Repository logo
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
Repository logo
  • Communities & Collections
  • Research Outputs
  • Statistics
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
  1. Home
  2. Faculty of Natural Sciences
  3. Centre for Environmental Policy
  4. Centre for Environmental Policy
  5. A multi‐perspective composite assessment framework for prioritizing targets of sustainable development goals
 
  • Details
A multi‐perspective composite assessment framework for prioritizing targets of sustainable development goals
File(s)
Yizhong Manuscript-clean version.docx (533.66 KB)
Accepted version
Author(s)
Huan, Yizhong
Wang, Lingqing
Burgman, Mark
Li, Haitao
Yu, Yurong
more
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets proposed in 2015 are wide ranging and achieving them before 2030 may require extraordinarily high costs. Prioritizing a more manageable and logical sequence of SDGs targets based on national conditions is critical to reduce the complexity of SDGs, lower costs, ensure transitions are efficient, and accelerate implementation. Researchers have proposed a range of methods to rank the prioritizations of SDGs from different perspectives. Unfortunately, prioritizations of SDGs arising from different methods are not entirely consistent due to the limitations of each method. Therefore, an integrated methodological framework is required to reconcile these inconsistencies. To fill this research gap, we synthesized several methods to create a new composite assessment framework to prioritize SDGs targets. The framework consists of assessment models from three perspectives, including the impact of targets in a network composed of the interactions between targets, the gap between the targets' current and ideal performances, and the urgency of improving participation by government and society in achieving the targets. We then tested the effectiveness of this assessment framework empirically by ranking prioritizations for six targets of SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) in Southeast Asia. Empirical results show that target 6.5 has the highest priority, followed by targets 6.4 and 6.6, while the lowest ranking target is 6.1. Finally, we outlined the advantages and limitations of each assessment method to assist stakeholders in using and broadening this composite assessment framework in the future.
Date Issued
2022-10-01
Date Acceptance
2021-11-30
Citation
Sustainable Development, 2022, 30 (5), pp.833-847
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/98004
URL
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2283
DOI
https://www.dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.2283
ISSN
0968-0802
Publisher
Wiley
Start Page
833
End Page
847
Journal / Book Title
Sustainable Development
Volume
30
Issue
5
Copyright Statement
© 2022 ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article, which has been published in final form at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2283. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.
Identifier
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2283
Subjects
Environmental Sciences
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2022-01-03
About
Spiral Depositing with Spiral Publishing with Spiral Symplectic
Contact us
Open access team Report an issue
Other Services
Scholarly Communications Library Services
logo

Imperial College London

South Kensington Campus

London SW7 2AZ, UK

tel: +44 (0)20 7589 5111

Accessibility Modern slavery statement Cookie Policy

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback