as the holding or attaining of a level of resource use that is
beyond the satiation point, that is, consumption of resources, despite this
not contributing to well-being improvements. Affluence is here considered
to be to the right of ‘b’. In everyday terms this affluence would include
current trends towards ever higher levels of luxury – or the acquisition of
status goods. Well-being includes aspects of leisure, work and health,
feeling as an integral part of a community (Diener et al. 2006),
contributing to this community, having a sense of purpose and a genuine
interest in a global satisfaction of basic needs into the future. It is often
thought that once basic needs are met, there is greater interest in goods
and services that rely less heavily on resources.

Do improvements in well-being come at environmental
costs?
O’Neill et al. (2018, p. 90) claim that “the more social thresholds a
country achieves, the more biophysical boundaries it transgresses”. While
they claim that it is likely that we would be able to meet physical needs of
humanity while we stay within planetary boundaries, it seems that “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” (O’Neill et al. 2018, p.
88). Due to rebound effects, efficiency improvements will not be able to

12

achieve this alone (O’Neill et al. 2018). Even at current levels, where no
social foundations have been achieved for all people globally, 4 of 7
planetary

boundary

dimensions

used

in

this

paper

have

been

transgressed. It seems like the wealthy nations that are able to achieve
many of the social foundations, do so at an impact rate that is far above a
number of the global planetary boundaries.
So the question is, how do we achieve both targets in the doughnut
model: globally achieving minimum values in all of the 11 social factors,
while also staying within the 9 planetary boundaries? And how do we
resolve conflicts between them when these arise? Is it not possible that a
high level of well-being can be achieved without the current very high
level of resource use? If the status quo has gotten us into the trouble we
are now in, with no country able to achieve both the social foundation and
the environmental ceiling (O’Neill et al. 2018), we clearly need to find a
way to achieve more with less.
‘Alternative hedonism’ is shown here as an approach that could benefit
both the achievement of our ‘social foundation’ as well as reducing our
resource use to within or near planetary boundaries (see figure 1).

Alternative hedonism
Hedonism sees the pursuit of pleasure as the most important goal to
target. Currently, the growth economy supports and requires the high
levels of consumption to uphold what is understood as the ‘good life’ in
much of western society and is associated with high consumption and
affluence (Soper 2016). This cycle of interdependence between economic
growth and hedonistic consumption needs to be broken for humanity to
stand a chance to remain within the planetary boundaries (Gambrel and
Cafaro 2010; Jackson 2009), although it is always easier to look for
solutions within this economic system than to question the system itself.
What is needed is a way to reduce the maximum social ‘wants’, which
would then possibly allow a reduction in consumption to below the

13

planetary boundary level and into the ‘safe and just space’ for everyone.
One way of achieving reduced wants that has been proposed is the
‘alternative

hedonism’

approach,

which

tries

to

achieve

an

anti-

consumerist understanding of flourishing, trying to meet both material
and spiritual needs (Soper 2008). This challenges the status quo in
Western societies, where individuals usually act to maximize material
consumption. Economic and social systems currently support people
acting to maximize material consumption, even when this causes
“pollution, congestion, stress, noise, ill health, loss of community” Soper
(2008, p. 571). Humans need to act on what has intrinsic value and be
misled less by forces that distort what seems like it might improve our
well-being – greater consumption. The question is whether a change in
our wants would change the relationship between the social foundation
and planetary boundaries enough that we could achieve the targeted ‘safe
and just space’ for everyone? Could everyone flourish sustainably with
‘alternative hedonism’ as their approach? Could the more biophysical
measures, where we now overshoot planetary boundaries - energy,
income and nutrition for example, be reduced enough as a result of
‘alternative hedonism’, for us to enter the ‘safe and just space’?
Soper (2016) and Verhofstadt et al. (2016) suggest that it is unlikely that
we will be able to move away from the current Euro-American
understanding of the good life, without offering an appealing alternative.
The way reduction in affluence has been targeted thus far, by concerned
scientists for example, is through the appeal to conscience, hoping people
will reduce their consumption behavior for moral reasons - because it is
the ‘right thing to do’ both for the environment as well as the rest of
humanity (Ripple et al. 2017). This has not been a successful strategy at
all as can be seen by our continued path towards higher consumption.
Although there are small communities, outside the mainstream in
industrial countries that have been moving to lower their consumption – it
is still a clear minority (Soper 2008). Additionally it has been shown and

14

argued that rebound and backfire effects reduce the effectiveness of
these efficiency and sufficiency changes (Alcott 2010; Murray 2013).
Too often there is only a focus on achieving higher financial income as a
simple measure of well-being, while other factors like family status,
health and political and human rights are given far less weight, especially
before basic needs are satisfied. With the continued development along
the lines of growth and increased consumerism no longer being
supportable (Jackson 2009), the alternative would be “an altered
conception

of

pleasure

and

enjoyment”

(Soper

2016,

p.

46).

If

improvements in living standards are seen separately from levels of
material consumption, it would be possible to achieve higher levels of
subjective well-being, without the currently ‘required’ high level of
material consumption and associated resource use.
It has been shown that most changes in life circumstances have almost
no long-term effect on subjective measures of well-being like happiness
or life-satisfaction (Kahneman and Krueger 2006). Resources focussed on
achieving this ever greater level of quality of life would thus not only be
ineffective, but a waste of resources that are already scarce and edging
us either towards or beyond our planetary boundaries.
In the transdisciplinary sustainability field, an attempt is ideally made to
find solutions that produce win-win situations and avoid trade-offs
between biophysical considerations and social and economic goals
(Muradian et al. 2013). Trade-offs that balance different targets are
generally only acceptable as a last resort (Gibson 2006). It can be argued
that ‘alternative hedonism’ is just such a solution – where the well-being
of people is positively affected and long-term sustainability of the planet
is supported at the same time. But what it does require is a changed
concept of what we need in order to improve our quality of life and what
we consider valuable. This change in values can then influence a change
in preferences (Norton et al. 1998).

15

The idea is that ‘alternative hedonism’ would bend the development curve
leftwards after basic needs have been satisfied at the social foundation
level, and well-being continues to rise, while it is decoupled from
consumption or resource use. The same level of well-being (through the
adjustment of needs and the values we act on) could be achieved, at a
lower rate of consumption – the arrow in figure 2. Through ‘alternative
hedonism’, the satiation point would occur at a lower level of consumption
because the maximum social ‘wants’ in terms of consumption would be
lowered. Ideally this would then cause point ‘b’ – the resource to remain
below the planetary boundary level and within the ‘safe and just space’.
Let us imagine we live in a world of ‘alternative hedonism’:
There is “a different vision of human prosperity” (Soper 2016), that
influences everything in society, with a dramatic change having occurred
from the previously normal status quo. With a reduced focus on consumer
products, priorities have shifted to other ways of achieving greater wellbeing. Through reduced pressure for people to increase financial
resources, especially in richer countries, there is greater enjoyment of
increased free time and better health due to lowered levels of stress and
an interest in healthier food. Employment is generally more meaningful,
with greater value placed on support and development of healthy
communities and less on profit maximization, technical efficiency and
mechanization. An increased appreciation for healthy food means that
many people grow their own vegetables and value local produce more
highly as well as spending time preparing and enjoying meals. A greater
understanding of our place within the general ecosystem means there is
also a reduced acceptance of harmful agricultural chemicals and activities
that reduce the health and natural capital of our surroundings. The
tension between needs and desires mentioned by Soper (2016) has been
reduced through more restrictive regulations on advertising as well as
lower effectiveness of advertisers due to the reduction in importance of
status goods.

16

Let us look at three of the social measures a little more closely.
Energy, income and nutrition as examples
Here are three of Raworth’s (2012) social measures in a little more detail:
energy (including transportation), income and nutrition. What most of the
11 social measures have in common is that once the social foundations
have been achieved there is usually a desire to continue to increase this
measure to a more comfortable level. The difference with these three is
that they are all factors where, once even high levels have been achieved,
there seems to be no sign of satiation, even when no further well-being
benefit occurs. In communities with high levels of affluence, these three
generally occur at relatively high levels. These are all measures, where
not wanting to maximize, but rather to not exceed the satiation level,
ends up being much more sustainable with a similar well-being value.
Reaching the social foundation levels for food, energy and income could
be achieved with a small increase of just 1, 1 and 0,2 percent of current
global levels respectively if this was to be distributed correctly (Raworth
2012). Once these levels were achieved, nobody would consider that
these communities, having just achieved these basic needs, would be
happy with them remaining at that level. It is understandable to want to
continue to improve well-being and access to food, energy and income.
But what level of these different dimensions is enough? Where is the
satiation point?
Energy:
In the O’Neill et al. (2018) analysis, “access to energy” is used as the
measure that should be achieved as the social foundation. A large portion
of the world’s population still has very limited access to energy - if
everyone had access to a small amount of energy, this would likely not
cause us to exceed the planetary boundary globally. The problem comes
in when thirst for energy seems unquenchable and energy consumption
continues to increase with development. If all new energy sources were

