Mapping the Domains of the Harvard Flourishing Program onto the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Implications for Thriving Cities
Key Finding: The domains of the Harvard Flourishing Program substantially overlap with several core United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to health, education, economic security, and social inclusion. However, the mapping is not exhaustive, with notable gaps in environmental and systemic dimensions central to the SDGs.
Introduction
The pursuit of thriving cities necessitates frameworks that capture both individual and collective well-being. The Harvard Flourishing Program (HFP) offers a multidimensional model of human flourishing, while the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a global policy blueprint for sustainable development. This analysis critically examines the extent to which the domains of the HFP map onto the SDGs, with a focus on their relevance for urban sustainability and the realization of thriving cities.
Conceptual Frameworks: Harvard Flourishing Program and the SDGs
The HFP identifies six core domains: happiness and life satisfaction, physical and mental health, meaning and purpose, character and virtue, close social relationships, and financial and material stability (VanderWeele 2017; Węziak-Białowolska, McNeely, and VanderWeele 2019; VanderWeele et al. 2025). These domains are operationalized through validated measures and have been applied in diverse cultural and urban contexts.
The SDGs, adopted in 2015, comprise 17 interlinked goals addressing poverty, health, education, inequality, environmental sustainability, and more (United Nations 2015). Several SDGs are directly relevant to urban development, notably SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).
Areas of Overlap
1. Health and Well-being:
The HFP’s domain of physical and mental health directly aligns with SDG 3, which aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.” Empirical studies confirm that urban health is a central concern for both frameworks, with shared emphasis on access to healthcare, mental health, and social determinants of health (VanderWeele 2017; Costanza et al. 2016; Kabisch et al. 2021).
2. Happiness and Life Satisfaction:
While not an explicit SDG target, subjective well-being is increasingly recognized as a key indicator of societal progress and is implicit in the SDGs’ overarching vision (Costanza et al. 2016; VanderWeele et al. 2025). SDG 3, SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) are empirically linked to life satisfaction in urban populations.
3. Meaning and Purpose:
This domain partially maps onto SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 8, which promote lifelong learning, personal development, and meaningful employment (Hasan 2023; Lomas, Pawelski, and VanderWeele 2024). However, the existential dimension of meaning is less explicit in the SDGs.
4. Character and Virtue:
Character and virtue are weakly represented in the SDGs, with some overlap in SDG 16, which emphasizes justice, strong institutions, and inclusive societies (Lomas, Pawelski, and VanderWeele 2024). The cultivation of civic virtues is relevant for urban governance and social cohesion.
5. Close Social Relationships:
Social relationships are foundational to both frameworks. SDG 11 and SDG 3 include targets related to social inclusion, community cohesion, and access to public spaces, all of which facilitate social connection in cities (Kabisch et al. 2021; Zhou et al. 2025).
6. Financial and Material Stability:
This domain is strongly aligned with SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 8, and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), which focus on economic security, employment, and equitable access to resources (Costanza et al. 2016; VanderWeele et al. 2025).
Areas of Divergence
Despite substantial overlap, the mapping is not comprehensive. The SDGs encompass broader environmental and systemic concerns—such as climate action (SDG 13), life below water (SDG 14), and life on land (SDG 15)—that are not explicitly represented in the HFP’s domains (Lomas, Pawelski, and VanderWeele 2024; Zhou et al. 2025). Conversely, the HFP’s emphasis on meaning, virtue, and close relationships provides a more granular account of subjective and relational well-being than is typically found in the SDGs.
Furthermore, the SDGs prioritize collective and structural determinants of well-being, whereas the HFP emphasizes individual and interpersonal dimensions. This divergence highlights a gap in the operationalization of subjective and relational well-being within global sustainability frameworks (Hasan 2023; Lomas, Pawelski, and VanderWeele 2024).
Implications for Thriving Cities
For urban policy, integrating flourishing-based metrics with the SDGs could enhance the focus on subjective well-being, social cohesion, and personal development—dimensions critical for urban resilience and human thriving (Kabisch et al. 2021; Costanza et al. 2016). Empirical evidence from the Global Flourishing Study demonstrates that flourishing is associated with social determinants—such as education, economic security, and social relationships—that are also targeted by the SDGs (VanderWeele et al. 2025).
However, a comprehensive approach to thriving cities requires measurement frameworks that capture both individual and collective dimensions of well-being, as well as the environmental and systemic factors that underpin sustainable urban development (Lomas, Pawelski, and VanderWeele 2024; Kabisch et al. 2021).
Conclusion
In summary, the domains of the Harvard Flourishing Program map onto several core SDGs, particularly those related to health, education, economic security, and social inclusion. However, the flourishing framework does not fully encompass the environmental and systemic dimensions of the SDGs. A holistic approach to thriving cities requires integrating individual flourishing measures with broader sustainability indicators, recognizing the reciprocal relationship between personal well-being and societal and environmental health.
References
Costanza, Robert, Laura Daly, Lorenzo Fioramonti, et al. 2016. “Modelling and Measuring Sustainable Well-Being in Connection With the UN Sustainable Development Goals.” Ecological Economics 130: 350–355.
Hasan, Syed M. 2023. “Well‐Being and Sustainable Development: A Systematic Review and Avenues for Future Research.” Sustainable Development 31(2): 317–327.
Kabisch, Nadja, et al. 2021. “Assessing the Role of Urban Green Spaces for Human Well-Being: A Systematic Review.” GeoJournal 86: 1–20.
Lomas, Tim, James O. Pawelski, and Tyler J. VanderWeele. 2024. “Flourishing as ‘Sustainable Well-Being’: Balance and Harmony within and across People, Ecosystems, and Time.” The Human Flourishing Program.
VanderWeele, Tyler J. 2017. “On the Promotion of Human Flourishing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(31): 8148–8156.
VanderWeele, Tyler J., Byron Johnson, and Tom Lomas. 2025. “The Global Flourishing Study: A Multidimensional Approach to Well-Being.” Journal of Positive Psychology 20(1): 1–15.
Węziak-Białowolska, Dorota, Elizabeth McNeely, and Tyler J. VanderWeele. 2019. “Human Flourishing in Cross Cultural Settings: Evidence from the US, China, Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Mexico.” The Journal of Positive Psychology 14(5): 639–651.
Zhou, Y., Wang, S., & Li, J. 2025. “Revisiting Social Foundations and Well-Being Indicators for Sustainability: Insights from a Systematic Literature Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 412: 137-154.
He's been happily married for over 30 years. He and his wife, Donnalee, work with nearly /newlywed couples, married couples who want to improve their marriage, and couples in crisis.
- Measuring Domains for Thriving City - January 6, 2026
- Prospective Thriving Cities: Copenhagen, Osaka, and Melbourne - December 22, 2025
- The Thriving City - December 9, 2025