Planetary Well-being

The paper situates its inquiry within escalating ecological and social crises driven by human activities that have transformed Earth systems and ecosystems. It highlights profound inequalities in who benefits from environmentally damaging actions and who bears the costs, noting that a small fraction of humanity—particularly in developed countries—has driven most environmental harm. Existing frameworks (e.g., sustainable development, ecosystem services, and various justice approaches) are critiqued for anthropocentrism, methodological individualism, and inadequate attention to multiscalar, process-based dynamics that link human and nonhuman well-being. The research question is to conceptualize well-being in a way that is non-anthropocentric, systems-oriented, and multi-scalar, connecting organismal, population/species (lineage), ecosystem, and Earth system levels, and to provide a foundation for ethical and practical guidance for societal transformation. The authors propose the concept of planetary well-being: a normative, integrative framework that recognizes intrinsic value across humans and nonhumans and focuses on the integrity of Earth system and ecosystem processes as prerequisites for the persistence of lineages and the realization of organisms’ typical characteristics and capacities.

The paper reviews strands of scholarship on well-being: (1) subjective, experience-based human well-being (life satisfaction, positive affect, mental health), criticized for sustainability and justice limitations due to malleable preferences and high material impacts; (2) ecopsychology and ecosocial perspectives, which emphasize human–nature connectedness and argue that high human well-being is linked to exposure to and identification with nature; (3) needs-based, objective accounts in social sciences (Doyal & Gough; Max-Neef; Nussbaum & Sen; Rice; Gough), which articulate universal human needs (e.g., health, relationships, autonomy) that are policy-relevant, plural, non-substitutable, and in principle satiable; (4) nonhuman well-being literature, primarily on sentient animals (species-typical physical and behavioral needs), and extensions to populations, species/lineages, and ecosystems, where ecosystem well-being is functional integrity and capacity to retain typical functionings; (5) frameworks in sustainability science and conservation (e.g., ecosystem services) that, while systemic, often remain anthropocentric by privileging instrumental value to humans. The review identifies a gap in integrating human and nonhuman well-being across scales, with insufficiently developed multiscalar, systems-oriented approaches that address synergies and conflicts among levels (organisms, lineages, ecosystems, Earth system).

This is a conceptual, transdisciplinary synthesis. The authors adopt: (1) a pluralist normative framework granting moral considerability and intrinsic value to humans, nonhuman individuals, and certain non-individual living entities (species/lineages and ecosystems) with self-regulative capacities; (2) a systems-oriented approach (Bunge) to define generic components of systems, critical processes, needs and need satisfiers, and well-being as functional integrity; (3) a needs-based grounding of well-being applied consistently across organisms, lineages, ecosystems, and Earth system processes. They derive a definition of planetary well-being by focusing on the integrity of Earth system and ecosystem processes necessary for satisfying diverse needs across life forms, rather than aggregating heterogeneous needs directly. The paper articulates key concepts (organismal well-being, needs, lineages, ecosystems, Earth system and ecosystem processes) and proposes operationalization pathways: precautionary principle for dealing with uncertainty; using population and species viability as proxies for process integrity; and employing biodiversity indicators (e.g., Red List Index) and sufficiency-oriented social indicators for governance. The approach is illustrative and argumentative rather than empirical or model-based.

• Definition: Planetary well-being is a state in which the integrity of Earth system and ecosystem processes remains unimpaired to a degree that lineages (species, populations) can persist into the future as parts of ecosystems, and organisms (human and nonhuman) can realize their typical characteristics and capacities.
• Focus shift: Emphasizes processes (flows of energy and matter; biotic interactions such as nutrient cycles, pollination, succession) over individual outcomes, acknowledging inherent conflicts at organismal level (e.g., predation) while prioritizing the integrity that underpins well-being at all levels.
• Non-anthropocentrism: Recognizes intrinsic value in human and nonhuman entities; calls for satisfying human basic needs in ways that do not compromise the persistence and well-being of nonhuman lineages and ecosystems.
• Needs framing: Human needs are objective, plural, non-substitutable, and satiable; quality of life compatible with sufficiency and reduced material consumption can support well-being when non-material needs (relationships, autonomy, participation) are met.
• Precaution: Due to uncertainty and potential for amplified system interactions, adopt the precautionary principle when actions may significantly affect critical Earth system and ecosystem processes.
• Operationalization: Use population/species trends as indicators of process integrity; propose Red List Index (RLI) values (0–1 scale) for well-chosen species sets regionally and globally as surrogate measures and targets for planetary well-being (with nonhuman natural extinction drivers excluded from penalties). Align societal indicators toward sufficiency and basic needs, and away from environmentally and socially harmful development.
• Policy and practice: Prioritize need satisfiers with least harm to planetary well-being (e.g., protein sources with lower ecological impact), contextualized to local societies and values while preserving autonomy. Leverage participatory, needs-based deliberation to define well-being and acceptable trade-offs.
• Illustrative data points highlighting the crisis context: <25% of land remains free of significant human impact (projected to <10% by 2050); ~75% of freshwater and >50% of marine areas exploited for food production; biomass of wild mammals down 82% since prehistory; humans appropriate ~38% of global net primary production; >25% of 134,425 assessed species are threatened with extinction; stark income inequality with top 10% capturing 53–60% of global income.

The concept directly addresses the need for a non-anthropocentric, multi-scalar, systems-oriented framework linking human and nonhuman well-being. By centering on the integrity of Earth system and ecosystem processes and the persistence of lineages, the framework reconciles human needs with ecological limits: human basic needs should be met via need satisfiers that minimize harm to critical processes and do not elevate extinction risks. It reframes sustainability debates from maximizing human utility or GDP toward safeguarding the underlying processes that enable all forms of life to flourish. The proposed indicators (e.g., Red List Index) and sufficiency-oriented social measures provide actionable targets for governance, complementing climate goals (e.g., temperature limits) with biodiversity/lineage persistence goals. The concept also serves as a bridging tool among disciplines and between scientific and public policy arenas, facilitating deliberation across divergent worldviews by offering shared language (needs, processes, integrity) that respects both social equality and the intrinsic value of nonhuman nature.

The paper contributes a unified concept of planetary well-being that integrates needs-based accounts of well-being with a systems perspective across biological scales, explicitly rejecting anthropocentric limitations. It defines well-being in terms of the integrity of Earth system and ecosystem processes that enable lineage persistence and organismal flourishing, and outlines pathways to operationalization through precaution, biodiversity-based indicators (e.g., RLI), sufficiency-oriented social metrics, and participatory deliberation. Future work should: (1) refine multi-scalar indicators that couple lineage persistence with process integrity; (2) develop sector-specific guidance on low-impact need satisfiers (e.g., food systems, energy, urbanization); (3) expand regional data coverage (e.g., Red Lists) and link with Earth system models; (4) test deliberative processes that incorporate planetary well-being into policy and community decision-making; and (5) explore cross-cultural interpretations to strengthen the concept’s role as a bridging framework.

• Conceptual scope: The paper is theoretical; it does not present empirical tests or quantitative models of planetary well-being.
• Normative assumptions: Adoption of a pluralist, non-anthropocentric ethics may not be universally shared.
• Knowledge gaps: Incomplete understanding of Earth system and ecosystem processes and their interactions; unforeseen effects (e.g., ozone depletion case) highlight uncertainty.
• Measurement constraints: Reliance on species/population indicators (e.g., RLI) as proxies may omit unmeasured process integrity aspects; national/regional Red List coverage is uneven.
• Domain exclusions: Well-being of artefacts and socially constructed systems is excluded; domesticated nature raises distinct normative issues not resolved here.