研究概要

参考・引用文献  (Revised on Oct.19, 2025)

• Aleissa Y.M. & Bakshi B.R.: Possible but rare: Safe and just satisfaction of national human needs in terms of ecosystem services. One Earth 6, 409–418 (2023).

• Algunaibet I.M. et al.: Powering sustainable development within planetary boundaries. Energy Environ. Sci. 12, 1890–1900 (2019).

• Arulnathan V. et al.: Economic indicators for life cycle sustainability assessment: Going beyond life cycle costing. Sustainability 15, 13 (2023).

• Arvidsson R. et al.: Environmental assessment of emerging technologies - Recommendations for prospective LCA. J. Ind. Ecol. 22, 1281–1294 (2017).

• Bai X. et al.: Translating Earth system boundaries for cities and businesses. Nat. Sust., 7, 108–119 (2024).

•  Beltran A.M. et al.: When the background matters - Using scenarios from integrated assessment models in prospective life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 24, 64–76 (2018).

• Biermann F, Kim R.E.: The boundaries of the planetary boundary framework: A critical appraisal of approaches to define a “Safe Operating Space” for humanity.   Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45, 497–521 (2020).

• Bisinella V. et al.: Future scenarios and life cycle assessment: systematic review and recommendations. Int. J. LCA 26, 2143–270 (2021).

• Bjørn A. et al.: Review of life-cycle based methods for absolute environmental sustainability assessment and their applications. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 083001 (2020).

• Bjørn A. et al.: Life cycle assessment applying planetary and regional boundaries to the process level: a model case study. Int. J. LCA 25, 2241–2254 (2020).

• Black D. et al.: What is “good” co-production in the context of planetary health research, and how is it enabled? Earth System Govern. 23, 100229 (2025).

• Brand-Correa, L.I. et al.:  Understanding (and tackling) need satisfier escalation. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 16, 309–325 (2020).

• Brand U. et al.: From planetary to societal boundaries: An argument for collectively defined self-limitation. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 17,  264–291 (2021).

• Brondízio E.S. et al.: Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: Indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 481–509 (2021).

• Blühdorn I.: Planetary boundaries, societal boundaries, and collective self-limitation: Moving beyond the post-Marxist comfort zone. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 18, 576–589, (2022).

• Calvin K. & Bond-Lamberty B.: Integrated human-earth system modeling—state of the science and future directions. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063006 (2018).

• Carreno D.F. et al.: Cross‑cultural psychometric analysis of the mature happiness scale‑revised: Mature happiness, psychological inflexibility, and the PERMA model. J. Happiness Studies 24, 1075–1099 (2023). 

• Cassuriaga B. et al: Enhancing social life cycle assessment through stakeholder engagement: Development of a new cellulose-based material.  Sustain. Prod. Consum. 56, 632–656 (2025)

• Chan M. et al.: Developing an innovative assessment framework for sustainable infrastructure development. J. Cleaner Prod. 368, 133185 (2022).

• Cinelli M. et al.: Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system. Europ. J. Oper. Res. 302, 633–651 (2022).

• Coote A.: Universal basic services and sustainable consumption. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 17, 32–46 (2021).

• Costa D. et al.: A systematic review of life cycle sustainability assessment: Current state, methodological challenges, and implementation issues. Sci. Total Environ. 686, 774–787 (2019).

• Costanza R. et al.: Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN sustainable development goals. Ecol. Econ.  130, 350–355 (2016).

•  Cruz J. et al.: Towards a systemic development approach: Building on the human-scale development paradigm. Ecol. Econ. 68, 2021–2030 (2009).

• de Araujo J.B. et al. : From social impact subcategories to human health: An application of multivariate analysis on S‑LCA. Int. J. LCA 26, 1471–1493 (2021).

• de Bruyn S. et al.: Environmental Prices Handbook, EU28 version, Delft, CE Delft (2018). 

• Dewulf J. et al. : Rethinking the area of protection “natural resources” in life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 5310–5317 (2015).

• Downing A.S. et al. : Matching scope, purpose and uses of planetary boundaries science. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 073005 (2019).

• Doyal L., Gough I.: A theory of human needs. Critical Soc. Policy 4, 6–38 (1984).

• Ertelet S.-M. & Carlborg P.:  The dark sides of low-carbon innovations for net-zero transitions: a literature review and priorities for future research. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 20, 2335731 (2024).

• Eyster H.N. et al.: Why people do what they do: An interdisciplinary synthesis of human action theories. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 47, 725–751 (2022).

