sustainable development challenges and prospects essay

SDIS21: Beyond Geopolitics - What are the challenges in making our world more sustainable?

The crises of the past year and a half highlight the need for greater international collaboration. Image:  REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Samantha Sault

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Global Governance is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, global governance.

Listen to the article

• We need more progress on peace, justice and developing strong and effective international institutions – which are essential to building a better world for everyone.
• COVID-19 heightens the risks for the world's most vulnerable – and highlights the need for international collaboration.
• The Forum's annual Sustainable Development Impact Summit, from 20-23 September, is a chance to figure out how to achieve all 17 SDGs – together.

The past year has seen one crisis after another – from extreme wildfires and heatwaves and hurricanes , to the refugee crisis following the collapse of Afghanistan’s government , to the continued need to address systemic racism , including environmental racism . Meanwhile, COVID-19 is not waning, with cases and deaths rising as vaccine disinformation causes deep rifts and vaccine inequality remains a challenge .

It’s easy to feel overwhelmed by the challenges we face in building a better, more inclusive world for everyone. And it’s made worse by the fact that many of us remain separated physically, while mistrust of international institutions and each other grows deeper.

"The effects of the pandemic should serve as a catalyst for changing course – away from competition and towards cooperation," according to the Forum's "Principles for Strengthening Global Cooperation ".

"Making progress on immediate priorities, including developing and distributing COVID-19 vaccines and effecting economic and societal recoveries, all while taking more ambitious action on long-standing challenges such as climate change and inequity, requires purposeful, coordinated effort. Greater resilience can only occur if leaders rebuild or reimagine instruments for greater collaboration," the report argues.

The Forum’s virtual Sustainable Development Impact Summit 2021, taking place 20-23 September , will provide a chance to discuss how we can come back together to build a more sustainable, inclusive world.

Have you read?

How to follow our sustainable development impact summit 2021, sustainable development goals for moving beyond geopolitics.

All 17 SDGs play a role in building a better, more inclusive world – but two in particular focus on geopolitics:

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. Targets include:

• Reducing all forms of violence and related death rates and ending all forms of violence against children.
• Promoting the rule of law and ensuring equal access to justice.
• Reducing illicit financial and arms flows, organized crime, corruption and bribery.
• Developing effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels, with responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making.
• Protecting fundamental freedoms and ensuring non-discriminatory laws for sustainable development.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals. This comprehensive goal aims to implement and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. Developed countries must fully implement official development commitments and work to assist developing countries with other financial challenges. Additional targets include:

• Enhancing cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation, and promoting the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries.
• Supporting developing countries in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals.
• Promoting a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the WTO, as well as increasing developing countries’ exports and realizing duty-free and quota-free market access for lease developed countries (LDCs).
• Enhancing global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and stability.

How much progress has been made?

We have seen progress in recent years. For example, 2020 saw the lowest number of journalists killed in a decade (62), says the UN Sustainable Development Goal Report 2021 – though that could be due to lockdowns and restricted travel. More countries, including one in three LDCs, have internationally compliant national human rights institutions, compared with one in five in 2015.

But this progress is not nearly enough – and given the impacts of COVID-19, we’re off track to meet many 2030 targets.

“At the end of 2020, about 1% of the global population – 82.4 million people – had been forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict or generalized violence,” according to the UN's latest SDG report . This doesn’t account for the past eight months of crises in Lebanon and Ethiopia , at the United States’ southern border and now, Afghanistan, which alone could displace at least half a million people, as Forum experts explained .

How to ease suffering and save the lives of migrants and refugees

Children are especially vulnerable. Currently, one in three trafficking victims are children; 72% are girls. “Previous economic crises suggest that the sharp increase in adult unemployment rates and an asymmetric global recovery from COVID-19 is likely to increase the risk of tracking.” Furthermore, at the start of 2020, one in 10 children were engaged in child labour, with 79 million in hazardous work. “The impacts of COVID-19 threaten to push an additional 8.9 million children into child labour by the end of 2022.”

We need strong international institutions and collaboration – but these, too, have been “shaky,” says the UN report . Foreign direct investment (FDI) fell 40% in 2020, dropping below $1 trillion for the first time since 2005.”

UN: Why global solidarity is necessary for a resilient recovery

“Recovery from the [COVID] crisis and sustainable development must be built on a foundation of peace, stability, respect for human rights, effective governance and the rule of law,” continues the UN report. We are seeing many signs of the world coming together – such as the fact that foreign aid reached an “all-time high” of $161 billion in 2020.

Now, as we come together to solve the climate crisis – which could have a far worse impact than COVID-19 – we need to renew the spirit of international partnership for a better world.

What are the World Economic Forum and its partners doing to make geopolitics more sustainable?

• Shaping the Future of Trade and Global Economic Interdependence is the Forum’s call to action to make trade work for all. Projects include The Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation as well as projects focused on green trade and digital trade .
• Shaping the Future of Financial and Monetary Systems is focused on building a more efficient, resilient and equitable international financial system. Projects include The Global Coalition to Fight Financial Crime , which presents a concerted and collaborative effort to address the societal costs and risks that financial crime poses.
• Established by the UN Secretary General with support from the Forum, the Task Force on Digital Financing of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is identifying how digitalization will reshape finance and to identify, theorize, and propose how best this transformation can support the financing of the SDGs.
• In recent months, Forum partners and members have donated billions to social justice organizations and launched new initiatives to make their own workplaces more inclusive and equitable. Learn more about what they've been doing to fight systemic racism .

The Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation is a collaboration of international organisations, governments and businesses led by the Center for International Private Enterprise , the International Chamber of Commerce and the World Economic Forum , in cooperation with Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit .

It aims to help governments in developing and least developed countries implement the World Trade Organization’s Trade Facilitation Agreement by bringing together governments and businesses to identify opportunities to address delays and unnecessary red-tape at borders.

For example, in Colombia, the Alliance worked with the National Food and Drug Surveillance Institute and business to introduce a risk management system that can facilitate trade while protecting public health, cutting the average rate of physical inspections of food and beverages by 30% and delivering $8.8 million in savings for importers in the first 18 months of operation.

What can I do to create a better world?

