Measuring development in the age of the Anthropocene

The Green Development Index (GDI) is proposed as a new framework for measuring development progress in the age of Anthropocene. It builds on the Human Development Index (HDI), which has been widely used for more than three decades to measure human development through health, education and income. While the HDI was an important step beyond income based indicators such as GDP, it does not include the environmental dimension of development. As a result, countries may achieve high HDI rankings while placing heavy pressure on the planet through high carbon emissions, land degradation and unsustainable resource use.

The GDI addresses this gap by combining human development with environmental performance. It asks a different question from GDP and HDI.

GDP asks how much is produced. HDI asks how well people live. GDI asks at what planetary cost development is achieved.

In this sense, the GDI measures the eco-economic efficiency of development: how successfully a country converts economic and social progress into human wellbeing while staying within environmental limits.

How it is built

Methodologically, the GDI consists of two main pillars. The first is human development, represented by the HDI. The second is environmental performance, represented by an Environmental Index. This Environmental Index combines two globally relevant and measurable indicators: per capita carbon dioxide emissions and the proportion of degraded land relative to total land area. Per capita CO₂ emissions capture the climate pressure associated with economic activity, while land degradation reflects the condition of terrestrial ecosystems, soil, carbon stocks and land based livelihoods. Together, these two indicators represent both atmospheric and land based dimensions of environmental sustainability.

The GDI is calculated by combining the HDI and the Environmental Index through a geometric mean. This approach follows the logic of the HDI methodology and ensures that strong performance in one area cannot fully compensate for weak performance in another. A country with high human development but severe environmental pressure receives a lower GDI score. Similarly, a country with good environmental conditions but weak human development also receives a lower score. Therefore, the GDI rewards balanced progress across people and planet.

What the results show

The results of the GDI analysis show that many countries with high HDI rankings fall significantly when environmental pressures are included. Countries with very high per capita carbon emissions or high levels of land degradation experience major declines in their GDI rankings. For example, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, the United States, Kazakhstan and Australia fall sharply compared with their HDI positions. This indicates that high levels of human development are often achieved through carbon-intensive and resource-intensive pathways.

At the same time, several countries improve their position under the GDI because they combine human development with relatively lower environmental pressure. Countries such as Costa Rica, Uruguay, Portugal, Greece, France, Latvia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India rise in the ranking compared with their HDI positions. The Nordic countries also perform strongly, showing that high human development can be more closely aligned with environmental sustainability.

Why it matters

The GDI has important policy relevance. It can help countries monitor progress toward net-zero carbon emissions, land degradation neutrality and sustainable development. It also provides a simple and communicable tool for comparing national development pathways in terms of both human wellbeing and planetary responsibility. By integrating carbon emissions and land degradation into development measurement, the GDI encourages countries to reduce environmental pressure while continuing to improve people's lives.

Overall, the GDI offers a practical and timely contribution to global sustainability governance. It does not replace GDP or HDI, but complements them by adding the missing environmental dimension. It provides a clearer picture of whether development is truly sustainable and whether countries are advancing human wellbeing without undermining the life-supporting systems of the planet.