• Fanning A.L.: The social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations. Nature Sustain. 5, 26–36 (2022).

• Ferretto A. et al.: Planetary boundaries and the doughnut frameworks: A review of their local operability. Anthropocene 39, 100347 (2022).

• Fuchs D. et al.: Consumption corridors - Living a good life within sustainable limits, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York (2021).

• Galán-Martín A. et al.: Sustainability footprints of a renewable carbon transition for the petrochemical sector within planetary boundaries. One Earth 4, 565–583 (2021).

• Ginster R. et al.: Circular battery production in the EU, Insights from integrating life cycle assessment into system dynamics modeling on recycled content and   environmental impacts. J. Ind. Ecol. 28, 1165–1182 (2024). 

• Global Commons Alliance: https://globalcommonsalliance.org/

• Global Wellness Institute: Happiness and Wellbeing Indices, https://globalwellnessinstitute.org/industry-research/happiness-wellbeing-index/

• Gough I.: Climate change and sustainable welfare: The centrality of human needs. Cambridge J. Econ. 39, 1191–1214 (2015).

• Gupta J. et al.: Earth system justice needed to identify and live within Earth system boundaries. Nature Sustain.  6, 630–638 (2023).

• Gupta J et al.: Earth system boundaries and Earth system justice: Sharing the ecospace. Environ. Politics 33, 1286–1305 (2024).

• Hayden A.: The wellbeing economy in practice: sustainable and inclusive growth? Or a post-growth breakthrough? Human. Soc. Comm. 11, 879 (2024).

• Hayden A. & Dasilva C.: The wellbeing economy: Possibilities and limits in bringing sufficiency from the margins into the mainstream. Fron. Sust. 3, 966876 (2022).

• Häyhä T. et al.: From planetary boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space — How can the scales be bridged? Global Environ. Change 40, 60–72 (2016).

• Heide M. & Gjerris M.: Embedded but overlooked values: Ethical aspects of absolute environmental sustainability assessments. J. Ind. Ecol. 28, 386–396 (2024).

• Heide M. et al.: Reflecting the importance of human needs fulfilment in absolute sustainability assessments: Development of a sharing principle. J. Ind. Ecol. 27, 1151–1164 (2023).

• Hellweg S. et al.: Life-cycle assessment to guide solutions for the triple planetary crisis. Nature Rev. Earth Environ. 4, 471–486 (2023).

• Horn S. et al.: Meeting housing needs within planetary boundaries: A UK case study. Ecol. Econ. 230, 108510 (2025). 

• Horton R., Lo S.: Planetary health: A new science for exceptional action. Lancet 386, 1921–1922 (2015).

•  Hussein Z. et al: Integrating planetary boundaries into safe and sustainable by design framework: A systematic literature review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 60, 64–77 (2025).

• Kennedy C.M. et al.: Indigenous peoples’ lands are threatened by industrial development; conversion risk assessment reveals need to support Indigenous stewardship. One Earth 6, 1032–1049 (2023).

• Kessides I. et al.: Toward Defining and Measuring the Affordability of Public Utility Services. Policy Research Working Paper no. WPS4915, Washington, D.C., World Bank Group (2009).

• Khan J. et al.: Ecological ceiling and social floor: public support for eco‑social policies in Sweden. Sustain. Sci. 18, 1519–1532 (2023) 

• Kromand J.B. et al.: Developing sufficiency-based sharing principles for absolute environmental sustainability assessment using decent living standards and planetary boundaries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 54, 516–529 (2025). 

• Korhonen-Kurki K. et al.: Transformative governance: Exploring theory of change and the role of the law. Earth Syst. Govern. 23, 100230 (2025).

• Krys K. et al.: Introduction to a culturally sensitive measure of well‑being: Combining life satisfaction and interdependent happiness across 49 different cultures. J. Happiness Studies 24, 607–627 (2023).

• Layard R. & De Neve J.-E.: Wellbeing: Science and Policy, Cambridge University Press (2023). 

• Lindkvist M. & Ekener E.: Analysis of human well-being as the area of protection in social life cycle assessment. Int. J. LCA 28, 1428–1442 (2023).

• Lomas T., et al.: A flexible map of flourishing: The dynamics and drivers of flourishing, well-being, health, and happiness. Int J. Wellbeing 13, 3665 (2024).

• Lucas P.L. et al.: Allocating planetary boundaries to large economies: Distributional consequences of alternative perspectives on distributive fairness. Global Environ. Change 60, 102017 (2020).

• Malinka J. et al.: Who (Really) Wins with basic income: personality and values as predictors of happiness trajectories. J. Happiness Studies 26, 10 (2025). 

• Maridal J.H. et al.: Wellbeing indices: A comprehensive inventory of standards and a review of current comparative measures. Ecol. Econ. 149, 1–11 (2018).

• Matuštík J. & Kočí, V.: What is a footprint? A conceptual analysis of environmental footprint indicators. J. Cleaner Prod. 285, 124833 (2021).

• Max-Neef M.A. et al.: Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflections, The Apex Press (1991).

• Meyer K. & Newman P.: The Planetary accounting framework: A novel, quota-based approach to understanding the impacts of any scale of human activity in the context of the Planetary Boundaries. Sustainable Earth 1, 4 (2018).

• Millward-Hopkins J. et al.: Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario. Global Environ. Change 65, 102168 (2020).

• Mitchell P. & Alexandrova, A.: Well-being and pluralism. J. Happiness Studies 22, 2411–2433 (2021).

• Monier E. et al.: A review of and perspectives on global change modeling for Northern Eurasia. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 083001 (2017).

• Myers S.S.: Planetary health: Protecting human health on a rapidly changing planet. Lancet 390, 2860–2868 (2017).

• Neugebauer S. et al.: From life cycle costing to economic life cycle assessment—Introducing an economic impact pathway. Sustainability 8, 428 (2016).

• OECD: Towards Green Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris (2011). https://www.oecd.org/env/towards-green-growth-9789264111318-en.htm

• OECD: How’s Life? 2020 Measuring well-being, OECD Publishing (2020). https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/how-s-life/volume-/issue-_9870c393-en

• O’Neill D.W et al.: A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustain. 1, 88–95 (2018).

• Passarelli D. et al.: Beyond Opportunism: The UN Development System’s Response to the Triple Planetary Crisis, New York, United Nations University (2021).

• Pauliuk S. & Hertwich E.G.: Prospective models of society’s future metabolism: What industrial ecology has to contribute. (in Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology, pp. 21–44, eds. Clift R. & Druckman A), Springer International Publishing (2016).

• Pedersen S. et al.: What is planetary justice? Environ. Politics 33, 1137–1145 (2024).

• Petschow U. et al.: Social well-being within planetary boundaries: the Precautionary post-growth approach. Umweltbundesamt (ドイツ連邦環境庁) (2020).
   https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/social-well-being-within-planetary-boundaries-the

• Planetary Health Alliance: https://planetaryhealthalliance.org/planetary-health

• Puig-Samper G. et al.: Quantifying uncertainties in absolute environmental sustainability assessment: A general framework applied to French electricity production. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 54, 12–24 (2025). 

• Rammelt C.F. et al.: Impacts of meeting minimum access on critical earth systems amidst the Great Inequality. Nature Sustain. 6, 212–221 (2023). 

• Rao N.D. & Min J.: Decent living standards: Material prerequisites for human wellbeing. Soc. Indic. Res. 138, 225–244 (2018).

• Raworth K.: Living in the doughnut. Nature Climate Change 2, 225–226 (2012).

• Raworth K.: Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. London, Penguin Random House (2017). （ケイト・ラワース(著)，黒輪篤嗣(訳)：ドーナツ経済学が世界を救う－人類と地球のためのパラダイムシフト，河出書房新社, 2018;ドーナツ経済学，河出文庫，河出書房新社, 2021）

• Richardson K. et al.: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci. Adv. 9, eadh2458 (2023). 

• Rockström J. et al.: A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

• Rockström J. et al.: Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature 619, 102–111 (2023).

• Rockström J. et al.: The planetary commons: A new paradigm for safeguarding Earth-regulating systems in the Anthropocene. PNAS 121, e2301531121 (2024).

• Rodrigues S.L. & da Silva E.A.: Int. J. LCA 29, 803–837 (2024).

• Røkås T. & Gómez-Baggethun E.: Defining a safe and just operating space for the Norwegian economy. Ecol. Econ., 230, 108511 (2025).    

• Ryberg M.W. et al.: Challenges in implementing a Planetary Boundaries based Life-Cycle Impact Assessment methodology. J. Cleaner Prod. 139, 450–459 (2016).

• Ryberg M.W. et al.: Development of a life-cycle impact assessment methodology linked to the Planetary Boundaries framework. Ecol. Indicators 88, 250–262 (2018).

• Sacchi R. et al.: PRospective EnvironMental Impact asSEment (premise): A streamlined approach to producing databases for prospective life cycle assessment using integrated assessment models. Ren. Sust. Energy Rev. 160, 112311 (2022).

• Sadhukhan J. et al.: The Mathematics of life cycle sustainability assessment. J. Cleaner Prod. 309, 127457 (2021).

• Sahakian M. & Anantharaman S.: What space for public parks in sustainable consumption corridors? Conceptual reflections on need satisfaction through social practices. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 16, 128–142 (2020).

• Sahakian M. et al.: Advancing the concept of consumption corridors and exploring its implication. Sustain Sci. Pract. Policy 17, 303–315 (2021).

• Sauer H.: MORAL Die Erfndung von Gut und Böse, Piper Verlag GmbH, Munich/Berlin, 2023. （ハンノ・ザウアー(著)，長谷川 圭(訳): MORAL 善悪と道徳の人類史，講談社, 2024）

• Scheidel A. et al.: Global impacts of extractive and industrial development projects on Indigenous Peoples’ lifeways, lands, and rights. Sci. Adv. 9, eade9557 (2023).

• Schlesier H. et al.: Measuring the doughnut: A good life for all is possible within planetary boundaries. J. Cleaner Prod. 448, 141447 (2024) .

• Schwartz, S. H.: An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1) (2012).  https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116 

• Sen R.: Inequality reexamined, Oxford University Press (1992). （池本幸生, 野上裕生, 佐藤 仁 訳：不平等の再検討－潜在能力と自由, 岩波現代文庫, 岩波書店, 2018）

• Smeets E., Weterings R.: Environment indicators: Typology and overview, Technical report No 25, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, (1999). https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/TEC25

• Soltanpour Y. et al.: Area of protection in S-LCA: Human well-being or societal quality. Int. J. LCA 24, 2073–2087 (2019).

• Steffen W. et al.: Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223), 1259855 (2015).

• Steinberger J. et al.: Democratizing provisioning systems: a prerequisite for living well within limits. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 20, 2401186 (2024). 

• Stiglitz J.E. et al. (ed.): For good measure -Advancing research on well‑being metrics beyond GDP, OECD Publishing, Paris (2018).

• Tian P. et al.: Keeping the global consumption within the planetary boundaries. Nature 635, 625–630 (2024).

• Tokimatsu K. et al.: Toward more comprehensive environmental impact assessments: Interlinked global models of LCIA and IAM applicable to this century. Int. J. LCA 25, 1710–1736 (2020).

• Uchida Y. & Ogihara Y.: Personal or interpersonal construal of happiness: A cultural psychological perspective. Int. J. Wellbeing 2, 354-369 (2012).

• Ugaya C., de Araújo D.B. et al.: What’s up and where to go in social life cycle impact assessment cause‑effect model development? Int. J. LCA 28, 199−218 (2023).

• UNEP: Towards a Green Economy, Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication - A Synthesis for Policy Makers (2011). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/126GER_synthesis_en.pdf

• UNEP (eds Norris, B.C. et al.): Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations 2020. (2020).  https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/34554

• Uotine J. et al.: Nonhuman well‑being is a part of happiness and well‑being conceptions among central Indian indigenous communities. J. Happiness Studies 26, 7 (2025).

• Van Eynde R. et al.: Modelling what matters: How do current models handle environmental limits and social outcomes? J. Cleaner Prod. 476, 143777 (2024).

• VanderWeele T.J.: On the promotion of human flourishing. PNAS 114, 8148–8156 (2017). 

• VanderWeele T.J., et al.: The Global Flourishing Study: Study Profile and Initial Results on Flourishing. Nature Mental Health 3, 636-653 (2025).

• Vargas-Farias A. et al.: Anticipating uncertainty in infrastructure LCC, LCA, and S-LCA: A systematic, context-aware early identification framework. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 117, 108175 (2026).

• Vélez-Henao J.A. & Pauliuk S.: Material requirements of decent living standards. Environ. Sci. Technol. 57, 14206−14217 (2023).

• Wackernagel M & Rees W.E.: Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth, New Society Publishers (1996).（和田喜彦 監訳，池田真理 訳：エコロジカル・フットプリント－地球環境持続のための実践プラニング・ツール, 合同出版, 2004）

• Wang Y. et al.: Social-ecological system research in a changing world: State of the art and future challenges. J. Cleaner Prod. 389, 144725 (2025). 

• Whitmee S. et al.: Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet  386, 1973–2028 (2015).