• Educate myself about inequalities and injustices in the world and speak out or peacefully protest when I see them in my country or community.
• Engage in the political process and vote if I’m eligible.
• Welcome refugees to my community and support them however I can.
• Ensure my business and business partners comply with all laws and meet international standards. Be transparent about what my company is doing to be more sustainable and report on progress.
• Engage in dialogues, partnerships and action to work towards sustainability, inclusivity and justice.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Forum Institutional .chakra .wef-zh0r2a{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0px;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-zh0r2a{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-zh0r2a{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Here's how to mobilize for Sustainable Development Goal 14 ahead of UN Ocean Conference 2025

Peter Thomson and Alfredo Giron

October 21, 2024

How the Global Future Councils use 'knowledge collisions' to address today’s challenges

Mirek Dušek

Uniting for sustainability: How regional cooperation can keep MENA businesses competitive

Maroun Kairouz and Kelsey Goodman

Country Strategy Meeting - Argentina

Marisol Argueta de Barillas

October 20, 2024

AI value alignment: How we can align artificial intelligence with human values

Benjamin Larsen and Virginia Dignum

October 17, 2024

How digital nomads can transform tourism and the economy of Small Island Developing States

Pedro Lopes

• Get involved

Development challenges and solutions

The challenges.

UNDP’s work, adapted to a range of country contexts, is framed through three broad development settings. These three development challenges often coexist within the same country, requiring tailored solutions that can adequately address specific deficits and barriers. Underpinning all three development challenges is a set of core development needs, including the need to strengthen gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, and to ensure the protection of human rights.

Outcome 1: Eradication of poverty in all its forms and dimensions

It's estimated that approximately 700 million people still live on less than US$1.90 per day, a total of 1.3 billion people are multi-dimensionally poor, including a disproportionate number of women and people with disabilities and 80 percent of humanity lives on less than US$10 per day. Increasingly, middle-income countries account for a large part of this trend.

UNDP is looking at both inequalities and poverty in order to leave no one behind, focusing on the dynamics of exiting poverty and of not falling back. This requires addressing interconnected socio-economic, environmental and governance challenges that drive people into poverty or make them vulnerable to falling back into it. The scale and rapid pace of change necessitates decisive and coherent action by many actors at different levels to advance poverty eradication in all forms and dimensions. UNDP works to ensure responses are multisectoral and coherent from global to local.

Outcome 2: Accelerating structural transformations for sustainable development

The disempowering nature of social, economic, and political exclusion results in ineffective, unaccountable, non-transparent institutions and processes that hamper the ability of states to address persistent structural inequalities.

UNDP will support countries as they accelerate structural transformations by addressing inequalities and exclusion, transitioning to zero-carbon development and building more effective governance that can respond to megatrends such as globalization, urbanization and technological and demographic changes.

Outcome 3: Building resilience to crisis and shocks

Some countries are disproportionately affected by shocks and stressors such as climate change, disasters, violent extremism, conflict, economic and financial volatility, epidemics, food insecurity and environmental degradation. Climate-related disasters have increased in number and magnitude, reversing development gains, aggravating fragile situations, and contributing to social upheaval. Conflict, sectarian strife and political instability are on the rise and more than 1.6 billion people live in fragile or conflict-affected settings.

Around 258 million people live outside their countries of origin and 68.5 million are displaced. Disasters and the effects of climate change have displaced more people than ever before – on average 14 million people annually. Major disease outbreaks result in severe economic losses from the effect on livelihoods or decline in household incomes and national GDPs, as demonstrated by the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014-2015.

To return to sustainable development, UNDP is strengthening resilience by supporting governments to take measures to manage risk, prevent, respond and recover more effectively from shocks and crises and address underlying causes in an integrated manner. Such support  builds on foundations of inclusive and accountable governance, together with a strong focus on gender equality, the empowerment of women and girls and meeting the needs of vulnerable groups, to ensure that no one is left behind.

The road to success

To fulfill the aims of the Strategic Plan with the multi-dimensionality and complexity that the 2030 Agenda demands, UNDP is implementing six cross-cutting approaches to development, known as Signature Solutions. A robust, integrated way to put our best work – or 'signature' skillset – into achieving the Sustainable Development Goals .

UNDP’s Signature Solutions are cross-cutting approaches to development— for example, a gender approach or resilience approach can be applied to any area of development, or to any of the SDGs.

Keeping people out of poverty

Today, 700 million people live on less than $1.90 per day and a total of 1.3 billion people are multi-dimensionally poor. People stay in or fall back into poverty because of a range of factors—where they live, their ethnicity, gender, a lack of opportunities, and others.

It’s no coincidence that our first Signature Solution relates directly to the first SDG: to eradicate all forms of poverty, wherever it exists. For UNDP, helping people to get out and stay out of poverty is our primary focus. It features in our work with governments, communities and partners across the 170 countries and territories in which we operate.

UNDP interventions help eradicate poverty, such as by creating decent jobs and livelihoods, providing social safety nets, boosting political participation, and ensuring access to services like water, energy, healthcare, credit, and productive assets. Our Signature Solution on poverty cuts across our work on all the SDGs, whether it’s decent work or peace and justice.

Governance for peaceful, just, and inclusive societies

People’s lives are better when government is efficient and responsive. When people from all social groups are included in decision-making that affects their lives, and when they have equal access to fair institutions that provide services and administer justice, they will have more trust in their government.

The benefits of our work on governance are evident in all the areas covered by the SDGs, whether it’s climate action or gender equality. UNDP’s governance work spans a wide range of institutions, from national parliaments, supreme courts, and national civil services through regional and local administrations, to some of the geographically remotest communities in the world. We work with one out of every three parliaments on the planet, help countries expand spaces for people’s participation, and improve how their institutions work, so that all people can aspire to a sustainable future with prosperity, peace, justice and security.

Crisis prevention and increased resilience

Crises know no borders. More than 1.6 billion people live in fragile and/or conflict-affected settings, including 600 million young people. More people have been uprooted from their homes by war and violence and sought sanctuary elsewhere than at any time since the Second World War. Poverty, population growth, weak governance and rapid urbanization are driving the risks associated with such crises.

UNDP helps reduce these risks by supporting countries and communities to better manage conflicts, prepare for major shocks, recover in their aftermath, and integrate risk management into their development planning and investment decisions. The sooner that people can get back to their homes, jobs, and schools, the sooner they can start thriving again. Resilience building is a transformative process of strengthening the capacity of people, communities, institutions, and countries to prevent, anticipate, absorb, respond to and recover from crises. By implementing this Signature Solution, we focus on capacities to address root causes of conflict, reduce disaster risk, mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts, recover from crisis, and build sustainable peace. This has an impact that not only prevents or mitigates crises, but also has an effect on people’s everyday lives across all SDGs.

Environment: nature-based solutions for development

Healthy ecosystems are at the heart of development, underpinning societal well-being and economic growth. Through nature-based solutions, such as the sustainable management and protection of land, rivers and oceans, we help ensure that countries have adequate food and water, are resilient to climate change and disasters, shift to green economic pathways, and can sustain work for billions of people through forestry, agriculture, fisheries and tourism.

A long-standing partner of the Global Environment Facility, and now with the second-largest Green Climate Fund portfolio, UNDP is the primary actor on climate change in the United Nations. Our aim is to help build the Paris Agreement and all environmental agreements into the heart of countries’ development priorities. After all, the food, shelter, clean air, education and opportunities of billions of people depend on getting this right.

Clean, affordable energy

People can’t prosper without reliable, safe, and affordable energy to power everything from lights to vehicles to factories to hospitals. And yet, 840 million people worldwide have no access to electricity, and 2.9 billion people use solid fuels to cook or heat their homes, exposing their families to grave health hazards and contributing to vast deforestation worldwide 3 . In these and other ways, energy is connected to every one of the SDGs.

UNDP helps countries transition away from the use of finite fossil fuels and towards clean, renewable, affordable sources of energy. Our sustainable energy portfolio spans more than 110 countries, leveraging billions of dollars in financing, including public and private sources. With this financial support, we partner with cities and industries to increase the share of renewables in countries’ national energy mix; establish solar energy access to people displaced by conflict; fuel systemic change in the transport industry; and generate renewable ways to light homes for millions of people. 

Women's empowerment and gender equality

Women’s participation in all areas of society is essential to make big and lasting change not only for themselves, but for all people. Women and girls make up a disproportionate share of people in poverty, and are more likely to face hunger, violence, and the impacts of disaster and climate change. They are also more likely to be denied access to legal rights and basic services.

UNDP has the ability and responsibility to integrate gender equality into every aspect of our work. Gender equality and women’s empowerment is a guiding principle that applies to everything we do, collaborating with our partner countries to end gender-based violence, tackle climate change with women farmers, and advance female leadership in business and politics.

[1] OECD , States of Fragility 2016: Understanding Violence (Paris, 2016), p. 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267213-en .

[2] sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030, p.9.  http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291 ., [3] source: iea, irena, unsd, wb, who, 2019, tracking sdg7: the energy progress report 2019, washington, dc..

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 29 June 2022

The importance of the Sustainable Development Goals to students of environmental and sustainability studies—a global survey in 41 countries

• Matthias Winfried Kleespies   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8413-879X 1 &
• Paul Wilhelm Dierkes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6046-6406 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  9 , Article number:  218 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

41k Accesses

26 Citations

44 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental studies

To fight the global problems of humanity, the United Nations has adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To achieve these goals, it is necessary that future decision-makers and stakeholders in society consider these goals to be important. Therefore, in this study, we examined how important students in 41 countries directly related to the environmental sector rated each of the 17 SDGs. Based on the analysis of these ratings, it was possible to categorize the SDGs into three higher-level factors that reflect the three pillars of sustainability (social, economic, environmental). These three pillars are considered to be of varying importance in different countries. We also correlated the ratings of these higher-level factors with country-specific indicators, such as the Human Development Index. The correlations between the indicators and the higher-level factors revealed that in countries with higher indices, the SDGs are rated as less important compared to in countries with lower indices. These results provide stakeholders with important guidance on how the SDGs should be promoted in their country.

Similar content being viewed by others

Revealing dynamic goals for university’s sustainable development with a coupling exploration of SDGs

Measuring museum sustainability in China: a DSR model-driven approach to empower sustainable development goals (SDGs)

Global effects of progress towards Sustainable Development Goals on subjective well-being

Introduction.

Currently, humanity is facing major environmental, social and economic problems worldwide. To address these global issues on an international cross-border level and to create a more sustainable and better future for all, the United Nations adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 (United Nations, 2015 ). Each of the SDGs has indicators that are used to measure progress towards achieving the goals (United Nations, 2017 ). The individual goals do not stand alone but rather influence each other and are closely linked (Bali Swain and Yang-Wallentin, 2020 ; Nilsson et al., 2016 ; Pham‐Truffert et al., 2020 ; Pradhan et al., 2017 ); each goal addresses environmental, social and economic problems (Elder and Olsen, 2019 ).

It is particularly important how the SDGs are perceived, accepted and evaluated by people worldwide. In this context, there have been several surveys conducted in recent years, some with varying results. While awareness of the SDGs has increased globally compared to their predecessor, i.e., the Millennium Development Goals (GlobeScan, 2016 ), 63% of the respondents in a survey of 28 European countries said they had never heard of the SDGs. Globally, awareness of the SDGs is approximately 50% (Theresa et al., 2020 ); however, only 1% of people say they are very well informed about the SDGs (Lampert and Papadongonas, 2016 ). There are also regional differences in the assessment of the individual goals. Globally, ‘climate action’, ‘good health’ and ‘well-being and quality education’ are considered particularly important (Theresa et al., 2020 ). In another survey, ‘zero hunger’, ‘clean water and sanitation’ and ‘no poverty’ were selected as the most important SDGs (Lampert and Papadongonas, 2016 ). Young people in particular are more likely to have heard of the SDGs, and for them, quality education is particularly important (Youth Speak Survey, 2020 ). In general, people around the world have a high level of acceptance about the content of the SDGs (Ipsos, 2015 ).

The education system has an important role in raising awareness of the SDGs and in teaching skills and values that lead to more sustainable behaviour. Therefore, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has developed learning objectives for the SDGs to support teachers and learners (UNESCO, 2017 ). Tertiary educational institutions are particularly important in this regard, as they educate the next generation of decision-makers who will have a critical impact on the future of the planet (Yuriev and Sierra‐Barón, 2020 ). Universities, through their education and influence, contribute directly to the achievement of a whole range of SDGs (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2020 ). In recent years, there has been a strong increase in sustainability programmes at universities, with a particular focus on student attitudes (Rodríguez-García et al., 2019 ); however, there is wide divergence between programmes (O’Byrne et al., 2015 ). Despite the recent surge of sustainability in higher education, students generally have limited knowledge of the SDGs (Zamora-Polo et al., 2019 ). Higher education institutes, such as universities, have a special responsibility worldwide because they shape future leaders (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008 ; Bellou et al., 2017 ), decision-makers (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008 ; Lozano et al., 2013 ), professionals (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2020 ) and intellectuals in various academic fields (Lozano, 2006 ).

