1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
  4. Volume 49, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 49, 2024

Measuring Global Human Progress: Are We on the Right Track?

Abstract

As a metric for economic progress, gross domestic product (GDP) has been criticized for hiding the destruction of natural capital and failing to improve happiness/human well-being. Consequently, many studies unanimously argued for a beyond GDP approach, which led to a proliferation of ensuing metrics. However, the proliferation leads to confusion as it complicates matters for policymakers looking to these metrics to inform coherent development objectives and plans. Our article aims to assess theoretical and empirical efforts to measure human progress based on these notions of well-being and sustainability and critically analyze the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches. We explore systematic trends in indicator activity in the related literature and, in doing so, organize our discussion around the distinct and prominent perspectives that can be identified. We illustrate with a case study on India how divergent matrices, though not beyond comprehension, increase the complexity.

Keyword(s): biophysical indicators, composite indices, dashboard indicators, green accounting, SEEA, subjective well-being index, System of Environmental Economic Accounting, wealth accounting
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-072941
2024-10-18
2025-04-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/49/1/annurev-environ-112621-072941.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-072941&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Coyle D. 2014.. GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press. Rev. ed .
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Philipsen D. 2015.. The Little Big Number: How GDP Came to Rule the World and What to Do About It. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Masood E. 2021.. GDP: The World's Most Powerful Formula and Why It Must Now Change. London:: Icon. , 4th ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Bleys B. 2012.. Beyond GDP: classifying alternative measures of progress. . Soc. Indic. Res. 109::355–76
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Bleys B. 2015.. Barriers and opportunities for alternative measures of economic welfare. . Ecol. Econ. 117::162–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Agarwala M. 2020.. Natural capital accounting and the measurement of sustainability. PhD Thesis , London Sch. Econ. Political Sci., London:
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi JP. 2009.. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Rep. , Comm. Meas. Econ. Perform. Soc. Prog., Paris:
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Van Den Bergh J. 2009.. The GDP paradox. . J. Econ. Psychol. 30:(2):117–35
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Pintér L, Hansen H. 2008.. Compendium of sustainable development indicator initiatives: a global directory of comprehensive indicator systems. . Environ. Health 8:(2):88–111
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Canadian Index of Wellbeing. 2016.. How are Canadians Really Doing? The 2016 National Report. Faculty Appl. Sci., Univ. Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Can.:
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Wackernagel M, Rees W. 1996.. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Philadelphia:: New Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Barbier E. 2022.. Economics for a Fragile Planet: Rethinking Markets, Institutions and Governance. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N, eds. 1999.. The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. New York:: Russell Sage Found.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Waterman A. 1993.. Two concepts of happiness: contrasts personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 64::678–91
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    United Nations. 2012.. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: central framework. Manual, UN, New York:
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    United Nations. 2018.. Introduction to SEEA ecosystem accounting. Rep. , UN, New York:. https://seea.un.org/Introduction-to-Ecosystem-Accounting
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    United Nations. 2009.. System of national accounts. Rep. , UN, New York:
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    United Nations. 1953.. A system of national accounts and supporting tables. Rep. , UN, New York:
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Nordhaus WD, Tobin J. 1972.. Is growth obsolete?. In Economic Research: Retrospect and Prospect, Vol. 5, Economic Growth, ed. WD Nordhaus, J Tobin , pp. 1–80. Cambridge, MA:: NBER
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Eisner R, Simons E, Pieper P, Bender S. 1982.. Total incomes in the United States, 1946–76: a summary report. . Rev. Income Wealth 28:(2):133–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Kendrick JW. 1976.. The Formation and Stocks of Total Capital. Cambridge, MA:: NBER
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Ruggles R, Ruggles ND. 1982.. Integrated economic accounts for the United States 1947–90. . Survey Curr. Bus. 62::1–53
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Zolotas X. 1981.. Economic Growth and Declining Social Welfare. New York:: NYU Press
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Eisner R. 1988.. Extended accounts for national income and product. . J. Econ. Lit. 25:(4):1611–84
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Land K, Michelis A. 2018.. Fifty years after the social indicators movement: Has the promise been fulfilled? An assessment and agenda for the future. . Soc. Indic. Res. 135::835–68