• Yokoi R. et al.: Country-specific external costs of abiotic resource use based on user cost model in life cycle impact assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 58, 7849–7859 (2024).

• Zhang W. et al.: Absolute environmental sustainability assessment of emerging industrial chains within planetary boundaries: A systematic literature review. Sust. Prod. Consum. 55, 185−202 (2025). 

• 内田由紀子，荻原祐二：文化的幸福観 ―文化心理学的知見と将来への展望―，心理学評論, 55, 26–42 (2012). 

• 尾関周二，環境思想・教育研究会 編：「環境を守る」とはどういうことかー環境思想入門，岩波ブックレット960，岩波書店 (2016).

• 加藤 猛：WE多元主義に基づくウェルビーイング施策の評価方法論，Contemporary and Applied Philosophy 14, 159–175 (2023).

• 環境アセスメント学会 編：環境アセスメント学の基礎，恒星社厚生閣 (2013).

• サステナブル分野の統合的評価に関する勉強会：「サステナブル分野の統合的評価に関する勉強会」とりまとめ～サステナブル分野の統合的評価の現状と今後のアクションに向けた動き・期待されること～，43p. (2024).

• 塩野直之：価値の多元性と意思決定論的合理性，科学基礎論研究, 46, 1–13 (2019).

• 竹山 梓, 松井祐依, 南井敬晶：気候関連リスク分析のためのシナリオ作成 ― 統合評価モデルの応用と課題 ―，日本銀行ワーキングペーパーシリーズ，No.23-J-8 (2023). 

• 田崎智宏 他：持続可能性評価の方法論とその展開：評価分野・フレーミング・マネジメントへの活用．日本LCA学会誌, 8, 272–281 (2012).

• 藤原成一：「よりよい生存」ウェルビーイング学入門ー場所・関係・時間が作る生, 日本評論社 (2020).

• 堀田康彦, 蟹江憲史：持続可能な消費と生産（SCP）に関する国際政策動向．日本LCA学会誌, 15, 136–143 (2019).

• 松永千晶, 鶴見哲也, 馬奈木俊介：持続可能な消費と生産における消費側評価指標．日本LCA学会誌, 15, 144–151 (2019).

• 森口祐一：科学研究費補助金重点領域研究「人間地球系」研究報告書，B009-E11, p.11 (1996).

• 八木迪幸, 馬奈木俊介：第 5章 新国富(Inclusive Wealth)における多様な資本の連関 , SDGs時代のESDと社会的レジリエンス (佐藤真久, 北村友人, 馬奈木俊介 編), pp.121-154, 筑波書房 (2020).

その他，リンクのページにあるプロジェクト・データベースのWebサイト

研究の遂行にあたっては，在職時の研究室の学生諸氏をはじめ以下の方々から貴重な助言と多大な協力を得ました。ここに記して感謝の意を表します（敬称略）。なお、所属は当時（一部、現在）のものです。

• 京都大学

　高橋幹二，笠原三紀夫，亀田貴之，山本浩平，河合　潤，高野裕久，高岡昌輝，本田晶子，松井康人，小杉緑子

• 国立環境研究所

　森口祐一，南齋規介，茶谷　聡，畑　奬，大原利眞，西澤匡人，猪俣　敏，佐藤　圭

• 広島大学

　早川慎二郎，西山文隆

• 北海道大学

　上田佳代

• 福岡女子大学

　馬　昌珍

• 立命館大学

　重富陽介

• 大阪府立大学（現在，大阪公立大学）

　藤井佑介，足立元明，溝畑　朗

• 総合地球環境学研究所

　 　 金本圭一朗

• 九州大学

　       加河茂美

• 早稲田大学

　近藤康之

• 大阪府立環境農林水産総合研究所

　奥村智憲

• 森林総合研究所

　小南裕志，深山貴文

• 静岡県立大学　

 　谷　晃

• 平安女学院大学

　岩渕善美

• 慶應義塾大学

　 　奥田知明

• アジア大気汚染研究センター

           黒川純一

• 筑波大学

　鈴木義和

• 同志社大学

　伊藤正行，高野　頌

• 分子科学研究所

　木村啓作

• 東京ダイレック(株)

　曹　仁秋，井上浩三，白井　忠

• University of Vienna

　Regina Hitzenberger, Helmuth Horvath

• UKM (Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia)

　Mohd Talib Latif, Mastura Mahmud

• ITB (Institut Teknologi Bandung)

　Puji Lestari

• Diponegoro University

　Haryono Setiyo Huboyo

• University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria

　Robert Höller