In addition to educating the next generation of decision-makers, which is most likely the most important factor, universities also make an important contribution to achieving the SDGs through research, public engagement or university policy (Kestin et al., 2017 ). They can influence politicians and industry leaders with their clear and unbiased information (Stephens et al., 2008 ) and reach a wide audience in the general population (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2020 ).

While elite positions in society can be reached independently of having a university education, universities provide knowledge and technical skills that significantly increase the likelihood that a person will achieve such a socially relevant position (Frank and Meyer, 2007 ; Vicente-Molina et al., 2013 ). Therefore, students, as potential future decision-makers of society, contribute greatly to the achievement of the SDGs and have an impact on the major problems of humanity and thus on the future of the planet. Until now, however, there has been a lack of valid international research that examines the perspective of students in the natural and sustainable sciences on the various SDGs. This study is an attempt to reduce the international research gap and examine the views of environmental students in different countries regarding the SDGs. The aim is to determine how important students in each country consider the SDGs to be. In this context, statistical methods will be used to check whether the individual SDGs can be assigned to higher-order groups on the basis of the students’ evaluation. To identify patterns and differences between the countries, these higher-ranking groups were compared among the individual countries and correlated with country-specific indicators. The results are intended to provide guidance for action for today’s decision-makers in individual countries.

Therefore, in our study, we asked more than 4000 university students in 41 countries whose course of study is directly related to sustainability to rate the 17 SDGs on a scale of 1–5 (important to unimportant). In the first step of the analysis, an exploratory factor analysis was used to investigate the extent to which the SDGs can be categorized into higher-level factors based on the participants’ ratings. In a second step, we examined how these higher ranking factors differed among the 41 countries studied. In the final step, we analysed the relationship between these higher-ranking factors and various country-specific indicators (GDP per capita, the Human Development Index, the Education Index, the Environment Performance Index and the SDG Index).

Data collection procedure

The survey was conducted using an online questionnaire. To guarantee a high level of data protection and the anonymity of the participants, the survey software that is also applied for evaluation at Goethe University in Frankfurt was used. Students were shown the labels and descriptions of each SDG (Table 1 ) and asked to rate them on a scale of 1 to 5 (unimportant to important). The survey was conducted in one of the official languages of the respective countries. The translation of the questionnaires was performed by a native-speaking translator and always checked by an additional person. The translations of the SDGs were taken from the official website of the UN (United Nations, 2016 ). If no translation was available, the SDGs were translated by a translator following the same principle. The English version of the questionnaire can be found in Supplementary Fig. 1 . To collect the data, professors and scientists worldwide were contacted and asked for their help. The scientists were asked to distribute the questionnaire among their students. An English cover letter was provided to participants and described the content and background of the study. In addition, a short introductory text at the beginning of the questionnaire explained the research project to the participants. Only people from natural science courses directly related to sustainability (e.g., biology, environmental sciences, ecology and conservation, natural resources management, etc.) were contacted.

A total of 4305 students (34.3% male, 63.6% female, 0.8% divers, 1.2% no answer) participated in the survey. The participants were on average 22.59 (±0.495) years old and in the 4.29th (±2.744) semester of study. The number of participants broken down by country is shown in Supplementary Table 2 . The survey period was September 2020–July 2021.

The study was reviewed by the ethics committee of the science didactic institutes and departments of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main under approval number 15-WLSD-2104. If a university required a local ethics vote, that vote was also conducted prior to the survey.

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the individual SDGs and to assign the SDGs to higher ranking factors based on the students’ ratings. This is a structure-simplifying procedure that is used to assign individual variables or items to higher-order factors and thus simplify the interpretation of the data (Yong and Pearce, 2013 ). In simple terms, a factor analysis generates a correlation matrix ( R -matrix) for all items used. Items that correlate particularly well and separate themselves from other item clusters are assigned to a higher ranking factor (Field, 2013 ). The rotation method chosen was varimax, which is considered the most reliable orthogonal rotation method (Fabrigar et al., 1999 ). To check whether the data were at all suitable for this type of analysis, Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy were performed (Dziuban and Shirkey, 1974 ). The number of factors was determined by the Kaiser criterion, which takes into account all factors that have an eigenvalue larger than 1 (Kaiser, 1960 ). To examine whether the values of the three higher-level factors found by the factor analysis differed within countries or whether the factors were perceived to be of similar importance, the (two-tailed) Friedman test was used (Field, 2013 ). For significant results, a pairwise comparison was performed using the (two-tailed) Dunn–Bonferroni test (Dunn, 1964 ). The effect size was calculated using the following formula: r  =  \(\frac{Z}{{\sqrt N }}\) (Fritz et al., 2012 ).

To investigate whether there is a linear relationship between the factors found through factor analysis and the indices of each country (e.g., the Human Development Index and the Education Index), the Spearman rank correlation was calculated. The Spearman rank correlation was selected because the data were ordinally scaled and not normally distributed (Field, 2013 ; Schober et al., 2018 ).

Selected indices

The following five country-specific indices were selected:

Gross domestic product per capita (GDP per capita, 2021): GDP per capita is a value calculated by organizations such as the international monetary fund (International Monetary Fund, 2021 ). It is often used as an indicator of the standard of living, even though some weaknesses in this interpretation are currently known (Goossens, 2007 ).

Human Development Index (HDI from 2020): The HDI is an indicator of the United Nations (Conceição et al., 2020 ) that consists of life expectancy, the average number of years of schooling, and the standard of living (United Nations Development Programme, 2020b ).

Education Index (EI from 2020): The EI is a United Nations indicator that consists of the number of years of schooling that an adult person has attended on average and the expected years of schooling that a child will attend (United Nations Development Programme, 2020a ).

Environment Performance Index (EPI from 2020): The EPI is an index that assesses environmental health and ecosystem vitality using 32 performance indicators (Wendling et al., 2020 ).

SDG Index (SDGI from 2021): The SDGI is an indicator of the Bertelsmann Foundation that attempts to calculate the progress of the SDGs in percent based on various indicators. For example, if a country has an SDGI of 85.9, then approximately 86% of the SDGs have been achieved by that country (Sachs et al., 2021 ).

Both the Bartlett test ( p  < 0.001) and the KMO criterion (KMO = 0.924) confirmed the applicability of an exploratory factor analysis for the 17 SDGs. The analysis revealed three factors with an eigenvalue > 1, indicating that the SDGs can be attributed to three higher-order factors (social, economic, environmental), which together can explain 53.48% of the variance. Overall, there was a clear assignment of items to the factors, and only a few cross-loadings were observed (Table 1 ).

