A systems perspective on national prioritisation of sustainable development goals: Insights from Australia

Abstract

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) requires effective national initiatives and resource allocation. Yet, the simultaneous attainment of all goals is hindered by constraints such as limited budgets and resources, varied national priorities, and the intricate nature of the goals. As we approach 2030 and beyond, an urgent need for an effective, data-driven prioritisation system exists to optimise what can be accomplished. A considerable knowledge gap persists in identifying the priority areas that demand concentrated attention and how their improvement would propel overall sustainability goals. To bridge this gap, our study presents a prioritisation approach that identifies significant SDG indicators based on urgency and impact, utilising Benchmarking, Bivariate, and Network analysis. Furthermore, we introduce an innovative Impact Index (IMIN) to assess an indicator’s extensive effect on the SDG network. This system carries significant international relevance by establishing a robust framework to identify key, potent, and interconnected indicators. It supports decision-makers worldwide in comprehending their nation’s SDG performance and promotes efficient resource allocation. In the specific context of Australia, our analysis spotlights several impactful, yet underperforming SDG indicators. These include the protection of Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Mountain Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), the share of renewable energy and energy intensity level of primary energy, targeted research and development, gender equality in national parliaments, and carbon-efficient manufacturing, amongst others.

Keywords

Sustainable development / SDGs / National prioritisation / SDGs prioritisation / Network analysis / Australia’s SDGs

Declaration of Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This study is funded by the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship provided by the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.geosus.2023.06.003.

References

[1] Al-Saidi, M., 2022. Disentangling the SDGs agenda in the GCC region: Priority targets and core areas for environmental action. Front. Environ. Sci., 10, 1025337.

[2] Alcamo, J, Thompson, J, Alexander, A, Antoniades, A, Delabre, I, Dolley, J, Scharlemann, J. P. W., 2020. Analysing interactions among the sustainable development goals: Findings and emerging issues from local and global studies. Sustain. Sci., 15(6), 1561-1572.

[3] Allen, C, Metternicht, G, Wiedmann, T., 2019. Prioritising SDG targets: Assessing baselines, gaps and interlinkages. Sustain. Sci., 14(2), 421-438.

[4] Allen, C, Metternicht, G, Wiedmann, T, Pedercini, M., 2019. Greater gains for Australia by tackling all SDGs but the last steps will be the most challenging. Nat. Sustain., 2(11), 1041-1050.

[5] Allen, C, Nejdawi, R, El-Baba, J, Hamati, K, Metternicht, G, Wiedmann, T., 2017. Indicator-based assessments of progress towards the sustainable development goals (SDGs): A case study from the Arab region. Sustain. Sci., 12(6), 975-989.

[6] Allen, C, Reid, M, Thwaites, J, Glover, R, Kestin, T., 2020. Assessing national progress and priorities for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Experience from Australia. Sustain. Sci., 15(2), 521-538.

[7] Anderson, C. C., Denich, M, Warchold, A, Kropp, J. P., Pradhan, P., 2022. A systems model of SDG target influence on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Sustain. Sci., 17(4), 1459-1472.

[8] Asadikia, A, Rajabifard, A, Kalantari, M., 2021. Systematic prioritisation of SDGs: Machine learning approach. World Dev., 140, 105269.

[9] Asadikia, A, Rajabifard, A, Kalantari, M., 2022. Region-income-based prioritisation of Sustainable Development Goals by Gradient Boosting Machine. Sustain. Sci., 17(5), 1939-1957.

[10] Australian Government, 2021. Emissions Reduction Plan: A whole-of-economy plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. https://www.industry.gov.au/data-andpublications/australias-long-term-emissions-reduction-plan.

[11] Baffoe, G, Zhou, X, Moinuddin, M, Somanje, A. N., Kuriyama, A, Mohan, G, Saito, O, Takeuchi, K., 2021. Urban–rural linkages: Effective solutions for achieving sustainable development in Ghana from an SDG interlinkage perspective. Sustain. Sci., 16, 1341-1362.

