Academic articles and reports

Version 1.5 (March 2023)

Overview 

Welcome to the DEAL Team’s curated list of academic articles and research reports that engage with the core concepts of Doughnut Economics. The list is organised by year of publication and it will be updated periodically, but it is by no means exhaustive. You can also find a PDF version at the bottom of this page.

Please do let us know of any additional source that you think we should include by posting a comment below, or by sending a message via the contact page and select 'Research & Data Analysis' from the category options.

2023

• Barca S et al. (2023). Caring communities for radical change: What can feminist political ecology bring to degrowth? In Contours of Feminist Political Ecology (Eds: Harcourt, W et al.) Springer International Publishing: 177-206.
• Bruckner, B et al. (2023). Ecological unequal exchanges driven by EU consumption. Nature Sustainability (in press).
• Cash-Gibson, L et al. (2023). Towards a systemic understanding of sustainable wellbeing for all in cities: A conceptual framework. Cities 133: 104143.
• Deivanayagam, TA and Osborne, RE (2023). Breaking free from tunnel vision for climate change and health. PLOS Global Public Health 3(3): e0001684.
• Digitalization for Sustainability (2023). Digital Reset: Redirecting technologies for the deep sustainability transformation, Munich, oekom.
• Durand C et al. (2023). Planning Beyond Growth: The case for economic democracy within limits. University of Geneva Political Economy Working Paper Series 1/2023.
• Gupta, J et al. (2023). Earth system justice needed to identify and live within Earth system boundaries. Nature Sustainability (in press).
• Khmara, Y and Kronenburg, J (2023). On the road to urban degrowth economics? Learning from the experience of C40 cities, Doughnut cities, Transition Towns, and shrinking cities. Cities 136: 104259.
• Obura, DO et al. (2023). Achieving a nature- and people-positive future. One Earth 6(2):105-117.
• O’Neill, DW (2023) Obituary: Herman E. Daly (1938-2022). Nature Sustainability 6(2): 118-119.
• Rammelt, CF et al. (2023). Impacts of meeting minimum access on critical earth systems amidst the Great Inequality. Nature Sustainability 6(2): 212-221.
• Sandström, V et al. (2023). Disparate history of transgressing planetary boundaries for nutrients. Global Environmental Change 78: 102628.
• Starr, J et al. (2023). Assessing U.S. consumers’ carbon footprints reveals outsized impact of the top 1%. Ecological Economics 205: 107698.
• Su, Y et al. (2023). Optimizing safe and just operating spaces at sub-watershed scales to guide local environmental management. Journal of Cleaner Production 398: 136530.

2022

• Al Shawa, B (2022). An equitable energy allowance for all: Pathways for a below 2 °C-compliant global buildings sector. Energy Reports 8: 15377-15398.
• Armstrong McKay, D et al. (2022). ‘Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points’. Science 377(6611): eabn7950.
• Berrill, P et al. (2022). Decarbonization pathways for the residential sector in the United States. Nature Climate Change 12(8): 712-718. 
• Bodirsky, BJ et al. (2022). ‘Integrating degrowth and efficiency perspectives enables an emission-neutral food system by 2100’. Nature Food 3(5): 341-348.
• Breyer, C et al. (2022). ‘On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research’. IEEE Access 10: 78176-78218.
• Bruckner, B et al. (2022). ‘Impacts of poverty alleviation on national and global carbon emissions’. Nature Sustainability 5(4): 311-320.
• Chancel, L (2022). Global carbon inequality over 1990-2019. Nature Sustainability 5(11): 931-938.
• Custodio, HM et al. (2022). ‘A review of socioeconomic indicators of sustainability and wellbeing building on the social foundations framework’. Ecological Economics (in press).
• Dooley, K et al. (2022). ‘Carbon removals from nature restoration are no substitute for steep emission reductions’. One Earth 5(7): 812-824.
• Fanning, AL et al. (2022). ‘The social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations’. Nature Sustainability 5(1): 26-36.
• Feretto, A et al. (2022). ‘Planetary Boundaries and the Doughnut frameworks: A review of their local operability’. Anthropocene 39: 100347. 
• Gomez-Baggethun, E (2022). ‘Rethinking work for a just and sustainable future’. Ecological Economics 200: 107506.
• Hartman, S and Hessel Heslinga, J (2022). ‘The Doughnut Destination: applying Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economy perspective to rethink tourism destination management’. Journal of Tourism Futures (in press): 1-6.
• Hickel, J et al. (2022). ‘National responsibility for ecological breakdown: a fair-shares assessment of resource use, 1970–2017’. The Lancet Planetary Health 6(4): e342-e349.
• Hickel, J and Slamersak, A (2022). ‘Existing climate mitigation scenarios perpetuate colonial inequalities’. The Lancet Planetary Health 6(7): e628-e631.
• Jungell-Michelsson, J and Heikkurinen, P (2022). ‘Sufficiency: A systematic literature review’. Ecological Economics 195:107380.
• Khan, J et al. (2022). Ecological ceiling and social floor: public support for eco-social policies in Sweden. SustainabiKvangraven, IH and Kesar, S (2022). Standing in the way of rigor? Economics’ meeting with the decolonization agenda. Review of International Political Economy: 1-26.
• Krauss, J et al. (2022). ‘Mapping Sustainable Development Goals 8, 9, 12, 13 and 15 through a decolonial lens: falling short of ‘transforming our world’. Sustainability Science 17: 1855-1872.
• Masaki, K (2022). ‘Exploring the ‘Partial Connections’ between Growth and Degrowth Debates: Bhutan’s Policy of Gross National Happiness’. Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics 34(1): 86-103.
• McGreevy, SR et al. (2022). ‘Sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world’. Nature Sustainability (in press): 1-7 
• Millward-Hopkins, J (2022). ‘Inequality can double the energy required to secure universal decent living’. Nature Communications 13:5028.
• Paulson, L and Büchs, M (2022). ‘Public acceptance of post-growth: Factors and implications for post-growth strategy’. Futures 143: 103020.
• Preluca, A et al. (2022). ‘Sustainability of Schulte-Uebbing, LF et al. (2022). From planetary to regional boundaries for agricultural nitrogen pollution. Nature 610(7932): 507-512.
• Worker Co-Operatives’. Sustainability 14(18): 11542.
• Santarius, T et al. (2022). ‘Digital sufficiency: conceptual considerations for ICTs on a finite planet’. Annals of Telecommunications (in press): 1-19.
• Sullivan, D and Hickel, J (2022). ‘Capitalism and extreme poverty: A global analysis of real wages, human height, and mortality since the long 16th century’. World Development 161:106026.
• Turner, R and Wills, J (2022). ‘Downscaling doughnut economics for sustainability governance’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 56: 101180.
• van Vuuren, DP et al. (2022). ‘Defining a sustainable development target space for 2030 and 2050’. One Earth 5(2): 142-156.
• Virág, D et al. (2022). ‘How much infrastructure is required to support decent mobility for all? An exploratory assessment’. Ecological Economics 200: 107511.
• Wahlund, M and Hansen, T (2022). ‘Exploring alternative economic pathways: a comparison of foundational economy and Doughnut economics’. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 18(1): 171-186.
• Wang-Erlandsson, L et al. (2022). ‘A planetary boundary for green water’. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 3(6): 380-392.
• zu Ermgassen, SOSE et al. (2022). ‘A home for all within planetary boundaries: Pathways for meeting England's housing needs without transgressing national climate and biodiversity goals’. Ecological Economics 201: 107562.

2021

• Allen, C et al. (2021). ‘Modelling national transformations to achieve the SDGs within planetary boundaries in small island developing states’. Global Sustainability 4, E15. 
• Asquith, M and Speck, S (2021). ‘Reflecting on green growth: Creating a resilient economy within environmental limits’. European Environment Agency.
• Barth, J et al. (2021). ‘A compass towards 2030: navigating the EU’s economy beyond GDP by applying the Doughnut Economics framework’. ZOE Institute for Future-fit Economies.
• Benites, HS and Osmond, P (2021). ‘Bioconnections as Enablers of Regenerative Circularity for the Built Environment’. Urban Planning 6(4): 25-39.
• Bertin, E et al. (2021). ‘Les limites planétaires, un socle pour repenser nos modèles de société’. Centre Ressource du Développement Durable.
• Bjørn, A et al. (2021). ‘From the Paris Agreement to corporate climate commitments: evaluation of seven methods for setting `science-based' emission targets’. Environmental Research Letters 16(5): 054019.
• Büchs, M (2021). ‘Sustainable welfare: How do universal basic income and universal basic services compare?’. Ecological Economics 189: 107152.
• Community for Understanding Scale Up (2021). Enhancing social norms programs: An invitation to rethink “scaling up” from a feminist perspective. Community for Understanding Scale Up.
• Chen, X et al. (2021). ‘Revisiting the application and methodological extensions of the planetary boundaries for sustainability assessment’. Science of the Total Environment 788: 147886.
• Corlet Walker, C et al. (2021). ‘Welfare systems without economic growth: A review of the challenges and next steps for the field’. Ecological Economics 186: 107066.
• Dengler, C and Lang, M (2021). ‘Commoning Care: Feminist Degrowth Visions for a Socio-Ecological Transformation’. Feminist Economics 28(1): 1-28.
• Dillman, KJ et al. (2021). ‘A safe and just space for urban mobility: a framework for sector-based sustainable consumption corridor development’. Global Sustainability 4: E28.
• Drees, L et al. (2021). ‘Necessary or oversimplification? On the strengths and limitations of current assessments to integrate social dimensions in planetary boundaries’. Ecological Indicators 129: 108009.
• El Wali, M et al. (2021). ‘Circular economy for phosphorus supply chain and its impact on social sustainable development goals’. Science of the Total Environment 777: 146060.
• Fang, X et al. (2021). ‘Assessing human-environment system sustainability based on Regional Safe and Just Operating Space: The case of the Inner Mongolia Grassland’. Environmental Science and Policy 116: 276–286.
• Folke, C et al. (2021). ‘Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere’. Ambio 50, no.4: 834–869. 
• Goodwin, K et al. (2021). ‘Benchmarking urban performance against absolute measures of sustainability – A review’. Journal of Cleaner Production 314: 128020.
• Hickel, J et al. (2021). ‘Urgent need for post-growth climate mitigation scenarios’. Nature Energy 6(8): 766-768.
• Hjalsted, AW et al. (2021). ‘Sharing the safe operating space: Exploring ethical allocation principles to operationalize the planetary boundaries and assess absolute sustainability at individual and industrial sector levels’. Journal of Industrial Ecology 25(1): 6-19.
• Kikstra, JS et al. (2021). ‘Decent living gaps and energy needs around the world’. Environmental Research Letters 16(9): 095006. 
• Li, M et al. (2021). ‘The role of planetary boundaries in assessing absolute environmental sustainability across scales’. Environment International 152: 106475.
• Lotfi, M et al. (2021). ‘Supply Chains’ Failure in Workers’ Rights with Regards to the SDG Compass: A Doughnut Theory Perspective’. Sustainability 13(22): 12526.
• Rockström, J et al. (2021). ‘Identifying a safe and just corridor for people and the planet’. Earth’s Future 9, no.4: e2020EF001866.
• Sennholz-Weinhardt, B et al. (2021). ‘Towards a wellbeing economy that serves people and nature’ Oxfam Germany and European Environmental Bureau (also available in German).
• Shilling, HJ et al. (2021). ‘Modern slavery footprints in global supply chains’. Journal of Industrial Ecology 25(6): 1518-1528.
• Ssemugabo, C et al. (2021). ‘Health risks in our environment: urban slum youth’ perspectives using photovoice in Kampala, Uganda’. Sustainability 13, no. 1: 248.
• Stoddard, I et al. (2021). ‘Three decades of climate mitigation: Why haven't we bent the global emissions curve?’ Annual Review of Environment and Resources 46(1): 653-689.
• Sultana, F (2021). ‘Critical climate justice’. The Geographical Journal 188(1): 118–124.
• Turner, R et al. (2021). ‘Sustainable Development in Cornwall: Local Perspectives on Challenges and Opportunities’. Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter.
• Vogel, J et al. (2021). ‘Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use: An international analysis of social provisioning’. Global Environmental Change 69: 102287.
• Wackernagel, M et al. (2021). ‘The importance of resource security for poverty eradication’. Nature Sustainability 4(8): 731-738.
• Wiedmann, T and Allen, C (2021). ‘City footprints and SDGs provide untapped potential for assessing city sustainability’. Nature Communications 12(1): 3758.

2020

• Bell, SE et al. (2020). Towards feminist energy systems: Why adding women and solar panels is not enough. Energy Research & Social Science 68: 101557.
• Bjørn, A et al. (2020). ‘Review of life-cycle based methods for absolute environmental sustainability assessment and their applications’. Environmental Research Letters 15(8): 083001.
• Brand-Correa, L et al. (2020). ‘Understanding (and tackling) need satisfier escalation’. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 16, no. 1: 309–325.
• Büchs, M et al. (2020). ‘Wellbeing Economics for the COVID-19 Recovery’. Wellbeing Economies Alliance (WEAll) Briefing Papers.
• D’Alessandro S et al. (2020). ‘Feasible alternatives to green growth’. Nature Sustainability 3, no. 4: 329–335.
• De Neve, J and Sachs, J (2020). The SDGs and human well-being: A global analysis of synergies, trade-offs, and regional differences. Scientific Reports 10(1): 15113.
• Downing, A et al. (2020). ‘Learning from generations of sustainability concepts’ Environmental Research Letters 15: 083002.
• Ensor, J and Hoddy, E (2020). ‘Securing the social foundation: A rights-based approach to planetary boundaries’. Earth System Governance (in press).
• Fanning, AL et al. (2020). ‘Provisioning Systems for a Good Life within Planetary Boundaries’. Global Environmental Change 64: 102135.
• Gough, I (2020). ‘Defining floors and ceilings: the contribution of human needs theory’. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 16, no. 1: 208–219.
• Hickel, J (2020). ‘Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary’. Lancet Planetary Health 4, no. 9: e399–e404.
• Hickel, J, and Kallis, G (2020). ‘Is Green Growth Possible?’ New Political Economy 25, no. 4: 469–86.
• Lieberknecht, L (2020). ‘Ecosystem-Based Integrated Ocean Management: A Framework for Sustainable Ocean Economy Development’. UNEP-GRID Arendal.
• Linnanen, L et al. (2020). ‘The sufficiency perspective in climate policy: how to recompose consumption’. Finnish Climate Change Panel.
• Mair, S (2020). ‘Neoliberal economics, planetary health, and the COVID-19 pandemic: a Marxist ecofeminist analysis’. The Lancet Planetary Health 4, no. 12: e588–596.
• Millward-Hopkins, J et al. (2020). Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario. Global Environmental Change 65: 102168.
• Olsson, D (2020). ‘The Transformative Potential of Resilience Thinking: How It Could Transform Unsustainable Economic Rationalities’. Alternatives 45(2): 102-120.
• Roberts, JT et al. (2020). ‘Four Agendas for Research and Policy on Emissions Mitigation and Well-Being’. Global Sustainability 3: e3.
• Roy, A, and Pramanick, K (2020). ‘Safe and Just Operating Space for India’. In Handbook of Environmental Materials Management, 1–32. Springer International Publishing.
• Stratford, B and O'Neill, DW (2020). ‘The UK’s Path to a Doughnut-Shaped Recovery’. University of Leeds.
• Turner, R et al. (2020). ‘Towards a Sustainable Cornwall: State of the Doughnut’. University of Exeter.
• Wiedmann, T et al. (2020). ‘Scientists’ Warning on Affluence’. Nature Communications 11(1): 3107.
• Wugt Larsen, F and Lung, T (2020). ‘Is Europe Living within the Limits of Our Planet?’ European Environment Agency.

2019

• Bourges, B et al. (2019). ‘La société française face aux limites de la planète’. In L’environnement en France 2019, 155–193. Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire, Gouvernement de la République française.
• Capmourteres, V et al. (2019). ‘A Complex Systems Framework for the Sustainability Doughnut’. People and Nature 1, no. 4: 497–506.
• Downing, AS et al. (2019). ‘Matching Scope, Purpose and Uses of Planetary Boundaries Science’. Environmental Research Letters 14, no. 7: 073005.
• Hickel, J (2019). ‘Is It Possible to Achieve a Good Life for All within Planetary Boundaries?’ Third World Quarterly 40, no. 1: 18–35.
• Jackson, T and Victor, P (2019). ‘Unraveling the Claims for (and against) Green Growth’. Science 366, no. 6468: 950–51.

2018

• Beaudoin, Y (2018). ‘Hacking Economics for People and Planet’. Early Warning, Emerging Issues and Futures Foresight Brief 6. United Nations Environment Programme
• Boehnert, J (2018). ‘Anthropocene Economics and Design: Heterodox Economics for Design Transitions’. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 4, no. 4: 355–74.
• Häyhä, T et al. (2018). ‘Operationalizing the Concept of a Safe Operating Space at the EU Level – First Steps and Explorations’. SRC Technical Report. Stockholm Resilience Centre.
• O’Neill, DW et al. (2018). ‘A Good Life for All within Planetary Boundaries’. Nature Sustainability 1, no. 2: 88–95.
• Roy, A, and Pramanick, K (2018). ‘A comparative study of ‘safe and just operating space’ for the south and south-east Asian countries’. bioRxiv.
• Steffen, W et al. (2018). ‘Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 33: 8252–59.
• Wiedmann, T and Lenzen, M (2018). ‘Environmental and Social Footprints of International Trade’. Nature Geoscience 11, no. 5: 314–21.