17

renewable, the impact of energy would clearly be reduced to resources
needed for infrastructure construction and the products running on the
energy itself, but this is unlikely to happen quickly, due to currently still
very high prices of some renewable energy and energy storage
capabilities.
If we were to live in a world of ‘alternative hedonism’, lower consumption
generally may have reduced the energy used in high-consumption
societies due to reduced production. Production of many unnecessary and
low quality products with built-in obsolescence could be lowered and a
move towards higher quality products with a longer lifespan could be well
underway. A large portion of the world’s energy consumption currently
goes into industrial production of iron, steel and cement for example –
these resources could be used more sparingly, with a greater proportion
being recycled. A higher valuation placed on locally produced goods could
reduce transportation energy requirements wherever local products are
available. Through increased use of renewable energy production with
methods that work best for local circumstances, the need to transport
power over huge distances might have been reduced and numerous
regions could be self-sufficient in energy provision.
Looking specifically at transportation within the energy complex, the idea
that everyone should own a private vehicle might no longer the norm and
an efficient public transportation network forms the basis of mobility
everywhere. In addition to the reduced production and running costs of a
private transportation fleet, there could be a reduction in stress due to
lower pressure on roads and less time spent sitting in traffic, especially
around the larger concentrations of humans (and vehicles) in cities. Strict
emissions regulations for the remaining private vehicles might have been
imposed due to an increased interest in clean air and manufacturers are
held to account by politicians and an informed and involved public alike
when these regulations are not met (Ripple et al. 2018).

18

Currently, people living an affluent lifestyle not only expect a private
vehicle, but there seems no limit to the number and types of vehicles
people strive to own – registered vehicles in the US exceed people
registered to drive them by 50 million for example (Owen 2010). Private
transport status goods does not stop at cars, but increases to private
yachts, jets and helicopters as affluence increases. By being less reliant
on these kinds of status goods, the environmental impact could be
reduced in the energy/transportation sector. Even the widespread
acceptance

of,

for

example

air-conditioning

and

refrigeration

as

commonplace, now puts pressure on our energy needs.
Income:
O’Neill et al. (2018) define the social foundation to be achieved as 95% of
the population earning US$1.90 per day. One problem with a figure like
this is that its value is extremely dependant on context. In many poorer
countries, this may be a sufficient amount of money to achieve an
acceptable level of well-being, while in most Western or developed
countries, this would not even come close to the minimum wage or a
living wage. But again the main issue is the lack of a satiation point. This
is despite it being acknowledged that there is generally no further
improvement in well-being beyond a certain level of income (van den
Bergh 2011; Easterlin 1974); at a minimum there is a reduced marginal
return. The acquisition of status goods is a zero-sum game (Clark et al.
2008) and increased consumption does not improve our well-being
because of our adaptation to the new circumstances (Diener et al. 2006).
In other words, living an affluent life, is not necessary for a high level of
well-being. The level at which this happens is of course a long way
beyond basic needs level, but well below level that many of the industrial
countries are at. Precise levels are obviously variable and depend on
factors such as culture, social standing and others, although some
attempts have been made to define universal basic goods and services
(Rao and Baer 2012).

19

In

a

world

with

‘alternative

hedonism’

and

its

associated

lower

dependence on consumption, income required for a good level of wellbeing would be reduced in Western economies. While this would clearly
not get anywhere near as low as the ‘social foundation’ in Raworth’s
model, the satiation point could occur at a lower level of income than it
would occur if we were to define a satiation point now. A reduction in
income for the affluent might not be seen as a reduction in quality of life.
The dimension ‘income’ is a bit more complex than the other 2 measures
due to its instrumental value – the ability to help achieve some of the
other social foundations. For example, usually nutritional basic needs
should be met if there is sufficient income available. It has been shown
that the impact of increased income on well-being is only brief, with very
few long term effects, compared to improvements in health, employment
and family circumstances (Deaton 2008). However, income is needed to
acquire both food an energy in most cases, unless people are selfsufficient. But with income, even more than with the other 2 dimensions,
there is generally no targeted satiation point and affluence is seen as
desirable. Understandably, once basic needs are first met there is a
continued interest in higher incomes, but this continues well beyond
where this clearly improves well-being.
Nutrition:
The 2,700 calories as a social foundation in O’Neill et al. (2018) is again
very context-driven, also there is value in a balanced diet and a move
away from malnourishment rather than just sufficient calories. Some
parts of the world are struggling to provide either or both of these
measures. High levels of overconsumption of food are leading to serious
negative impacts, including being one of the factors leading to obesity
and other health problems, while around a third of food, sometimes more
(Gunders