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Arrow KJ, Dasgupta P, Goulder LH, Mumford KJ, Oleson K. 2012.. Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. . Environ. Dev. Econ. 17:(3):317–53
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Afsa C, Blanchet D, Marcus V, Pionnier P-A, Rioux L, et al. 2008.. Survey of existing approaches to measuring socio-economic progress. Rep. , Comm. Meas. Econ. Perform. Soc. Prog., Paris:
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Weitzman M. 1976.. On the welfare significance of national product in a dynamic economy. . Q. J. Econ. 90::156–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Weitzman M, Ashiem G. 2001.. Does NNP growth indicate welfare improvement?. Econ. Lett. 73:(2):233–39
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Hartwick J. 1977.. Intergenerational equity and investing of rents from exhaustible resources. . Am. Econ. Rev. 67:(5):972–74
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Solow R. 1986.. On the intergenerational allocation of natural resources. . Scand. J. Econ. 88:(1):141–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Hartwick J. 1990.. Natural resources, national accounting and economic depreciation. . J. Public Econ. 43:(3):291–304
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Gundimeda H. 2014.. Forest resource accounting. . In Handbook of Forest Economics, ed. S Kant, J Alavalapati , pp. 504–20. London:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Daly H, Cobb JB. 1989.. For the Common Good. Boston:: Beacon
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Stockhammer E, Hochreiter H, Obermayr B, Steiner K. 1997.. The index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW) as an alternative to GDP in measuring economic welfare. The results of the Austrian (revised) ISEW calculation 1955–1992. . Ecol. Econ. 21::19–34
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Cobb C, Halstead T, Rowe J. 1995.. The Genuine Progress Indicator: summary of data and methodology. Rep. , Redefining Progress, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Kenny DC, Costanza R, Dowsley T, Jackson N, Josol J, et al. 2019.. Australia's Genuine Progress Indicator revisited (1962–2013). . Ecol. Econ. 158::1–10
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Kubiszweski I, Costanza R, Franco C, Lawn P, Talberth J, et al. 2013.. Beyond GDP: measuring and achieving global genuine progress. . Ecol. Econ. 93::57–68
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Kubiszweski I, Costanza R, Gorka NE, Weisdorf MA, Carnes AW, et al. 2015.. Progress indicator (GPI) for Oregon from 1960–2010 and recommendations for a comprehensive shareholder's report. . Ecol. Econ. 119::1–7
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Pearce DW, Atkinson GD. 1993.. Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of “weak” sustainability. . Ecol. Econ. 8::103–8
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Hamilton K, Clemens M. 1999.. Genuine saving rates in developing countries. . World Bank Econ. Rev. 13::333–56
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    World Bank. 2005.. Where Is the Wealth of Nations? Washington, DC:: World Bank
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    World Bank. 2011.. The Changing Wealth of Nations: Measuring Sustainable Development in the New Millennium. Washington, DC:: World Bank
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    World Bank. 2021.. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021: Managing Assets for the Future. Washington, DC:: World Bank
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Hamilton K, Hartwick J. 2014.. Wealth and sustainability. . Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 30::170–87
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Neumayer E. 2013.. Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. Cheltenham, UK:: Elgar Online. , 4th ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Dasgupta P, Mäler KG. 2000.. Net national product, wealth, and social well-being. . Environ. Dev. Econ. 5:(1/2):69–93
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Dasgupta P. 2001.. Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Duraiappah AK, Munoz P. 2012.. Inclusive wealth: a tool for the United Nations. . Environ. Dev. Econ. 17:(3):362–67
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Hamilton K, Hartwick JM. 2005.. Investing exhaustible resource rents and the path of consumption. . Can. J. Econ. 38:(2):615–21
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Polasky S, Bryant B, Hawthorne P, Johnson J, Keeler B, Pennington D. 2015.. Inclusive wealth as a metric of sustainable development. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40::445–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    UNU-IHDP (UN Univ. Int. Hum. Dimens. Prog.), UNEP (UN Environ. Prog.). 2014.. Inclusive Wealth Report 2014: Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    UNEP (UN Environ. Prog.). 2018.. Inclusive Wealth Report 2018: Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Hamilton K. 2012.. Comments on Arrow et al., ‘Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. .’ Environ. Dev. Econ. 38:(2):256–61
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Engelbrecht HJ. 2016.. Comprehensive versus inclusive wealth accounting and the assessment of sustainable development: an empirical comparison. . Ecol. Econ. 129::12–20
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Roman P, Thiry G. 2016.. The inclusive wealth index: a critical appraisal. . Ecol. Econ. 124::185–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Solow R. 2012.. A few comments on ‘Sustainability and measurement of wealth.’ Environ. . Dev. Econ. 17::354–55
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Gundimeda H, Atkinson G. 2014.. Forest wealth of nations. . See Ref. 52 , pp. 137–58
  59. 59.
    Barbier E. 2014.. Challenges to ecosystem service valuation for wealth accounting. . See Ref. 52 , pp. 159–78
  60. 60.
    Daly H. 1991.. Towards an environmental macroeconomics. . Land Econ. 67:(2):255–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Rees W, Wackernagel M. 2004.. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy. . Sustain. Sustain. Indic. 4::151–81
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Moran DD, Wackernagel M, Kitzes JA, Goldfinger SH, Boutaud A. 2008.. Measuring sustainable development - nation by nation. . Ecol. Econ. 64::470–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Hoekstra AY, Wiedmann TO. 2014.. Humanity's unsustainable environmental footprint. . Science 344::1114–17
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Steen-Olsen K, Wood R, Hertwich EG. 2016.. The carbon footprint of Norwegian household consumption 1999–2012. . J. Ind. Ecol. 20:(3):582–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Kitzes J, Galli M, Baglianic J, Barrett G, Dige S, et al. 2009.. A research agenda for improving national ecological footprint accounts. . Ecol. Econ. (68):1991–2007
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    WWF (World Wildl. Found.). 2020.. Living planet report 2020 - bending the curve of biodiversity loss. Rep. , World Wildl. Found., Gland, Switz:.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Peskin HM. 1989.. Accounting for natural resource depletion and degradation in developing countries. Environ. Dep. Work. Pap. 13 , World Bank, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    El Serafy E. 1989.. The proper calculation of income from depletable natural resources. . In Environmental Accounting for Sustainable Development, ed. Y Ahmad, S El Serafy, E Lutz , pp. 10–18. Washington, DC:: World Bank
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Repetto R, Magrath W, Wells M, Beer C, Rossini F. 1989.. Wasting assets: natural resources in the national income accounts. Rep. , World Res. Inst., Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Bartelmus P, Tongeren V. 1994.. Environmental Accounting: An Operational Perspective. New York:: UN Stat. Off.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Alfsen K, Greaker M. 2007.. From natural resources and environmental accounting to construction of indicators for sustainable development. . Ecol. Econ. 61:(4):600–10
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Keuning S, van Dalen J, de Haan M. 1999.. The Netherlands’ NAMEA; presentation, usage and future extensions. . Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 10:(1):15–37
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Bartelmus P. 1999.. Green accounting for a sustainable economy: policy use and analysis of environmental accounts in the Philippines. . Ecol. Econ. 29::155–70
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Hamilton K, Lutz E. 1996.. Green national accounts: empirical uses and policy experiences. Environ. Dep. Pap. 039 , World Bank, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Lange GM. 2014.. An approach to sustainable water management in Southern Africa using natural resource accounts: the experience in Namibia. . Ecol. Econ. 26:(3):299–311
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Gundimeda H, Sukhdev P, Rajeev SK, Sanyal S. 2007.. Natural resource accounting for Indian States – illustrating the case of forest resources. . Ecol. Econ. 61:(4):635–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Atkinson G, Gundimeda H. 2007.. Accounting for India's forest wealth. . Ecol. Econ. 59:(4):462–76
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Vardon M, Lenzen M, Peevor S, Creaser M. 2006.. Water accounting in Australia. . Ecol. Econ. 61:(4):650–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Gundimeda H. 2000.. Integrating forest resources into the system of national accounts in Maharashtra, India. . Environ. Dev. Econ. 5::143–56
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Cairns R. 2005.. Accounting for resource depletion - a microeconomic approach. . Rev. Income Wealth 46:(1):21–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Haripriya GS. 1998.. Forest resource accounting: preliminary estimates for the state of Maharashtra. . Dev. Policy Rev. 16:(2):131–51
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Vincent JR, Hartwick JM. 1997.. Accounting for the benefits of forest resources. Rep. , Food Agric. Organ. UN, Rome:
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszweski I, Fioramanti L, et al. 2017.. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?. Ecosyst. Serv. 28::1–16
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Smith R. 2014.. Users and Uses of Environmental Accounts: A Review of Selected Developed Countries. Washington, DC:: World Bank
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Ruijs A, Vardon M, Bass S, Ahlroth S. 2018.. Natural capital accounting for better policy. . Ambio 48::714–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Boarini R, Kolev A, McGregor A. 2014.. Measuring well-being and progress in countries at different stages of development: towards a more universal conceptual framework. Work. Pap. , Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev., Paris:
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Sen A. 1984.. The living standard framework. . Oxf. Econ. Pap. 36::74–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Nussbaum MC, Sen A. 1993.. The Quality of Life. Oxford, UK: Clarendon:
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Ura K, Akire S, Wangdi K, Zangmo T. 2023.. Gross National Happiness 2022. Thimpu, Bhutan:: Cent. Bhutan and GNH Stud.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Durand M. 2015.. The OECD Better Life Initiative: How's life? And the measurement of well-being. . Rev. Income Wealth 61:(1):4–17
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Koronokas G, Smirilis Y, Sotiros D, Despotis DK. 2020.. Assessment of OECD Better Life Index by incorporating public opinion. . Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 70::100699
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    The Treasury. 2021.. The Living Standards Framework (LSF) 2021. Work. Pap. , Treas., N. Z. Gov., Wellington, NZ:
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    World Health Organ. Reg. Off. Eur. 2013.. Health 2020: a European policy framework and strategy for the 21st century. Rep. , World Health Organ. Reg. Off. Eur., Copenhagen, Den.:
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Marks N, Abdallah S, Simms A, Thompson S. 2006.. The Happy Planet Index: an index of human well-being and ecological impact. Rep. , New Econ. Found., London:
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Off. Natl. Stat. 2015.. Measuring national well-being, personal well-being in the UK: three year data 2011/14. Rep. , Off. Natl. Stat., London:
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Tinkler L. 2015.. The Office for National Statistics experience of collecting and measuring national well-being. . Stat. Trans. New Ser. 16:(3):373–96
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    World Values Survey. 2020.. World Values Survey. World Values Survey Assoc., Vienna, Austria:. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Deaton A. 2008.. Income, health and well-being around the world: evidence from the Gallup World Poll. . J. Econ. Perspect. 22:(2):53–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Bérenger V, Verdier-Chouchane A. 2007.. Multidimensional measures of well-being: standard of living and quality of life across countries. . World Dev. 35:(7):1259–76
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Morris MD. 1978.. A physical quality of life index. . Urban Ecol. 3:(3):225–40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    UNDP (UN Dev. Progr.). 2024.. Human Development Index (HDI). Database, UN, New York:. https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    UNDP (UN Dev. Progr.). 2001.. Planetary Pressures–adjusted Human Development Index. Rep. , UN, New York:
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    Hickel H. 2020.. The sustainable development index: measuring the ecological efficiency of human development in the Anthropocene. . Ecol. Econ. 167::106331
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Esty DC, Levy MA, Srebotnjak T, Sherbinin A, Kim CH, Anderson B. 2006.. Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index. Rep. , Yale Cent. Environ. Law Public Policy, New Haven, CT:
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    Prescott-Allen R. 2001.. The Wellbeing of Nations: A Country by Country Index of Quality of Life and Environment. London: Island:
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    Böhringer C, Jochem PE. 2007.. Measuring the immeasurable – a survey of sustainability indices. . Ecol. Econ. 63:(1):1–8
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.
    Gough I, McGregor JA, eds. 2007.. Wellbeing in Developing Countries: From Theory to Research. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    Dep. Environ. Transp. Reg. 2000.. Quality of life counts. Handb., Dep. Environ. Food Rural Aff., London:
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Heckenhahn J, Drupp MA. 2024.. Relative price changes of ecosystem services: evidence from Germany. . Environ. Res. Econ. 87::833–89
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.
    Ebert U. 2003.. Environmental goods and the distribution of income. . Env. Resour. Econ. 25::435–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.
    Baumgärtner S, Drupp MA, Meya JN, Munz JM, Quaas MF. 2017.. Income inequality and willingness to pay for environmental public goods. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 85::35–61
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.
    Kahneman D, Krueger AB. 2006.. Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. . J. Econ. Perspect. 20::3–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.
    Boarini R, Comola M, Smith C, Manchin R, de Keulenaer F. 2012.. What makes for a better life? The determinants of subjective well-being in OECD countries – evidence from the Gallup World Poll. Work. Pap. , Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev., Paris:
     [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.
    Ngamaba KH. 2017.. Determinants of subjective well-being in representative sample of nations. . Eur. J. Public Health 27:(2):377–82
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.
    Gundimeda H. 2016.. How equitable and sustainable is the growth in India?. Sarvekshana 31:(3–4):22–34
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.
    Gundimeda H, Sukhdev P, Sinha R, Sanyal S. 2006.. The Value of Biodiversity in Indian Forests. New Delhi:: TERI. , 3rd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.
    Gundimeda H, Sukhdev P, Sinha R, Sanyal S. 2005.. Estimating the Value of Agricultural Cropland and Pastureland in India. New Delhi:: TERI
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-072941
Loading
Measuring Global Human Progress: Are We on the Right Track?
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 49, 599 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-072941
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-072941
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-072941
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error