Happy Planet Index

The Happy Planet Index (HPI) combines three metrics to show how efficient different countries are at using environmental resources to enable their residents to lead long, happy lives.

1. Wellbeing: How highly the residents of each country rate their lives overall, on a scale from zero to ten, based on data collected as part of the Gallup World Poll, and collated in the World Happiness Report.
2. Life expectancy: The average number of years a person is expected to live in each country, according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
3. Ecological Footprint: The surface area of the planet required to sustain a nation’s consumption patterns, in globally standardised hectares (g ha). Ecological Footprint Initiative. It includes land required to produce food and forest products, built-up land and land required to sequester carbon. Nations are assessed in terms of their consumption, not production.

We use a traffic light system – red, amber, and green – to show how well countries score on each element. Before combining the three metrics, we make adjustments to ensure that no single component dominates the overall calculations. Details can be found in the methodology report.

The crises we face: persistent inequalities, accelerating climate breakdown, and rapid biodiversity loss are interconnected and stem from the same core problem: our economies are structured, governed, and measured to promote economic growth over collective wellbeing.

Too often governments prioritise accelerated economic growth above all other concerns. They lose sight of what truly matters – long, happy, sustainable lives for people around the world.

No two nation’s economic systems are exactly the same, but they all operate on a similar logic: increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is inherently good because it increases everyone’s wellbeing and prosperity.

In reality, GDP growth on its own does not mean a better life for everyone, particularly in countries that are already wealthy. It doesn’t take into account inequality, the things that really matter to people like social relations, health, or how they spend their free time, and crucially, the planetary limits we are up against.

Yes!

In this edition, we contrasted the HPI of men and women – both at the individual level, based on analyses of disaggregated data, and in terms of male and female leaders of nations. In both cases, we found an effect of gender on the HPI.  At the individual level, women consistently achieve higher scores than men across the countries analysed, with differences of over 8 points in some countries. This is driven by higher life expectancy and significantly lower ecological footprints.

Meanwhile, when countries have female leaders, they have higher HPI scores, even when controlling for income, governance, and other factors.  This shows how leadership and policy can influence sustainable wellbeing, with women leaders more likely to prioritise care-oriented policies and support climate action.

Not exactly.  The point is not to replace one oversimplified single index designed by experts with another, even if the HPI does measure what actually matters.  We think that we need to have a more nuanced approach, with a small set of 3-6 headline indicators replacing GDP, rather than a single index.  And we think that citizens should be involved in deciding what those headline indicators are, at least when it comes to measuring the societal outcomes. To get a better sense of what we believe should supersede GDP, check out our work in Kerava, Finland and Recife, Brazil, running deliberative mini-publics (aka citizens’ assemblies) to define the good life and how to measure it.