38
IRUS TotalDownloads
Altmetric
A multi‐perspective composite assessment framework for prioritizing targets of sustainable development goals
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Yizhong Manuscript-clean version.docx | Accepted version | 533.66 kB | Microsoft Word | View/Open |
Title: | A multi‐perspective composite assessment framework for prioritizing targets of sustainable development goals |
Authors: | Huan, Y Wang, L Burgman, M Li, H Yu, Y Zhang, J Liang, T |
Item 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. |
Issue Date: | 1-Oct-2022 |
Date of Acceptance: | 30-Nov-2021 |
URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/98004 |
DOI: | 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. |
Keywords: | Environmental Sciences |
Publication Status: | Published |
Online Publication Date: | 2022-01-03 |
Appears in Collections: | Centre for Environmental Policy Faculty of Natural Sciences |