[12] Bali Swain, R, Ranganathan, S., 2021. Modeling interlinkages between sustainable development goals using network analysis. World Dev., 138, 105136.

[13] Bennich, T, Weitz, N, Carlsen, H., 2020. Deciphering the scientific literature on SDG interactions: A review and reading guide. Sci. Total Environ., 728, 138405.

[14] Biermann, F, Hickmann, T, Senit, C. A., Beisheim, M, Bernstein, S, Chasek, P, Grob, L, Kim, R. E., Kotzé, L. J., Nilsson, M, Ordóñez Llanos, A, Okereke, C, Pradhan, P, Raven, R, Sun, Y, Vijge, M. J., van Vuuren, D, Wicke, B., 2022. Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain., 5(9), 795-800.

[15] Collste, D, Pedercini, M, Cornell, S. E., 2017. Policy coherence to achieve the SDGs: Using integrated simulation models to assess effective policies. Sustain. Sci., 12(6), 921-931.

[16] Dalampira, E, Nastis, S. A., 2020. Mapping Sustainable Development Goals: A network analysis framework. Sustain. Dev., 28(1), 46-55.

[17] Dawes, J. H. P., 2022. SDG interlinkage networks: Analysis, robustness, sensitivities, and hierarchies. World Dev., 149, 105693.

[18] Dörgo, G, Sebestyén, V, Abonyi, J., 2018. Evaluating the interconnectedness of the sustainable development goals based on the causality analysis of sustainability indicators. Sustainability 10(10), 3766.

[19] Forestier, O, Kim, R. E., 2020. Cherry-picking the Sustainable Development Goals: Goal prioritization by national governments and implications for global governance. Sustain. Dev., 28(5), 1269-1278.

[20] Freeman, L. C., 1978. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc. Networks 1(3), 215-239.

[21] Hametner, M, Kostetckaia, M., 2020. Frontrunners and laggards: How fast are the EU member states progressing towards the sustainable development goals?. Ecol. Econ., 177, 106775.

[22] Heiberger, R. M., Neuwirth, E. 2009. One-way ANOVA. In: Heiberger, R.M., Neuwirth, E. (Eds.), R Through Excel: A Spreadsheet Interface for Statistics, Data Analysis, and Graphics. Springer, New York, pp.165-191.

[23] Horn, P, Grugel, J., 2018. The SDGs in middle-income countries: Setting or serving domestic development agendas? Evidence from Ecuador. World Dev., 109, 73-84.

[24] Huan, Y, Wang, L, Burgman, M, Li, H, Yu, Y, Zhang, J, Liang, T., 2022. A multi-perspective composite assessment framework for prioritizing targets of sustainable development goals. Sustain. Dev., 30(5), 833-847.

[25] Kostetckaia, M, Hametner, M., 2022. How Sustainable Development Goals interlinkages influence European Union countries’ progress towards the 2030 Agenda. Sustain. Dev., 30(5), 916-926.

[26] Krishna, V. R., Paramesh, V, Arunachalam, V, Das, B, Elansary, H. O., Parab, A, Reddy, D. D., Shashidhar, K. S., El-Ansary, D. O., Mahmoud, E. A., El-Sheikh, M. A., 2020. Assessment of sustainability and priorities for development of Indian west coast region: An application of sustainable livelihood security indicators. Sustainability 12(20), 8716.

[27] Kubiszewski, I, Mulder, K, Jarvis, D, Costanza, R., 2022. Toward better measurement of sustainable development and wellbeing: A small number of SDG indicators reliably predict life satisfaction. Sustain. Dev., 30(1), 139-148.

[28] Laumann, F, von Kugelgen, J, Uehara, T. H. K., Barahona, M., 2022. Complex interlinkages, key objectives, and nexuses among the Sustainable Development Goals and climate change: A network analysis. Lancent Planet. Health 6(5), E422-E430.

[29] Lomborg, B., 2015. The U.N. chose way too many new development goals. Time. 2015- 09-29.