2012)

gets

wasted

after

harvest,

without

ever

getting

consumed. Once again, if the target was achieving basic needs levels,

20

there would probably not be a planetary boundary issue, but this is
nowhere near what many people are used to and would expect to have.
In ‘alternative hedonism’, there is a greater focus on good food rather
than fast and convenient high-energy food. Through increased awareness
of where food comes from and what it contains, people may once again
grow their own wherever possible. There could be a greater focus on
locally produced food, increasing other impacts through knock-on effects,
such as transportation and more closely-knit and identifiable communities
with well-developed local supply chains. A focus on local and seasonal
products might have the added benefits of improving local self-sufficiency
networks and reduce energy requirements for produce transportation.
Greater value placed on healthy food should lower insecticide and
pesticide use, as well as a reduced reliance on high fertilizer input.
Food wastage is another big issue – this could be reduced drastically with
reduced long-distance transportation of exotic produce. Reductions in
food waste also reduces the other inputs that are effectively thrown away
with the food, such as fertilizer, pesticides and transportation costs (Owen
2010). All this is possible through implementing alternative farming
methods, with less large-scale and intensive monocultures.
In many developing countries, one of the major contributions to
environmental impact of a growing middle class is the massive increase in
the consumption of meat (Delgado 2003) – a change that further
increases humanity’s resource use. In most industrialized countries meat
consumption is even higher. ‘Alternative hedonism’ could drive down high
meat consumption, which can be seen as affluence as it is not required
and is looked at as a status good in many communities. Reduced meat
production would mean the ability to supply larger populations with the
same agricultural land area, providing greater food security. The meat
that is still consumed could be produced in less intensive means, lowering
eutrophication levels, limiting use of antibiotics and a greater public

21

interest in the conditions under which this production occurs. Tracts of
land for renaturalization could be opened up due to this reduced meat
consumption and more eco-friendly production on agricultural land would
slow down or reverse the destruction of insect and other animal
populations.
As with our preceding examples there seems to be no maximum level or
satiation point of normal nutritional consumption. As the level of affluence
grows, there seems to be no reduction in desire to have more - although
in this case it may be more meat or more exotic foods rather than an
absolute amount and a reduced concern for food waste.
By adapting our global nutritional practices, we would drastically improve
the current levels of numerous measures in Raworth’s (2012) model and
get us to within or nearer to the ‘safe and just space’. As briefly touched
on above, this could include improvements in land use change, nitrogen
and phosphorous cycles, biodiversity loss and chemical pollution.
The question remains: would energy, income and nutrition (as biophysical
examples) be reduced enough to get us into the ‘safe and just space’,
where all social foundations are met, but we don’t exceed planetary
boundaries?

What tradeoff?
O’Neill (2008, p. 2) says that the ability to decouple growth in
consumption from well-being, enables us to achieve sustainability
”without making excessive demands of moral self-sacrifice”. To a greater
or

lesser

degree

all

developed

countries

rely

on

high

levels

of

consumption to uphold their economies, so this assumption, which is
based on measures of current conditions, cannot take into account what a
change in approach to the question of how we define and achieve wellbeing would cause. I argue here, that by introducing ‘alternative
hedonism’ we don’t in fact need to make any sacrifice at all to achieve

22

this through the double dividend idea of Jackson (2005). If anything,
looking at a change of reduced consumption through the glasses of
‘alternative hedonism’ would lead us to the understanding that this would
be positive in both our well-being as well as reducing our environmental
impact.
Sufficiency and efficiency strategies are both criticized due to rebound
effects making them less effective than they would first seem (Alcott
2008, 2010). ‘Alternative hedonism’ does not target greater efficiency –
improved input/output ratio (although this would be welcomed), but
rather a change in philosophy that ends up with reduced consumption –
improved efficiency could be used to reduce the required input, while the
output

remains

the

same.

Alcott’s

(2008)

criticism

of

sufficiency

strategies, which attempt to reduce unnecessary high consumption in
affluent societies, is that reduced demand would lower prices of the goods
that are no longer wanted, making these goods affordable for people that
were not able to buy them previously. This reason for the ineffectiveness
of these strategies does not apply to ‘alternative hedonism’ because the
philosophy is not just targeted at the affluent group, so no new market
would develop for the rejected goods. ‘Alternative hedonism’ targets
reduced income and a reduced need for consumer goods. Of course this
philosophy would need to spread globally or at least regionally, for
consumption not to just migrate to other areas that are still focussed on
material goods (Alcott 2008).
There is no doubt that at a basic needs level of income, nutrition and
energy,

as

examples,

small

increases

can

lead

to

substantial

improvements in well-being. Once higher levels of affluence have been
reached, further increases in these measures, show diminishing returns in
terms of well-being effect – at the extreme, further income increases may
in fact cause negative returns to overall well-being (Dietz et al. 2009).
Findings in the O’Neill et al. (2018) study show that in rich countries,
resource consumption can be reduced drastically, without a concurrent

23

reduction in human well-being – should this not be where we concentrate
our efforts to make a change? They suggest that a restructuring of
provisioning systems will be required in order to achieve at least basic
needs at a much lower rate of resource use.
The difference between economic growth and development needs to be
made clear. While development needs to continue, this should not rely on
economic growth. Material throughput as the engine that drives economic
growth cannot continue to increase due to the existence of planetary
boundaries (Goodland and Daly 1996). The cycle of interdependence
between economic growth and development needs to be broken (Fischer
et al. 2012). What is needed is a way to reduce the maximum social
wants, which would then cause a reduction in consumption – possibly to a
level below the planetary boundaries and into the ‘safe and just space’ for
everyone.

Problems with this solution
We have seen that ‘alternative hedonism’ would indeed be a way that
humanity could move ahead positively towards, and possibly into a ‘safe
and just space’ to live. The challenge would be achieving this change and
convincing people that this is both possible and desirable, where we will
all not be worse off. It should be made clear that any changes in policy
that support ‘alternative hedonism’ are not a restriction of freedoms, but
an opportunity to more easily live a better life. Because we are looking at
social aims as well as planetary boundaries, it would be acceptable to
support changes that improve lower consumption for example, if this
improves

overall

well-being

and

a

reduced

existential

risk

from

environmental degradation. Precise satiation figures would differ due to
various factors such as culture, religion or other circumstances.
I have deliberately not tried to look into the ways the transition from our
current situation to ‘alternative hedonism’ could occur, as this would be
too much for a piece like this. What does seem clear is for this change to

24

be effective, it must be implemented as widely as possible, ideally
globally to avoid rebound issues, where consumption is just shifted into
other areas (Alcott 2008) and for development to not follow the same
unsustainable pathways, with its inevitable increase in consumption. Rich
Western countries should take the lead after causing most of the
sustainability problems we are faced with now (Goodland and Daly 1996;
Verhofstadt et al. 2016). This would mean this change could be taken
more seriously, with a greater chance it would be taken up by developing
countries too, counting as a move towards improved global social justice
and equality.
This would possibly avoid developing countries going through the same
high-consumption economy that most Western countries are in now. If
this was not the case, planetary boundary problems would escalate and
any changes made in developed countries would lead to rebound in
developing countries (Alcott 2008). This is not an attempt to keep the
developing countries underdeveloped, but rather to shift the focus so that
all countries can move in a direct way towards well-being, rather than
towards higher consumption. This would reverse the current trend of
further

economic

divergence,

towards

greater

levels

of

equality.

“Psychology, sociology, economics, behavior and culture” are the major
obstacles

of

achieving

sustainability,

rather

than

our

scientific

understanding of the problems (Levin 2012, p. 433). Changing all of these
at the same time is hugely challenging of course, especially in extremely
variable social and cultural contexts.
Currently there are a small number of groups trying to move in this
direction and away from reliance on consumerism (Soper 2008), but this
is happening despite the system. Social and political systems would have
to change drastically to ensure support for precisely these groups that
manage to simplify their lives and reduce levels of consumption (Gambrel
and Cafaro 2010). The current interest in plastic pollution is an example
of an awakening of awareness of humanity’s environmental impact – this

25

must translate into new social attitudes that then affect policy-makers
and production lines, where practices like unnecessary packaging and
deliberate obsolescence are no longer tolerated. Conviction to internalize
the externalities for carbon emissions as proposed by Broome (2010), is
another example of great changes that could make a difference.
While corporations and advertisers have the power to convince us that we
need things that do not lead to greater well-being, it is difficult for more
people to behave sustainably as this is not readily supported. In this
scenario, reduced consumption is not seen as an automatic trade-off, but
an alternative lifestyle, associated with a lower stress level and more time
to spend within a stronger and happier society. Upscaling of ‘alternative
hedonism’ from small alternative local groups would have to happen with
the help of numerous concurrent changes that make this scenario selfsupporting. These could include changes to taxation policy (Fernández et
al. 2011) and campaign-finance regulation for example, to restore
decision-making power to the people directly affected, rather than those
profiting from consumption-reliant policies. Policies and regulations should
be built to directly benefit well-being as the goal (Diener and Seligman
2004), focussing on improvements in the social, health and economic
spheres of people and communities, rather than indirect and limited
measures, such as GDP (Kubiszewski et al. 2013). For example, the
ability to define realistic goals and to then develop the skills to achieve
them should be a target of a stable upbringing (Lerner 1997) – within an
atmosphere of ‘alternative hedonism’, these goals would contribute to
social development, rather than a narrower economic measure. Despite
many objections, (Costanza et al. 2009) GDP is still often used as the
easiest way of measuring ‘progress’ and its growth is targeted by
economists and politicians,.
Once large numbers of people are convinced of a world built around
‘alternative hedonism’, there could be a snowballing effect, with an

26

increase in political support, followed by, for example legislative changes
to further speed up the continuing societal evolution.
It is sometimes argued that prosperity needs to be achieved before we
can turn our attention to changing and reducing our impact and becoming
more sustainable. At a basic needs level this is understandable, but this is
no longer possible when we already have such a large impact on the
planet and planetary boundaries eliminate the option of a continued
status quo, the way it was developed when the world had a much lower
population (Daly 2005).
Even though it is not clear if ‘alternative hedonism’ would allow us to
reach the ‘safe and just space’, the changes that would occur with this
philosophy would be positive. People that do not rely on consumption to
improve their well-being could more readily accept that further reductions
in consumption are necessary, because of greater empathy shown to
others, including future generations and other species that share our
planet. Even if this strategy fails to reach the ‘safe and just space’, there
is very little potential downside, with the double dividend of the strategy
ensuring improved quality of life, while also promoting improved living
conditions for those living below basic needs.

Conclusion
Developing satiation points would be a great way that we can better
understand at what point of consumption their well-being no longer
increases. By acting on this understanding, progress could be made to
reduce unnecessary consumption and get us closer to the ‘safe and just
space’. ‘Alternative hedonism’ is a way to change what is most important
to people – a move away from valuing consumption and towards
appreciating a strong society and the value that can be gained from that.
By acting on these values, which have been distorted by Western society,
well-being will depend less on consumption and humanity should be able

27

to move satiation points to lower levels of consumption, increasing the
chances of ending up inside the ‘safe and just space’.
It should not be about how to keep up economic growth, but how wellbeing can be improved in a sustainable way. As Dodds (1997) makes
clear, well-being is undermined by insatiability, because of environment
limitations we have. By aiming for endless growth and consumption,
humanity will end up changing the conditions we live in and end up
forcing harsher restrictions on ourselves. We need to handle limited
resources in a way that our hand is not forced in the future. ‘Alternative
hedonism’ is an opportunity to restrict resource use, ultimately allowing
humans to enter the ‘safe and just space’.

Publication Bibliography
Alcott, Blake (2008): The sufficiency strategy. Would rich-world frugality lower
environmental impact? In Ecological economics 64 (4), pp. 770–786. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.015.
Alcott, Blake (2010): Impact caps. Why population, affluence and technology strategies
should be abandoned. In Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (6), pp. 552–560. DOI:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.08.001.
Arrow, Kenneth; Bolin, Bert; Costanza, Robert; Dasgupta, Partha; Folke, Carl; Holling,
Crawford S. et al. (1995): Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. In
Ecological economics 15 (2), pp. 91–95.
Barca, Stefania (2017): In defense of degrowth. Opinions and minifestos/Doughnut
economics. Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. In Local Environment 23
(3), pp. 378–381. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2017.1399997.
Briggs, Sue (2017): The multiple faces of sustainability – from sustained yield to
sustainable development. In Pac. Conserv. Biol. 23 (2), p. 133. DOI: 10.1071/PC16034.
Clark, Andrew E.; Frijters, Paul; Shields, Michael A. (2008): Relative income, happiness,
and utility. An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. In Journal of
Economic literature 46 (1), pp. 95–144.
Costanza, Robert; Hart, Maureen; Talberth, John; Posner, Stephen (2009): Beyond GDP.
The need for new measures of progress. In The pardee papers.
Daly, Herman E. (2005): Economics in a full world. In Scientific american 293 (3),
pp. 100–107.

28

Deaton, Angus (2008): Income, health, and well-being around the world. Evidence from
the Gallup World Poll. In Journal of Economic Perspectives 22 (2), pp. 53–72. DOI:
10.1257/jep.22.2.53.
Delgado, Christopher L. (2003): Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing
countries has created a new food revolution. In The Journal of nutrition 133 (11 Suppl
2), 3907S–3910S. DOI: 10.1093/jn/133.11.3907S.
Diener, Ed; Lucas, Richard E.; Scollon, Christie Napa (2006): Beyond the hedonic
treadmill. Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. In The American psychologist 61
(4), pp. 305–314. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.305.
Diener, Ed; Seligman, Martin E. (2004): Beyond money. Toward an economy of wellbeing. In Psychological science in the public interest 5 (1), pp. 1–31.
Dietz, Thomas; Rosa, Eugene A.; York, Richard (2009): Environmentally Efficient WellBeing. Rethinking Sustainability as the Relationship between Human Well-being and
Environmental Impacts. In Human Ecology Review 16 (1), pp. 114–123.
Dodds, Steve (1997): Towards a ‘science of sustainability’. Improving the way ecological
economics understands human well-being. In Ecological economics 23 (2), pp. 95–111.
Easterlin, Richard A. (1974): Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some
empirical evidence. In : Nations and households in economic growth: Elsevier, pp. 89–
125.
Easterlin, Richard A. (2001): Income and Happiness. Towards a Unified Theory. In
Economic Journal 111 (473), pp. 465–484. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0297.00646.
Fernández, Esther; Pérez, Rafaela; Ruiz, Jesús (2011): Optimal green tax reforms
yielding double dividend. In Energy Policy 39 (7), pp. 4253–4263. DOI:
10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.041.
Fischer, Joern; Dyball, Robert; Fazey, Ioan; Gross, Catherine; Dovers, Stephen; Ehrlich,
Paul R. et al. (2012): Human behavior and sustainability. In Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 10 (3), pp. 153–160. DOI: 10.1890/110079.
Gambrel, Joshua Colt; Cafaro, Philip (2010): The Virtue of Simplicity. In J Agric Environ
Ethics 23 (1-2), pp. 85–108. DOI: 10.1007/s10806-009-9187-0.
Gibson, Robert B. (2006): Sustainability assessment. Basic components of a practical
approach. In Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24 (3), pp. 170–182. DOI:
10.3152/147154606781765147.
Gimenez, Cristina; Sierra, Vicenta; Rodon, Juan (2012): Sustainable operations. Their
impact on the triple bottom line. In International Journal of Production Economics 140
(1), pp. 149–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.035.
Goodland, Robert; Daly, Herman (1996): Environmental sustainability. Universal and
non‐negotiable. In Ecological applications 6 (4), pp. 1002–1017.
Gunders, Dana (2012): Wasted. How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from
farm to fork to landfill. In Natural Resources Defense Council 26.

29

Jackson, Tim (2005): Live Better by Consuming Less? Is There a “Double Dividend” in
Sustainable Consumption? In Journal of Industrial Ecology 9 (1-2), pp. 19–36. DOI:
10.1162/1088198054084734.
Jackson, Tim (2009): Beyond the growth economy. In Journal of Industrial Ecology 13
(4), pp. 487–490.
Kahneman, Daniel; Krueger, Alan B. (2006): Developments in the Measurement of
Subjective Well-Being. In Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (1), pp. 3–24. DOI:
10.1257/089533006776526030.
Kofinas, Gary P.; Chapin, F. Stuart (2009): Sustaining livelihoods and human well-being
during social-ecological change. In : Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Springer,
pp. 55–75.
Kubiszewski, Ida; Costanza, Robert; Franco, Carol; Lawn, Philip; Talberth, John;
Jackson, Tim; Aylmer, Camille (2013): Beyond GDP. Measuring and achieving global
genuine progress. In Ecological economics 93, pp. 57–68. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.019.
Leach, M. (2014): Resilience 2014. Limits Revisited? Planetary Boundaries, Justice And
Power: STEPS Centre Blog.
Leach, Melissa; Raworth, Kate; Rockström, Johan (2013): Between social and planetary
boundaries. Navigating pathways in the safe and just space for humanity. In World social
science report 2013, pp. 84–89.
Lerner, Sally (1997): Indicators of human well being. Fine-tuning vs. taking action? In
Social Indicators Research 40 (1-2), pp. 217–220.
Levin, Simon (2012): Epilogue. The challenge of sustainability: lessons from an
evolutionary perspective. In : Sustainability Science: Springer, pp. 431–437.
Murray, Cameron K. (2013): What if consumers decided to all ‘go green’? Environmental
rebound effects from consumption decisions. In Energy Policy 54, pp. 240–256. DOI:
10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.025.
Musabasic, Adi (2015): Energy and climatescenarios within the doughnut? Treatment of
planetary boundaries, social foundations for human prosperity and economic growth in
energy and climate scenarios.
National Research Council (1999): Our common journey. A transition toward
sustainability: National Academies Press.
Norton, Bryan; Costanza, Robert; Bishop, Richard C. (1998): The evolution of
preferences. Whysovereign'preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to
do about it. In Ecological economics 24 (2-3), pp. 193–211.
O’Neill, Daniel W.; Fanning, Andrew L.; Lamb, William F.; Steinberger, Julia K. (2018): A
good life for all within planetary boundaries. In Nat Sustain 1 (2), pp. 88–95. DOI:
10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4.
Owen, David (2010): The efficiency dilemma. In The New Yorker 20 (27), pp. 78–80.

30

Ragnarsdottir, K. V.; Sverdrup, H. U.; Koca, D. (2011): Challenging the planetary
boundaries I. Basic principles of an integrated model for phosphorous supply dynamics
and global population size. In Applied Geochemistry 26, S303-S306. DOI:
10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.03.088.
Rao, Narasimha D.; Baer, Paul (2012): “Decent Living” Emissions. A Conceptual
Framework. In Sustainability 4 (4), pp. 656–681. DOI: 10.3390/su4040656.
Raudsepp-Hearne, Ciara; Peterson, Garry D.; Tengö, Maria; Bennett, Elena M.; Holland,
Tim; Benessaiah, Karina et al. (2010): Untangling the Environmentalist's Paradox. Why
Is Human Well-being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade? In BioScience 60 (8),
pp. 576–589. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4.
Raworth, Kate (2012): A safe and just space for humanity. Can we live within the
doughnut. In Oxfam Policy and Practice: Climate Change and Resilience 8 (1), pp. 1–26.
Raworth, Kate (2017): A Doughnut for the Anthropocene. Humanity's compass in the
21st century. In The Lancet Planetary Health 1 (2), e48-e49. DOI: 10.1016/S25425196(17)30028-1.
Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Galetti, Mauro; Newsome, Thomas M.; Green, Tom
L.; Alamgir, Mohammed et al. (2018): The Role of Scientists’ Warning in Shifting Policy
from Growth to Conservation Economy. In BioScience 550, S59. DOI:
10.1093/biosci/biy009.
Rockström, Johan; Steffen, Will; Noone, Kevin; Persson, Åsa; Chapin III, F. Stuart;
Lambin, Eric et al. (2009): Planetary boundaries. Exploring the safe operating space for
humanity. In Ecology and society 14 (2).
Sjåfjell, Beate (2018): Redefining the Corporation for a Sustainable New Economy. In
Journal of Law and Society 45 (1), pp. 29–45. DOI: 10.1111/jols.12077.
Soper, Kate (2008): Alternative Hedonism, cultural theory and the role of aesthetic
revisioning. In Cultural Studies 22 (5), pp. 567–587. DOI:
10.1080/09502380802245829.
Soper, Kate (2016): Towards a Sustainable Flourishing. In Ethics and Morality in
Consumption: Interdisciplinary Perspectives 8, p. 11.
Speth, James Gustave (2017): The joyful economy. Rising up from the devastation of
people and nature. In Chapters, pp. 31–49.
Steffen, Will; Richardson, Katherine; Rockström, Johan; Cornell, Sarah E.; Fetzer, Ingo;
Bennett, Elena M. et al. (2015): Planetary boundaries. Guiding human development on a
changing planet. In Science (New York, N.Y.) 347 (6223), p. 1259855.
Summers, J. K.; Smith, L. M. (2014): The role of social and intergenerational equity in
making changes in human well-being sustainable. In Ambio 43 (6), pp. 718–728. DOI:
10.1007/s13280-013-0483-6.
Treaty Series No. 4 (2017) Paris Agreement. Paris, 12 December 2015 (2017). London:
Dandy Booksellers Ltd (UK Parliament Command Paper, session 2016/17, CM 9395).
Available online at http://www.publicinformationonline.com/download/135745.

31

van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. (2011): Environment versus growth — A criticism of
“degrowth” and a plea for “a-growth”. In Ecological economics 70 (5), pp. 881–890.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.035.
WCED (1987): World Commission on Environment and Development ‘Our Common
Future’. New York: UN. Available online at http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm,
checked on April 2018.
Wu, Jianguo (2013): Landscape sustainability science. Ecosystem services and human
well-being in changing landscapes. In Landscape Ecol 28 (6), pp. 999–1023. DOI:
10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9.

32

Eidesstattliche Erklärung

Ich versichere, dass ich diese Master-Arbeit – bei einer Gruppenarbeit den entsprechend
gekennzeichneten Teil der Master-Arbeit – selbstständig verfasst und keine anderen als
die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel benutzt habe. Ich versichere, alle Stellen der
Arbeit, die wortwörtlich oder sinngemäß aus anderen Quellen übernommen wurden, als
solche kenntlich gemacht und die Arbeit in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form noch keiner
Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt zu haben.
Hamburg
Ort

04 July 2018
Datum

Unterschrift

33