The comparison of the three sustainability factors within the tested countries showed that the countries rated the individual dimensions of the SDGs differently. For example, in some countries, all three sustainability factors were rated as being equally important (Fig. 1a ); thus, there was no significant difference between the factors. In a number of countries, the environmental component was rated higher than the economic component, but no difference was found between the social and environmental components or between the social and economic components (Fig. 1b ). In the third group, the economic factor was rated as slightly less important than the environmental and social factors (Fig. 1c ). In some countries, the environmental factor was rated significantly higher than the other factors (Fig. 1d ). For better clarity, the individual significance levels are not marked in Fig. 1 but can be found along with the effect sizes in Supplementary Table 1 .

In group ( a ), there are no significant differences between the three factors within the countries. In group ( b ), the environmental factor is rated higher than the economic factor but not higher than the social factor. In group ( c ), the economic factor is rated lower than the other two factors. In group ( d ), the environmental factor is rated significantly higher than both the economic and environmental factors. For clarity, the significance levels are not marked with asterisks in the figure. Exact significance levels and effect sizes can be found in Supplementary Table 1 . The boxes represent the mean of the components; the error bars represent the standard deviation.

The three higher-level sustainability factors show significant correlations with all five selected country-specific global development indices ( p  < 0.001). The correlations are shown in Table 2 .

All correlations are in the high range according to the common interpretation (Field, 2013 ). It is noteworthy that there is a negative correlation for all the global development indices examined. It follows that students in countries with higher indices rate the SDGs as less important than do students in countries with lower indices. For all the global development indices tested, a higher score means a higher standard. In other words, students in countries with, for example, a higher standard of education or higher income per person consider the SDGs to be less important compared to their counterparts.

The correlations between the three sustainability factors found and the individual indices are shown in Fig. 2 . The importance score refers to the mean values of the individual sustainability factors for the different countries. The dashed lines represent the linear trend.

Each point represents one country. Countries with fewer than 50 respondents are shown in grey, and countries with more than 50 respondents are shown in black. a Gross domestic product per capita in US dollars, b Human Development Index, c Education Index, d Environment Performance Index, and e SDG Index.

The results of this study provide important information on how students in the environmental field worldwide perceive and evaluate the 17 SDGs. Based on the rating of the importance of the individual SDGs, it was possible to assign them to three higher-level factors in the factor analysis. Although each of the 17 SDGs contains all three pillars of sustainability (social, economic and environmental (Purvis et al., 2019 )) and the different levels of sustainability build on each other (Sachs, 2012 ; United Nations, 2015 ), it has also been shown in previous studies that people assign the SDGs to individual pillars to varying degrees (Bain et al., 2019 ; Dalampira and Nastis, 2020 ; Elder and Olsen, 2019 ). Reviewing the three higher-level factors, it can be assumed that our data also reflect such a classification. When considering only the labels and short descriptions, Factor 1 includes the SDGs that are primarily considered social, Factor 2 includes the SDGs that are considered economic, and Factor 3 includes the SDGs that are considered environmental (Elder and Olsen, 2019 ). While in previous studies, respondents were often asked directly to assign the SDGs to the three pillars of sustainability, in this study, the classification was solely based on the different ratings of the importance of each SDG.

The clear separation of the SDGs into these three groups and the low cross-loading values suggest that environmental students worldwide make this categorization and assign different importance to the SDGs in the three groups, potentially subconsciously. It can be concluded that the students consider ecological, economic and social challenges to be of varying importance. This finding provides an essential starting point for decision-makers in tertiary education institutions. In addition to the current increasing number of courses with a focus on sustainability (O’Byrne et al., 2015 ; Rodríguez-García et al., 2019 ), more emphasis should be placed on the interconnectedness of the individual layers of the various SDGs. For each SDG, attention should be given to highlighting social, environmental and economic components and to underlining the close relationship between these pillars. In this way, the importance of all three components of each SDG can be taken into account for current issues. Fisheries, for example, have important elements of the social and economic components, in addition to the environmental component, and all of these elements are closely linked (Asche et al., 2018 ). These connections should be addressed and highlighted in environmental education courses.

When comparing these three factors within the countries, different patterns emerge. In approximately two-thirds of the countries, the three factors are not rated as equally important. A noticeable pattern, which is particularly evident in a number of industrialized countries, is that the gap between the economic factor and the other two factors is particularly large. This could well be explained to some extent by the attitudes of people in industrialized countries; i.e., environmental issues, such as fighting climate change, are seen as particularly important aims in North America and Europe (Theresa et al., 2020 ). When considering problems in developing counties, people in Europe often rate issues belonging to the social component (such as peace and security) as particularly important (European Commission. Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development. et al., 2016 ). This potentially leads to the assessment that the environmental and social factors are particularly important, while the economic SDGs are perceived as less important, as they do not fall into either category.

Another pattern that repeatedly emerges is that the environmental component is rated as being more important than one or both of the other components. In no country was the environmental component rated significantly worse than the two other factors. These results are very positive, as environmental problems are currently more relevant than ever before. The boundaries of our planet are being increasingly exhausted, and there is an urgent need for action at the global level (Steffen et al., 2015 ). The high rating of environmental factors also shows a particularly positive trend in all countries. In the past, many governments and experts prioritized economic growth and considered environmental damage as a trade-off (Elder and Olsen, 2019 ). The common approach has been to accept pollution as a consequence of economic growth and to deal with the related environmental problems that arise later (Azadi et al., 2011 ). This view is not reflected in our study of environmental students. In the current study, environmental concerns are considered to be at least as important, and in some countries even more important, than social and economic factors.

The differences identified between countries can serve as a possible guide to action for local decision-makers who can incorporate specific promotion of the importance of different SDGs into the curriculum. In this way, country-specific actions can be implemented that specifically address the economic, ecological or environmental awareness of each of the SDGs. These results can also be seen as a call to those countries in which the gap between the three factors is particularly large. Especially in these countries, political or educational actions, such as emphasizing the global importance of the economic SDGs in the educational context, would be particularly important.

The comparison of the country-specific indicators with the rating of the importance of the higher-level factors shows a similar picture for all indicators. In countries with higher indices (higher GDP per capita, higher health index, etc.), the SDGs are generally rated as being less important than in countries with lower indices. In this context, it does not matter whether the SDGs are perceived as social, economic or environmental. This result is surprising, since in previous international studies, it was often found that people in wealthier countries, i.e., countries with a higher GDP per capita, have a more positive attitude towards, for example, environmental problems, than do people in countries with a lower GDP per capita (Franzen, 2003 ; Franzen and Meyer, 2010 ; Franzen and Vogl, 2013 ). The research of and theory put forth by Inglehart is often used as a basis for explanation. He found that in countries where postmaterialist values dominate, people have a more positive attitude towards environmental protection than they do in countries with more materialist values. Thus, postmaterialist values are more likely to be found in advanced industrial societies (Inglehart, 1995 ). However, postmaterialist values do not necessarily lead to higher support for the SDGs (Guan et al., 2019 ). Our study also supports this assumption. The results show that, on average, people in societies with higher indices (usually industrialized societies) rate the SDGs as being less important than do people in countries with lower indices. This provides important insights for politicians, stakeholders and decision-makers; i.e., in wealthier countries that have already made great progress in implementing the SDGs, the relevance of the SDGs must be communicated at different levels. Particular attention must be paid to higher educational institutions. The fact that the SDGs are rated lower on average in wealthier countries with a higher Education Index outcome shows that it is especially in these countries that there is a need to improve the related knowledge and that the focus of higher education institutions should be placed specifically on content related to the SDGs. In this context, it is not sufficient to teach only basic scientific knowledge (Frick et al., 2004 ); rather, other factors, such as attitudes (Gifford and Sussman, 2012 ) or values (Steg and Groot, 2012 ), should also be a particular focus of education. The importance of the SDGs should be considered not only for specific countries but also in an international and global context. Thus, these topics could be integrated into the curricula of universities and schools to enable students, as future decision-makers in society, to act as multipliers and pass on the relevance and importance of the SDGs in society.

Limitations

Although the study was conducted with great care, some limitations must be addressed. For example, the study surveyed a very select group of students in environmental and sustainability science courses. It can be assumed that people in these courses are more interested in environmental issues than the general population. However, because a similar group of students was surveyed in each country, cross-country comparison is possible. Nevertheless, it must be assumed that the results cannot be generalized to other courses of study or to the general population. Further international studies are necessary to investigate relationships in other groups.

Another limitation of the study is that the survey was conducted by e-mail on a voluntary basis. This could possibly lead to self-selection; i.e., people who were already interested in the topic of the SDGs were more likely to participate in the survey.

It should also be mentioned that the sample size differs in part between the individual countries. While in some countries, several hundred people could be surveyed, in other countries, only a sample size in the two-digit range was possible. This result could potentially have had an influence on the comparison between the countries.

When evaluating the individual SDGs, it cannot be ruled out that the students did not rate each SGD independently but rather related their importance to each other. As a result, some SDGs may have been rated differently than they would have been without such a direct comparison. However, since this effect was equally possible in all countries, the results remain comparable, and the conclusions remain valid.

The current research was able to show that the importance of the SDGs, regardless of the pillar of sustainability (social, economic, environmental), is considered important by students in environmental and sustainability science courses in different countries. However, there are variations between the countries in how important the individual pillars for sustainability are considered to be. This result offers the opportunity to specifically promote individual pillars for sustainability in those countries in which a pillar was perceived as being less important. Another important finding of the study is that especially in countries with high global development indices, the SDGs are rated as less important compared to the ratings in countries with lower global development indices. Therefore, our research is a call to countries with higher indices, where the SDGs have already been implemented to a higher extent, to actively improve the view and acceptance of students regarding the SDGs. This can help to further achieve the SDGs both in individual countries and at the global level.

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors to any qualified researcher.

Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar I (2008) An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J Cleaner Prod 16(16):1777–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002

Asche F et al. (2018) Three pillars of sustainability in fisheries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(44):11221–11225. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807677115

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Azadi H, Verheijke G, Witlox F (2011) Pollute first, clean up later? Global Planet Change 78(3-4):77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.05.006

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Bain PG et al. (2019) Public views of the Sustainable Development Goals across countries. Nat Sustain 2(9):819–825. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0365-4

Article   Google Scholar  

Bali Swain R, Yang-Wallentin F (2020) Achieving sustainable development goals: predicaments and strategies. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 27(2):96–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1692316

Bellou C, Petreniti V, Skanavis C (2017) Greening the campus intentions: a study of the University of the Aegean nonacademic staff. Int J Sust Higher Ed 18(4):520–532. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2015-0102

Conceição P et al. (2020) Human development report 2020: the next frontier. Human development and the Anthropocene. United Nations Development Programme, New York

Google Scholar  

Dalampira ES, Nastis SA (2020) Back to the future: simplifying Sustainable Development Goals based on three pillars of sustainability. Int J Sustain Agric Manag Inf 6(3):226. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSAMI.2020.10034327

Dunn OJ (1964) Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6(3):241. https://doi.org/10.2307/1266041

Dziuban CD, Shirkey EC (1974) When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychol Bull 81(6):358–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036316

Elder M, Olsen SH (2019) The design of environmental priorities in the SDGs. Glob Policy 10(S1):70–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12596

European Commission. Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development, TNS Opinion & Social, European Commission. Directorate General for Communication (2016) Special Eurobarometer 441: The European year for development: citizens’s view on development, cooperation and aid. Publications Office

Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 4(3):272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272

Field A (2013) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll, 4th edn. Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC

Frank DJ, Meyer JW (2007) University expansion and the knowledge society. Theor Soc 36(4):287–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9035-z

Franzen A (2003) Environmental attitudes in international comparison: an analysis of the ISSP surveys 1993 and 2000 *. Soc Sci Q 84(2):297–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402005

Franzen A, Meyer R (2010) Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 26(2):219–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp018

Franzen A, Vogl D (2013) Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: a comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environ Change 23(5):1001–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.009

Frick J, Kaiser FG, Wilson M (2004) Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personal Individ Differ 37(8):1597–1613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015

Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ (2012) Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen 141(1):2–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gifford R, Sussman R (2012) Environmental attitudes. In: Clayton SD (ed) The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. Oxford library of psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, pp 65–80

GlobeScan (2016) Awareness of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) vs. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). https://globescan.com/awareness-of-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-vs-millennium-development-goals-mdgs/

Goossens Y (2007) Alternative progress indicators to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a means towards sustainable development. European Parliament

Guan T, Meng K, Liu W, Xue L (2019) Public attitudes toward Sustainable Development Goals: evidence from five Chinese cities. Sustainability 11(20):5793. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205793

Inglehart R (1995) Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Sci Politics 28(1):57. https://doi.org/10.2307/420583

International Monetary Fund (2021) World Economic Outlook: managing divergent recoveries. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/April

Ipsos (2015) Ipsos public affairs findings from a global poll on the Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/17-country-study-foreign-aid-and-sustainable-development-goals

Kaiser HF (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 20(1):141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116

Kestin T et al. (2017) Getting started with the SDGs in universities: a guide for universities, higher education institutions, and the academic sector. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Melbourne

Kioupi V, Voulvoulis N (2020) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): assessing the contribution of higher education programmes. Sustainability 12(17):6701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176701

Lampert M, Papadongonas P (2016) Towards 2030 Without Poverty: increasing knowledge of progress made and opportunities for engaging frontrunners in the world population with the global goals. https://oxfamsol.be/sites/default/files/documents/towards_2030_without_poverty-glocalities2016-2-new.pdf

Lozano R (2006) Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. J Cleaner Prod 14(9–11):787–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010

Lozano R et al (2013) Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J Cleaner Prod 48:10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006

Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M (2016) Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534(7607):320–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

O’Byrne D, Dripps W, Nicholas KA (2015) Teaching and learning sustainability: an assessment of the curriculum content and structure of sustainability degree programs in higher education. Sustain Sci 10(1):43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0251-y

Pham‐Truffert M et al. (2020) Interactions among Sustainable Development Goals: Knowledge for identifying multipliers and virtuous cycles. Sustain Dev 28(5):1236–1250. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2073

Pradhan P et al. (2017) A systematic study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions. Earth’s Future 5(11):1169–1179. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000632

Purvis B, Mao Y, Robinson D (2019) Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustain Sci 14(3):681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5

Rodríguez-García A-M, López Belmonte J, Agreda Montoro M, Moreno-Guerrero A-J (2019) Productive, structural and dynamic study of the concept of sustainability in the educational field. Sustainability 11(20):5613. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205613

Sachs JD (2012) From millennium development goals to Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet 379(9832):2206–2211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60685-0

Sachs JD et al. (2021) Sustainable Development Report 2021: the decade of action for the Sustainable Development Goals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA (2018) Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 126(5):1763–1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864

Steffen W et al. (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Sustain Sci 347(6223):1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Steg L, Groot JIMde (2012) Environmental Values. In: Clayton SD (ed.) The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. Oxford library of psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, pp 81–92

Stephens JC et al. (2008) Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. Int J Sust Higher Ed 9(3):317–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885916

Theresa F, Joachim S, Todd C (2020) Report of results global survey on sustainability and the SDGs: awareness, priorities, need for action. Schlange & Co. GmbH, Hamburg

UNESCO (2017) Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives. UNESCO, Paris

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: A/RES/71/1. https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/1

United Nations (2016) The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in your language. https://unric.org/en/sdgs-in-your-language/

United Nations (2017) Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: A/RES/71/313. https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313

United Nations Development Programme (2020a) Human development reports: education index. http://hdr.undp.org/en/indicators/103706

United Nations Development Programme (2020b) Technical notes: calculating the human development indices—graphical presentation. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2020_technical_notes.pdf

Vicente-Molina MA, Fernández-Sáinz A, Izagirre-Olaizola J (2013) Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J Clean Prod 61:130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.015

Wendling ZA et al. (2020) 2020 Environmental Performance Index. https://epi.yale.edu/

Yong AG, Pearce S (2013) A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 9(2):79–94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079

Youth Speak Survey (2020) Global report 2020. https://www.youthforesight.org/resource-details/Publications/858

Yuriev A, Sierra‐Barón W (2020) Exploring sustainability cross‐culturally: employees’ beliefs on green behaviors. Sustain Dev 28(5):1199–1207. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2069

Zamora-Polo F, Sánchez-Martín J, Corrales-Serrano M, Espejo-Antúnez L (2019) What do university students know about Sustainable Development Goals? A realistic approach to the reception of this UN program amongst the youth population. Sustainability 11(13):3533. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133533

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all study participants and the more than 300 researchers and universities that shared our questionnaires. This study was partly supported by the Opel-Zoo foundation professorship in zoo biology from the “von Opel Hessische Zoostiftung”.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Bioscience Education and Zoo Biology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Matthias Winfried Kleespies & Paul Wilhelm Dierkes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: MWK and PWD; data collection: MWK; methodology: MWK and PWD; validation, formal analysis, investigation: MWK and PWD; figures: PWD and MWK; writing—original: MWK; writing—review and editing: MWK and PWD, funding acquisition: PWD. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Winfried Kleespies .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the science didactic institutes and Departments of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main under approval number 15-WLSD-2104.

Informed consent

Participants were informed in writing before the start of the online survey about the voluntary character of participation, data protection and the aims of the study. After this information, participation in the study was considered informed consent. Participants could withdraw from the study at any time by closing the browser. It is not possible to identify individuals from the anonymously obtained data, and only persons of legal age were surveyed.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplemental file, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kleespies, M.W., Dierkes, P.W. The importance of the Sustainable Development Goals to students of environmental and sustainability studies—a global survey in 41 countries. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9 , 218 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01242-0

Download citation

Received : 14 December 2021

Accepted : 16 June 2022

Published : 29 June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01242-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Assessing the unseen consequences: influence of an extreme weather event on environmental perceptions and connection to nature.

• Matthias W. Kleespies
• Thomas Friedrich
• Sabrina Schiwy

Environmental Sciences Europe (2024)

Unlocking the path to environmental sustainability: navigating economic policy uncertainty, ICT, and environmental taxes for a sustainable future

• Xiaomeng Deng
• Mohammad Qamruzzaman
• Salma Karim

Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2024)

Understanding the role of green finance and renewable energy consumption for sustainable development in ACI economies

• Muhammad Awais Baloch
• Zubeyde Senturk Ulucak

Climatic Change (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Advertisement

A bibliometric analysis of sustainable development goals (SDGs): a review of progress, challenges, and opportunities

• Published: 07 May 2023
• Volume 26 , pages 11101–11143, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Manoranjan Mishra   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4545-7218 1 , 11 ,
• Sudarsan Desul   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4867-236X 2 , 12 ,
• Celso Augusto Guimarães Santos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7927-9718 3 ,
• Shailendra Kumar Mishra   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1840-0374 4 ,
• Abu Hena Mustafa Kamal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2054-2398 5 ,
• Shreerup Goswami   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2558-3623 6 ,
• Ahmed Mukalazi Kalumba   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7593-9096 7 ,
• Ramakrishna Biswal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3681-9790 8 ,
• Richarde Marques da Silva   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6601-5174 9 ,
• Carlos Antonio Costa dos Santos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2414-2911 10 &
• Kabita Baral   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0241-738X 11  

