Critical Contributions of Buen Vivir (Sumak Kawsay) as a Latin American Alternative to Global Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article describes the practice of Buen Vivir (BV), or Sumak Kawsay in Kichwa/Quechua as an indigenous South American philosophy that promotes holistic harmony between the individual, community, and nature. It concludes that integrating BV principles within the social–economic–environmental triad can create a holistic, relational model of sustainability grounded in reciprocity and harmony.

The article is still very descriptive and  the originality of its argument is sometime lost, but this can be corrected by deepening the literature review,  establishing new connections and adding a few theoretical and conceptual modifications-- as well as expanding the explanatory part. 

The authors correctly argues that the BV philosophy is a powerful and necessary alternative to the all-destructive Western developmentalism focused on consumerism and profit.

Interestingly, the author should emphasise that the latter destructive model began with the so-called "Columbian exchange " which led to a massive loss of biological and cultural diversity across the world. This approach is central to more critical perspectives, including "the Homogenocene perspective", powerfully synthesised in  "Homogenocene: Defining the Age of Bio-cultural Devastation (1493–Present), International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 2024: after half millennium of devastation, the authors usefully remind us that a world-vision is here to stress solidarity, reciprocity, and balance. 

As the authors imply, the BV perspective no longer sees  human prosperity as determined by the grabbing of resources or the accumulation of material goods, but the satisfaction of basic needs  can only be possible via a deep connection with the environment, as the only route leading to integral personal development.

Here are some possible suggestions for expanding the article's scope:
From my viewpoint, it would be a good idea to trace parallels with the Laudato Si encyclica by Pope Francis. Both are grounded on key principles, such as Harmony with Nature, although in the (perhaps less anthropocentric and more biocentric?) BV vision, Nature is seen as a living being on which everyone depends -- and in this there are also strong, similarities with James Lovelock's famous notion of Gaia. 
Solidarity and reciprocity are other pillars shared by LS , perhaps with more emphasis in BV on community level cooperation — via community work and minga ( as mentioned here on line 142). See Laudato Si' and its influence on sustainable development five years later: A first look at the academic productivity associated to this encyclical, Environmental Development, 43: 100726.2022

It could also be very useful and stimulating to expand on what BV shares with the African philosophy of Ubuntu ( unhu in shona) and other forms of African indigenous knowledge, as well as decolonialism. On this, see "Decolonizing climate change response: African indigenous knowledge and sustainable development"’, F in Soc, 9, 2024. This is, in turn, related to the fundamental concept of "exemplary ethical communities", an important theoretical perspective and approach for understanding the living alternatives across the ecumene that can allow the continuation of life on Earth by establishing a liveable future for all living beings. 

Anti-individualism is also a factor as personal well-being is inextricably linked to that of the community and the environment. One cannot live well if others live poorly.
Ideas of growth should include physical, mental, spiritual, and emotional well-being.

Given the emphasis on good quality food and local markets, it would be also important to expand on  the notion of food sovereignty (291, ...) as very much associated with the pursuit of BV goals within a territorial and geographical network of communities. This is important while noting that the Constitutions of life Ecuador and Bolivia (277) have integrated both food sovereignty and the principles of Buen Vivir into their Constitutions, promoting policies and programs aimed at more equitable and sustainable development (see Sovereignty in a changing world: From Westphalia to food sovereignty, Globalizations, 13 (4): 484-498  )

Education with the development of school curricula emphasising Buen Vivir should also be included as education (388) must prepare citizens with the values ​​and knowledge necessary for sustainable development  and peace of mind--and this should also include free time for contemplation.

Most important, is it the notion of "Rights of Nature”, briefly mentioned in lines 286 and 373, as closely linked to a growing movement now emerging across the world and in line with a holistic approach based on  internal, spiritual, and emotional well-being. The recent scholarly advance in this area is tremendous. 

Another better known work by Villalba( besides the one you quote) is Buen Vivir vs Development: a paradigm shift in the Andes?, Third World Quarterly, 34 (8): 1427-1442.2013

Other possible sources (no obligation to cite them) here: 
  'Buen vivir'. In Degrowth. Routledge, 201-204. 2014
x. Ecosocialismo y buen vivir, Diálogo entre dos alternativas al capitalismo, 1.2014
. Buen Vivir: sobre secuestros, domesticaciones, rescates y alternativas, Bifurcación del Buen Vivir y el sumak kawsay: 23-45, 2014
  Buen vivir: Germinando alternativas al desarrollo, América Latina en movimiento, 462 (2): 1-20, 2011
.El Buen Vivir, una oportunidad por construir, 2009

This article is very well worth publishing in Sustainability.

Author Response

Respuesta al revisor 1

 

Solicitud de revisor	Acción implementada	Ubicación
Profundización de la revisión de la literatura y expansión conceptual.	Marco teórico ampliado que integra la perspectiva del Homogenoceno; Laudato Si; hipótesis de Gaia	Introducción, líneas 56–60
Aclaración del Buen Vivir como modelo alternativo de desarrollo	Explicación reforzada de los fundamentos ontológicos/epistemológicos.	Introducción, líneas 83–101
Inclusión de la soberanía alimentaria, el antiextractivismo y la cooperación comunitaria	Discusión ampliada en resultados y dimensión económica	Sección 3.3, líneas 396–417
Destacar el movimiento por los derechos de la naturaleza.	Se agregó una subsección en contribuciones ambientales	Sección 3.2.1, líneas 188–211
Mención de economías feministas/comunitarias y minga	Incorporado en resultados y discusión	Sección 3.1 y 3.3
Sugerencias bibliográficas adicionales	Nuevas fuentes relevantes citadas cuando se alinean con el alcance

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting article. It attempts to analyse the contributions of Sumak Kawsay in Latin America. I believe this paper makes a valuable contribution to knowledge, dealing with a highly relevant topic.

Nevertheless, I do think there are areas where we can make improvements: The literature review and the use of the PRISMA method appear to be appropriate. However, I am intrigued by the following sentence: 'Keywords such as "Sumak Kawsay", "Buen Vivir", and "Good Living" were used'. If these keywords have been used, it is necessary to specify which ones have been used (rather than stating that some have been used). For each keyword, the number found and the source (Scopus, WOS) should be stated. A summary table would be very helpful. It should also be stated when the search was carried out.

On the other hand, it is striking that no results appear regarding epistemology itself. How is knowledge generated? What does Sumak Kawsay have to do with this? Similarly, there is nothing about the potential of the Social and Solidarity Economy to transition ecologically, despite there being proposals from the Andean region that link these aspects. This may be due to the use of bibliographic search descriptors, but it is notable nonetheless. 

Another point is that the results section could be better organised. For example, create subsections related to the social, economic and environmental dimensions, and perhaps sub-subsections within them. This is because it is difficult for the reader to follow without a clearer order.

I believe that the discussion section is not balanced with the previous section. It reads like a set of conclusions. I suggest revising this section, using it to enrich the conclusions if necessary, and then removing it.

Author Response

Respuesta al revisor 2

 

Solicitud de revisor	Acción implementada	Ubicación
Especifique palabras clave y número de registros por descriptor y por base de datos	Se agregó un desglose detallado y una tabla de resumen	Metodología, líneas 105–108
Aclarar el marco temporal de la búsqueda	Justificación añadida	Metodología, líneas 110–112
Mejorar la estructura de la sección de Resultados	Nuevas subsecciones 3.1 Social / 3.2 Ambiental / 3.3 Económica	Resultados, línea 141
Incluir un desglose de los hallazgos	Mesa incluida	Resultados, líneas 442–444
Añadir discusión epistemológica	Interpretación epistemológica fortalecida	Discusión, líneas 452–463
Eliminar la discusión redundante e integrarla con las conclusiones	Discusión totalmente revisada; Conclusiones fortalecidas	Discusión y conclusiones

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

• lines 28-30: cite Brundtland Report and add quotation mark on word-for-word definition
• lines 32-33: cite sources justifying the bias toward the economic criterion

Methodology

• The first paragraph, 84-90, is in left alignment. It should be repositioned to align with the entire manuscript in justified
• Figure 1 is not mentioned in the main text. 
• Figure 1 should be revised, and the detailed systematic literature review should be documented in the methodology section for reproducibility. what is the breakdown of the documents from each database before filtering? what registers are you referring to? what is the justification for selecting documents from 2018 to 2024? how did you screen by results (line 102)?

Results

• The report is poorly written. The authors should restructure the results section to reflect the outcomes of the systematic literature review.
• The authors should provide a breakdown of the findings based on the 69 documents analyzed.

Discussion

• The discussion should compare the outcomes of this current study with existing studies in the literature.
• What new findings and how are these study's findings significant compared to similar studies in the literature?

Author Response

Respuesta al revisor 3

 

Solicitud de revisor	Acción implementada	Ubicación
Cite el informe Brundtland + comillas	Agregado	Introducción, líneas 33–35
Citar fuentes que justifiquen el sesgo económico	Agregado	Introducción, líneas 35–41
Alinear texto (párrafo alineado a la izquierda)	Corregido	Metodología
Figura 1 no mencionada	Ahora referenciado explícitamente	Metodología, líneas 91–92
Reproducibilidad de documentos SLR	Se agregó: selección de bases de datos, duplicados, criterios de filtrado y selección.	Metodología
Mejorar los resultados	Completamente reestructurado	Sección 3
Comparar con estudios anteriores	Punto y aparte	Discusión, líneas 452–463
Explique la contribución novedosa de esta revisión.	Agregado	Discusión, líneas 514–522 y Conclusiones, 537–539

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am impressed by the important addition made to this new version, most notably establishing a connection with  Francis I’s message and James Lovelock's Gaia (among others). 
When mentioning the Homogenocene concept on p 2, the references must be updated. A thorough history of the concept appears in 'Homogenocene: Defining the Age of Bio-cultural Devastation (1493–Present)', International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society,  2024 
As for the notion of food sovereignty, it is important to include a pre-2018 essay connecting it with Buen Vivir -Sumak Kawsay  ’Sovereignty in a changing world: From Westphalia to food sovereignty’, Globalizations, 13 (4), 2016: 484-498. This is essential as it explores new localised forms of power centred on fundamental practices like BV and food sovereignty movements reclaiming control over food systems for communities,   and emphasising local, sustainable practices against corporate and state dominance. You also need to refer to this on p. 9, when you state that ‘Sumak Kawsay promotes territorial defense by being integrated into the constitutions of Ecuador and Bolivia, allowing Indigenous communities to define their own perspectives of society and nationhood’ - precisely because  the notion of sovereignty departs from the post-Westphalian Western models that are now dominating the entire planet- just as Westernization is synonymous with global homogeneity. 

Any decolonial critique needs to recognise this -- a good example is ‘Decolonizing climate change response: African indigenous knowledge and sustainable development’, Frontiers in Sociology, 9, 2024 
This later essay would contribute greatly to connect Sumak Kawsay to the kindred African worldview and philosophy of  Ubuntu, which “espouses core principles of reciprocity, harmony, and solidarity among Indigenous societies within and beyond Africa, provides a transformative pathway to rethink and respond to the climate change crises” (Davis 2024)-

You rightly mention how BV philosophy is enshrined in Latin American constitution making. On this, see p. 493  of the previous article on “the simultaneous institutionalization
of food sovereignty and the indigenous people’s claims reflect some of the aspirations of the Ecuadorian social movements and their ‘buen vivir’ or Sumak Kawsay philosophy) of pursuing a ‘solidarity economy’ model“. 

See also  ‘An ontological turn in the debate on Buen Vivir—Sumak Kawsay in Ecuador: Ideology, knowledge, and the common’. Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, 10(3), 315–334.2015    

Food sovereignty as the right of peoples to healthy, culturally appropriate sustainably and to define their own food and agricultural systems,  emerged as failures of neoliberal policies whil climate change spurred demands for new models (see https://viacampesina.org/es/): 

Finally, the notions of “exemplary ethical communities" and "survival cosmopolitanism"  have not been sufficiently introduced or elaborated in this new version.

Yet it is an important paper and should be accepted with minor revisions.

Author Response

Comment 1: Update of the Homogenocene concept

When mentioning the Homogenocene concept, the references must be updated, including the 2024 article providing a thorough history of the concept.

Response:
The reference on the Homogenocene has been updated to include recent scholarship (2024) that conceptualizes it as a historically rooted process of biocultural devastation associated with colonial expansion and global homogenization. This clarification has been incorporated into the conceptual framework of the manuscript (Introduction). In addition, to clarify the epistemological implications of this process, the Discussion section has been expanded to explicitly address the ontological turn in Buen Vivir, articulated through relational and commons-based understandings of sustainability, drawing on the debate on Buen Vivir as a relational epistemology.

Comment 2: Food sovereignty and non–post-Westphalian sovereignty

Include a pre-2018 essay connecting food sovereignty with Buen Vivir, and explicitly refer to this when discussing the constitutional incorporation of Buen Vivir in Ecuador and Bolivia (p. 9).

Response:
This comment has been addressed directly in the Results section, specifically in the Environmental contributions of Buen Vivir subsection (Section 3.2.3, p. 9). The revised text now clarifies that the constitutional incorporation of Buen Vivir in Ecuador and Bolivia does not merely represent cultural inclusion, but signals a reconfiguration of sovereignty itself. Drawing on food sovereignty scholarship (Sovereignty in a changing world: From Westphalia to food sovereignty, Globalizations, 2016), sovereignty is conceptualized as emerging from localized, community-based practices that reclaim control over territory, food systems, and modes of life, thus departing from post-Westphalian, state-centered models. In addition, the conceptual definition of food sovereignty as the right of peoples to define their own food and agricultural systems in culturally appropriate and sustainable ways has been incorporated into the Discussion section to further clarify its theoretical grounding.

Comment 3: Decolonial critique beyond Latin America (Ubuntu)

Any decolonial critique should recognize connections with other Indigenous worldviews, such as African philosophies like Ubuntu.

Response:
The Discussion section has been expanded to include a comparative decolonial perspective that places Buen Vivir in dialogue with African Indigenous philosophies, particularly Ubuntu. This addition highlights shared ethical principles such as reciprocity, relationality, and collective responsibility, and draws on recent scholarship to connect these worldviews to contemporary socio-ecological challenges, including climate change.

Comment 4: Constitutionalization, Indigenous claims, and solidarity economy

Further connect Buen Vivir, food sovereignty, and Indigenous claims within constitutional processes.

Response:
The revised manuscript explicitly links the constitutional recognition of Buen Vivir with Indigenous and peasant struggles for food sovereignty and solidarity-based economic models. This connection emphasizes how these processes reflect the aspirations of social movements to reclaim territorial autonomy and challenge dominant development paradigms. These revisions have been incorporated into the Results section, specifically in the subsection addressing socio-environmental conflicts and extractivism (Section 3.2.3, p. 9).

Comment 5: Clarification of “exemplary ethical communities” and “survival cosmopolitanism”

These notions are not sufficiently introduced or elaborated.

Response:
Both concepts have now been explicitly introduced and defined in the final part of the Discussion. “Exemplary ethical communities” are presented as collective forms of organization grounded in reciprocity, care, and ecological responsibility, while “survival cosmopolitanism” is defined as the articulation of translocal solidarities based on shared struggles rather than cultural homogenization. These clarifications strengthen the conceptual coherence of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

I think the article has improved considerably. However, I would suggest a few minor changes:

1.- Put the results of the Boolean searches in a table (line 105, where the findings are explained).

2. Include other related debates in the discussion section of the article, perhaps related to eco-social transitions in the Andean region and their connection to other Andean proposals such as buen vivir, in order to place the paper within a broader and richer debate.

Otherwise, I think it is fine as it is.

Author Response

Comment 1: Present the results of the Boolean searches in a table

Put the results of the Boolean searches in a table.

Response:
A new table (Table 1) has been incorporated into the Methodology section presenting the results of the Boolean search strategy applied in Scopus and Web of Science. The table summarizes the number of records retrieved per descriptor and database, enhancing transparency and replicability. Redundant textual descriptions have been removed and replaced with a concise summary referring directly to the table.

Comment 2: Situate the discussion within broader debates on eco-social transitions

Include related debates, particularly eco-social transitions in the Andean region.

Response:
The Discussion section has been expanded to situate the findings within broader debates on eco-social transitions in the Andean region. This addition connects Buen Vivir with post-extractivist transitions, community-based territorial governance, and relational approaches to human–nature interactions, placing the study within a wider and richer scholarly debate.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the comments I raised.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the overall positive evaluation of the manuscript. The suggested points regarding referencing and methodological clarity have been carefully addressed in the revised version. Specifically, key references have been updated, corrected, and more explicitly integrated into the text, and the methodological section has been clarified through the inclusion of a summary table of the Boolean search strategy and a more concise explanation of the search process and selection criteria. We believe these revisions have improved the clarity, transparency, and overall quality of the manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please revise the text carefully, correct the English and amend the misplaced citations and references. The latest version contains more mistakes than the previous one!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Lack of precision. Check again.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for their valuable comments.

In response to the minor revision request, the manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity, academic tone, and overall English expression across all sections. All modifications have been indicated using blue-colored font in the revised manuscript to facilitate their identification.

We believe that these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and improved its readability.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,

Carolina Bermúdez-Restrepo
Andrea Vaca-López