Motivation
Our previous research contributed significantly to the “energy use and economy” (EE) literature. Over time, we extended this line of inquiry by incorporating environmental impacts, evolving into the “energy-economy-environment” (EEE) nexus. However, we came to realize that this framework was still incomplete. Without integrating societal (S) dimensions, EEE cannot fully address the complexity of sustainability challenges.
Adding the societal component requires quantifying well-being in a meaningful way and shifting the focus from economic growth to societal progress. Motivated by the idea that sustainable transitions demand a reassessment of societal values, we adopted an ecological economics perspective. Instead of treating GDP as the end goal, we emphasized societal well-being as the ultimate objective.
The literature lacks a clear understanding of how energy or broader resource use is linked to different dimensions of well-being. This gap becomes even more significant when distinguishing between short-term (hedonic) and long-term (eudaimonic) well-being. Our relentless pursuit of material gains is depleting vital natural resources, which could compromise long-term well-being. We argue that hedonic well-being is closely tied to income and resource use in the short run, while eudaimonic well-being—centered on meaning, purpose, and fulfillment—is more relevant over time and decoupled from consumption. This paper aims to address this gap by providing a novel framework with policy relevance.
Framework
We propose an S-shaped relationship between resource use and hedonic well-being, as illustrated in Figure 1.
At low levels of resource use, hedonic well-being rises rapidly, reflecting the fulfillment of basic needs. We call the resource level at the first inflection point the subsistence use level (SUSE)—the minimum resource use to which every person should be entitled. Beyond SUSE, the contribution of additional resource use diminishes. The curve then reaches a “knee” point—referred to as fair use (FUSE)—where the marginal gains in well-being become negligible.
SUSE and FUSE serve as meaningful social benchmarks. Countries below SUSE are under-consuming, while those beyond FUSE are over-consuming. We also hypothesize that the link between eudaimonic well-being and resource use is weak at low levels of hedonic well-being but becomes more pronounced after the hedonic inflection point. This is because higher hedonic fulfillment allows societies to shift toward non-materialistic goals, enabling decoupling of well-being from consumption. This transition remains underexplored in the literature.
Which Measures?
Resource pressure is better captured by consumption-based metrics. Therefore, we use material footprint per capita to represent resource use. For well-being, we employed the eudaimonic well-being index (EWB) and the Human Development Index (HDI). While HDI includes education, income, and life expectancy, it omits subjective satisfaction and the eudaimonic aspects entirely.
First graph in Figure 2 plots EWB and HDI against each other, second and third graphs plot HDI and EWB against income and material footprint, respectively. Kernel fits reveal a steep rise in hedonic well-being at early levels of resource use (low lnMF), a slowdown beyond SUSE, and a flattening after FUSE. EWB and HDI appear unrelated at lower income levels but become strongly correlated as countries achieve higher development, suggesting a transition from hedonic to eudaimonic well-being.
Given that HDI data is available over time, we focused on estimating the S-shaped curve between HDI and material footprint across years. Using a logistic specification, we identify the SUSE and FUSE levels by calculating inflection and knee points.
Results
An exploratory analysis using kernel fits revealed an S-shaped relationship between HDI (a proxy for hedonic well-being) and material footprint, consistent across different years. This non-parametric estimation allowed us to capture the underlying shape of the data without imposing a pre-defined functional form. The S-curve demonstrates a steep rise in well-being at early levels of resource use, a slowdown beyond the inflection point (SUSE), and a near plateau after the knee point (FUSE), confirming our initial conjecture.
To provide more precise insights, we estimated a logistic functional form across all available years using HDI as the dependent variable and the natural log of material footprint (lnMF) as the independent variable. The resulting S-curves are statistically robust, and the inflection points were identified consistently and displayed in Figure 3.
Fig. 3 Inflection points for material footprint over time
Importantly, we observed that the location of these inflection points—where resource use begins to yield diminishing returns—has been shifting rightward over time. This implies that higher levels of resource use are needed today to reach the same marginal gains in well-being as in the past, possibly due to lagged societal responses or increased expectations.
A particularly striking result is the downturn seen in the planetary pressures-adjusted HDI (PHDI) at higher levels of material footprint, which does not appear in the unadjusted HDI. This suggests that when environmental degradation is factored in, excessive resource use may actually reduce societal well-being, lending empirical support to the threshold hypothesis. The pattern was most evident during and after periods of economic crises—such as the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic—when inflection points dropped sharply, indicating that well-being plateaus can be achieved at lower resource use during times of constrained economic activity.
Furthermore, the dispersion of countries along the S-curve reinforces the global inequity in resource use. Low-income countries are clustered on the steep left-hand side of the curve (below SUSE), where resource use strongly contributes to well-being. High-income countries, by contrast, are primarily located on the flat right-hand tail (beyond FUSE), where additional consumption offers minimal or no improvement and may even cause harm. This divergence has crucial implications for global sustainability and resource allocation strategies.
More is not necessarily Better
Our analysis offers evidence that the relationship between societal well-being and resource use is not only nonlinear but also dynamic. The proposed S-shaped framework and the empirical identification of subsistence (SUSE) and fair use (FUSE) thresholds provide a lens through which sustainable development and resource equity can be re-evaluated. These findings challenge the conventional narrative that more resource consumption always leads to greater well-being, particularly in high-income contexts.
From a policy standpoint, recognizing SUSE and FUSE opens the door to more equitable and targeted interventions. Governments and international organizations can use these benchmarks to guide redistribution strategies—providing support and infrastructure to under-consuming countries below SUSE, while designing policies to curb overconsumption beyond FUSE. Such strategies may include progressive resource taxes, sufficiency policies, and degrowth-compatible development models. This aligns with global justice frameworks and “contraction and convergence” approaches seen in climate negotiations.
Future research should prioritize the refinement of well-being indicators, especially the development of longitudinal measures of eudaimonic well-being that capture meaning, autonomy, and social connectedness. Since hedonic well-being responds more immediately to material improvements, while eudaimonic well-being reflects deeper, longer-term processes, dynamic models that account for lagged effects are necessary. This would allow researchers to trace how past resource use affects future well-being outcomes.
Additionally, disaggregating resource use by category (e.g., energy, metals, biomass, water) could reveal more precise inflection points and help tailor policies to specific ecological and developmental contexts. Incorporating heterogeneity across countries—such as cultural values, climate, and institutional structures—will enhance the global applicability and fairness of the proposed framework. Bridging subjective and objective indicators of well-being will also help create holistic progress metrics that better align with ecological constraints.