2017

• Cole, MJ et al. (2017). ‘Spatial Variability in Sustainable Development Trajectories in South Africa: Provincial Level Safe and Just Operating Spaces’. Sustainability Science 12, no. 5: 829–48.
• Lamb, WF and Steinberger JK, (2017). ‘Human Well-Being and Climate Change Mitigation’. WIREs Climate Change 8, no. 6: e485.
• Raworth, K (2017). ‘A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: Humanity’s Compass in the 21st Century’. The Lancet Planetary Health 1, no. 2: e48–49.
• Raworth, K (2017). ‘Why It’s Time for Doughnut Economics’. IPPR Progressive Review 24, no. 3: 216–22.

2016

• Häyhä, T et al. (2016). ‘From Planetary Boundaries to National Fair Shares of the Global Safe Operating Space — How Can the Scales Be Bridged?’ Global Environmental Change 40: 60–72.
• Hoornweg, D et al. (2016). ‘An Urban Approach to Planetary Boundaries’. Ambio 45, no. 5: 567–80.
• Verburg, P et al. (2016). ‘Methods and Approaches to Modelling the Anthropocene’. Global Environmental Change 39: 328–40.

2015

• Daly, H (2015). ‘Economics for a Full World’. Great Transition Initiative.
• Hajer, M et al. (2015). ‘Beyond Cockpit-Ism: Four Insights to Enhance the Transformative Potential of the Sustainable Development Goals’. Sustainability 7, no. 2: 1651–60.
• Sayers, M and Trebeck, K (2015). ‘The UK Doughnut: A Framework for Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice’. Oxfam Policy and Practice, Oxfam.
• Steffen, W et al. (2015). ‘Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet’. Science 347, no. 6223.
• Steffen, W et al. (2015). ‘The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration’. The Anthropocene Review 2, no. 1: 81–98.
• Turnheim, B et al. (2015). ‘Evaluating Sustainability Transitions Pathways: Bridging Analytical Approaches to Address Governance Challenges’. Global Environmental Change 35: 239–53.

2014

• Cole, M et al. (2014). ‘Tracking Sustainable Development with a National Barometer for South Africa Using a Downscaled “Safe and Just Space” Framework’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 42: E4399–4408.
• Dearing, JA et al. (2014). ‘Safe and Just Operating Spaces for Regional Social-Ecological Systems’. Global Environmental Change 28: 227–38.
• Hoekstra, AY and Wiedmann, T (2014). ‘Humanity’s Unsustainable Environmental Footprint’. Science 344, no. 6188: 1114–17.

2013

• Griggs, D et al. (2013). ‘Sustainable Development Goals for People and Planet’. Nature 495, no. 7441: 305–7.
• Leach, M et al. (2013). ‘Between Social and Planetary Boundaries: Navigating Pathways in the Safe and Just Space for Humanity’. In World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments, 84–89. Paris: UNESCO.
• Nykvist, B et al. (2013). National Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries: A Study for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
• Steffen, W and Stafford Smith, M (2013). ‘Planetary Boundaries, Equity and Global Sustainability: Why Wealthy Countries Could Benefit from More Equity’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5, no. 3: 403–8.

2012 and earlier

• Costanza, R et al. (2012). ‘Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature’. New York: United Nations Division for Sustainable Development.
• Meadows, D (1999). ‘Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System’. The Sustainability Institute.
• Raworth, K (2012). ‘A Safe and Just Space for Humanity’. Oxfam Discussion Papers. Oxfam International.
• Rockström, J et al. (2009). ‘A Safe Operating Space for Humanity’. Nature 461, no. 7263: 472–75.
• Scheffer, M et al. (2012). ‘Anticipating Critical Transitions’. Science 338, no. 6105: 344–48.
• Vince, G (2012). ‘Living in the Doughnut’. Nature Climate Change 2, no. 4: 225–26.

Acknowledgements

This tool was created by Andrew Fanning, with contributions from Kate Raworth and Kapil Yadav, from DEAL. Photo credit to Jaredd Craig on Unsplash