[30] Lyytimäki, J, K-Lonkila, M, Furman, E, Korhonen-Kurki, K, Lähteenoja, S., 2021. Untangling the interactions of sustainability targets: Synergies and trade-offs in the Northern European context. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 23(3), 3458-3473.

[31] McArthur, J. W., Rasmussen, K., 2019. Classifying Sustainable Development Goal trajectories: A country-level methodology for identifying which issues and people are getting left behind. World Dev., 123, 104608.

[32] Miola, A, Borchardt, S, Neher, F, Buscaglia, D., 2019. Interlinkages and policy coherence for the Sustainable Development Goals implementation: An operational method to identify trade-offs and co-benefits in a systemic way. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

[33] Miola, A, Schiltz, F., 2019. Measuring sustainable development goals performance: How to monitor policy action in the 2030 Agenda implementation?. Ecol. Econ., 164, 106373.

[34] Nilsson, M, Chisholm, E, Griggs, D, Howden-Chapman, P, McCollum, D, Messerli, P, Stafford-Smith, M., 2018. Mapping interactions between the sustainable development goals: Lessons learned and ways forward. Sustain. Sci., 13(6), 1489-1503.

[35] OECD, 2019. Measuring distance to the SDG targets 2019: An assessment of where OECD countries stand. OECD, Paris.

[36] Pallant, J., 2020. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS. Routledge.

[37] Pham-Truffert, M, Metz, F, Fischer, M, Rueff, H, Messerli, P., 2020. Interactions among Sustainable Development Goals: Knowledge for identifying multipliers and virtuous cycles. Sustain. Dev., 28(5), 1236-1250.

[38] Pradhan, P, Costa, L, Rybski, D, Lucht, W, Kropp, J. P., 2017. A systematic study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) interactions. Earths Future 5(11), 1169-1179.

[39] Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Durand-Delacre, D., Teksoz, K., 2017. SDG index and dashboards report 2017. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). New York.

[40] Scharlemann, J. P. W. W., Brock, R. C., Balfour, N, Brown, C, Burgess, N. D., Guth, M. K., Kapos, V., 2020. Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: The role of environment–human linkages. Sustain. Sci., 15(6), 1573-1584.

[41] Tremblay, D, Gowsy, S, Riffon, O, J-Boucher, F, Dubé, S, Villeneuve, C., 2021. A systemic approach for sustainability implementation planning at the local level by SDG target prioritization: The case of Quebec City. Sustainability 13(5), 2520.

[42] United Nations, 2018. The Sustainable Development Goals report 2018. United Nations, New York.

[43] Uttley, J., 2019. Power analysis, sample size, and assessment of statistical assumptions—Improving the evidential value of lighting research. LEUKOS 15(2–3), 143-162.

[44] Warchold, A, Pradhan, P, Thapa, P, Putra, M. P. I. F., Kropp, J. P., 2022. Building a unified sustainable development goal database: Why does sustainable development goal data selection matter?. Sustain. Dev., 30(5), 1278-1293.

[45] Weitz, N, Carlsen, H, Nilsson, M, Skånberg, K., 2018. Towards systemic and contextual priority setting for implementing the 2030 Agenda. Sustain. Sci., 13(2), 531-548.

[46] ype="journal"UN Statistical Commission and UNSD, 2020. Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. UNSC and UNSD.

[47] World Bank, 2019. World Development Indicators - CO₂ emissions (metric tons per capita). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC.

[48] World Bank, 2021. World development indicators. World Bank National Accounts Data. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS.

[49] Yang, S, Zhao, W, Liu, Y, Cherubini, F, Fu, B, Pereira, P., 2020. Prioritizing sustainable development goals and linking them to ecosystem services: A global expert’s knowledge evaluation. Geogr. Sustain., 1(4), 321-330.

[50] Zhou, X, Moinuddin, M., 2017. Sustainable Development Goals interlinkages and network analysis: A practical tool for SDG integration and policy coherence. The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan