Appendix F: Interpreting the 2025 Doughnut Economics Data

1 Purpose of this appendix

In 2025, Kate Raworth and co-authors published a major update to the Doughnut Economics framework in Nature — moving the Doughnut from a conceptual snapshot to a quantified, time-series dataset of global social shortfall and ecological overshoot from 2000 to 2022. :contentReferenceoaicite:0

This appendix explains what that data is, where it comes from, and how to interpret it from an Earth–economy modeling perspective — including key strengths, limitations, and how it relates to the Doughnut compass we use throughout this book.

---

2 What the 2025 Doughnut analysis does

2.1 1) A quantified Doughnut over time

The 2025 paper updates the Doughnut framework by:

• defining 21 dimensions of social shortfall and ecological overshoot,
• using 35 quantitative indicators to measure them,
• and compiling annual data from 2000–2022 wherever possible. :contentReferenceoaicite:1

This transforms the Doughnut from a static picture into a monitor of global social and ecological conditions over two decades.

---

3 Data sources and construction

The analysis draws from:

• the UN’s SDG Indicator Database for social outcomes,
• scientific sources on planetary boundaries for ecological ceilings,
• downscaled measures that try to reflect individual and country-level impacts,
• and internationally comparable datasets on health, education, income, climate, biodiversity, and biochemical flows. :contentReferenceoaicite:2

Temporal coverage varies by indicator, but where possible the authors construct 30-year time series so that trends can be assessed across the early 21st century.

---

4 How social shortfall is measured

“Social shortfall” is defined as:

the share of the world population missing minimum thresholds of social well-being. :contentReferenceoaicite:3

These thresholds are anchored in:

• internationally recognized minimum standards (often aligned with the UN SDG targets),
• criteria for what constitutes “acceptable life conditions,”
• and robust, documented methods for cross-national comparison. :contentReferenceoaicite:4

Key features:

• Social indicators include health, education, income security, access to basic services, and equity.
• Shortfalls are measured in terms of population % below threshold, not averages — emphasizing distribution and deprivation rather than mean outcomes. :contentReferenceoaicite:5

---

5 How ecological overshoot is measured

“Ecological overshoot” refers to:

the degree to which human pressure exceeds safe levels of Earth-system processes. :contentReferenceoaicite:6

This uses the planetary boundaries framework as a ceiling for nine Earth systems (e.g., climate, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows). :contentReferenceoaicite:7

Key features:

• Planetary boundaries define limits of safe ecological space.
• Overshoot is measured as the extent to which a given indicator (e.g., CO₂ concentration or nitrogen flows) exceeds its boundary.
• These ecological indicators are aggregated across systems to give a picture of total overshoot. :contentReferenceoaicite:8

---

6 Core global trends (2000–2022)

6.1 GDP growth | Social gains are modest

• Global GDP more than doubled over 2000–2022.
  
• Yet social shortfall reductions have been modest — improvements in human well-being are real but too slow to meet minimum standards for all by 2030. :contentReferenceoaicite:9

Interpretation: - This echoes the Earth–economy concern that flow metrics like GDP can mask whether asset bases (like human welfare and ecological systems) are improving. Models that focus on income alone will miss slow-moving but critical deficits.
- From a modeling lens, this suggests that inclusive wealth trajectories may diverge from GDP curves even as GDP rises. (§ Chapters 6–9)

---

6.2 Ecological overshoot is rising rapidly

• Ecological overshoot has grown faster than social shortfall has shrunk.
• By 2022, most planetary boundaries were overshot, and the rate of overshoot has increased over time. :contentReferenceoaicite:10

Interpretation: - Earth–economy models often represent dynamic stock–flow systems; the data here confirms many environmental stocks are moving outside safe ranges. - This underscores the need for policy that targets stock preservation and regeneration rather than output growth alone. (§ Chapters 2–4, 8–9)

---

7 Inequalities revealed by disaggregated data

A major contribution of the 2025 study is data disaggregation across income clusters:

• Richest ~20% of countries account for >40% of ecological overshoot, despite having ~15% of the global population.
  
• Poorest ~40% account for >60% of social shortfall, despite having ~42% of the population. :contentReferenceoaicite:11

Implication for Earth–economy modeling:

• Distribution matters. Aggregate global metrics can hide underlying inequalities.
• Models that treat global averages may miss key human dimensions such as capability, deprivation, and justice. (§ Chapters 4, 5, 17)

---

8 Visualization in Earth–economy models

The Nature paper illustrates:

• “Doughnut rings” for 2022 showing relative shortfalls and overshoots,
• Time-series “unrolled Doughnut” graphs showing trends,
• Clustered Doughnuts showing distribution by income groups. :contentReferenceoaicite:12

These visuals connect directly to Earth–economy modeling practice:

• They are stock diagrams with thresholds — akin to how we think about safe and just regions. (§ Chapter 2)
• They show not just levels but trajectories, which is central to sustainability analysis. (§ Chapters 6–9)

---

9 Data limitations and modeling cautions

While the paper is groundbreaking, there are important caveats:

• Indicators come from multiple data sources with varying quality and coverage. Comparability is imperfect. :contentReferenceoaicite:13
• Planetary boundary thresholds, though scientifically grounded, are debated and evolving. :contentReferenceoaicite:14
• Many social indicators require interpolation or proxy measures for missing years or countries.

From an Earth–economy modeling perspective:

• Assumptions matter. How thresholds are defined and thresholds are set affects outcomes (modelling is explicit about these choices). (§ Chapter 9)
• Dynamics matter. Trends are useful, but understanding why they behave this way requires integrated models that link drivers to indicators.

---

10 Connecting the 2025 Doughnut to Earth–Economy Modeling

The 2025 data is not merely descriptive. It provides:

✔ A monitoring baseline for evaluating model scenarios.
✔ A set of real-world indicator trajectories to calibrate and validate Earth–economy models.
✔ A demonstration of distributional patterns that models must capture to be credible.
✔ A set of thresholds that align with the Doughnut’s safe and just space constraint. (§ Chapters 9, 17)

In sum:

This dataset is one of the first large-scale quantitative bridges between earth-system limits and human well-being outcomes, enabling modeling that can test whether policies keep futures within the safe-and-just space.

---

11 Exercises

1. Indicator interpretation.
   Pick one social and one ecological indicator from the 2025 Doughnut dataset.

   1. Describe its trajectory from 2000–2022.
      
   2. Explain why it would be included in an Earth–economy model.

2. Model calibration.
   Suppose an Earth–economy model predicts a decline in ecological overshoot under a policy.
   How would you use the Doughnut 2025 dataset to test the model’s validity?

3. Equity exploration.
   Using the cluster data (richest 20% vs poorest 40%), discuss how policies could be designed to reduce both overshoot and shortfall simultaneously.

---