17k Accesses

36 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a global appeal to protect the environment, combat climate change, eradicate poverty, and ensure access to a high quality of life and prosperity for all. The next decade is crucial for determining the planet’s direction in ensuring that populations can adapt to climate change. This study aims to investigate the progress, challenges, opportunities, trends, and prospects of the SDGs through a bibliometric analysis from 2015 to 2022, providing insight into the evolution and maturity of scientific research in the field. The Web of Science core collection citation database was used for the bibliometric analysis, which was conducted using VOSviewer and RStudio. We analyzed 12,176 articles written in English to evaluate the present state of progress, as well as the challenges and opportunities surrounding the SDGs. This study utilized a variety of methods to identify research hotspots, including analysis of keywords, productive researchers, and journals. In addition, we conducted a comprehensive literature review by utilizing the Web of Science database. The results show that 31% of SDG-related research productivity originates from the USA, China, and the UK, with an average citation per article of 15.06. A total of 45,345 authors around the world have contributed to the field of SDGs, and collaboration among authors is also quite high. The core research topics include SDGs, climate change, Agenda 2030, the circular economy, poverty, global health, governance, food security, sub-Saharan Africa, the Millennium Development Goals, universal health coverage, indicators, gender, and inequality. The insights gained from this analysis will be valuable for young researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and public officials as they seek to identify patterns and high-quality articles related to SDGs. By advancing our understanding of the subject, this research has the potential to inform and guide future efforts to promote sustainable development. The findings indicate a concentration of research and development on SDGs in developed countries rather than in developing and underdeveloped countries.

Graphical abstract

Similar content being viewed by others

Sustainable development goals: a bibliometric analysis of literature reviews

Understanding the Research Interlinkages Between Anthropocene, Millennium and Sustainable Development Goals: A Global Bibliometric Analysis

Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on “sustainable development goals” with emphasis on “good health and well-being” goal (2015–2019)

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The Anthropocene era is marked by a range of significant global challenges, including climate change, environmental degradation, public health issues such as global pandemics, rising social inequality, and food and water scarcity in several countries (Huang & Chang, 2022 ; Khojasteh et al., 2022 ). The growing human population demands the speedy development of modern infrastructure, including housing, health care, quality roads, education, communication, and related services (Aravindaraj & Rajan Chinna, 2022 ). Traditional lifestyles and values are eroding fast and being replaced by technology-driven living standards (Chen & Wang, 2022 ; Wahab et al., 2012 ).

The rapid development of the global economy driven by excessive consumption of natural resources and unsustainable development policies has led to serious socioeconomic and environmental challenges in recent decades (Guo et al., 2022 ). Achieving benchmarks of economic growth at any cost has become a top priority for governments to withstand international competition and fulfill local aspirations. In this process, narratives on development often ignore and overlook the irreversible harm caused by developmental hazards to natural entities and the amount of entropy raised in the earth’s system (Alcántara-Ayala, 2002 ; Hemingway & Gunawan, 2018 ).

Sustainability has an important role in the world agenda, mainly after the advances of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992 (Rio 92), the Declaration of Principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests, and the Agenda 21 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Guo et al., 2022 ). These advances discussed how to make sustainable development a reality in the world. Furthermore, in September 2001, the United Nations presented the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as a list of common goals for the world community to achieve by 2015. Since then, remarkable progress has been made toward achieving the MDGs (Fehling et al., 2013 ). The objectives of MDGs were to minimize deepening global mistrust toward international economic institutions and provide a unique platform for the member states to act collectively with individual accountability (McArthur, 2014 ). Thus, implementing the MDGs would improve health standards, reduce maternal and child mortality, minimize social disparities, promote gender justice and eradicate poverty among populations to make the earth system a better place to live (Chasse, 2016 ; Doyle & Stiglitz, 2014 ). Long-time concerted and consistent efforts of the UN ultimately succeeded in convincing member states to envisage the tenets of MGDs in their development policies and follow the proposed timelines (Lomazzi et al., 2014 ).

In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, which included 17 goals and 169 targets. Since then, greater attention has been paid to sustainability at different levels of governance structures in financial institutions, companies in the public and private sectors, and in governments across the planet (Death and Gabay, 2015 ). Nevertheless, the ongoing deforestation of the Amazon (Silva et al., 2023 ) and rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions are posing severe threats to the health of our planet. This, in turn, is leading to a chain of climate phenomena that have an impact on the economies of nations and the quality of life of their populations (Espinoza et al., 2023 ), as well as an increase in the frequency of severe natural disasters (Mishra et al., 2022 ). Thus, what are the current progress, challenges, and opportunities for the SDGs? Understanding the level of discussion on the SDGs theme is crucial for us to know the available proposals and solutions and see the path forward. In this sense, SDGs have sparked significant interest among a wide range of stakeholders, including those involved in environmental decision-making, business, finance (Di Vaio et al., 2022 ), and water services, particularly governance, management, and technical solutions (Di Vaio et al., 2021 ). Currently, there is global consensus on the importance of implementing the SDGs, which can lead to development while preserving the environment and the population’s quality of life (Bebbington & Unerman, 2018 ). Water sustainability issues were included in the UN’s Agenda 2030 and 17 SDGs, providing a common framework for measuring sustainable development from a social, economic, and environmental perspective (Glass & Newig, 2019 ).

Before sustainable development, the major pitfall of approaches includes the absence of sectoral integration in making strategies and their implementation on the ground level (Garcia-Feijoo et al., 2020 ). The negative consequences of development policies included focusing on a specific sector over other development sectors, which resulted in diverging outputs and followed by trend-setting of broad objectives (Morley et al., 2017 ). The SDGs were considered to determine the international development agenda and the countries’ development policies and programs. Although the SDGs are universal, member states are free to adopt the goals of their choice based on available resources, socioeconomic priorities, and their decided pace of transformation (Eisenmenger et al., 2020 ). The inception of SDGs has triggered many systematic studies to understand, prioritize, and evaluate the progress of goals adopted by countries. The findings of these studies are expected to promote rigorous, evidence-based, reliable, and timely evaluation of achievements toward fulfilling the purposes of countries in their diverse socioeconomic settings (Kroll et al., 2019 ; Mensah, 2019 ; Weitz et al., 2018 ). Currently, decisions made regarding the SDGs are critical for the social, political, environmental, and economic sustainability of the planet. Understanding the global context based on a review of progress, challenges, and opportunities regarding the SDGs is crucial and must be studied.

Research, innovation, and sustainable education are essential mechanisms to achieve the SDGs. Over the years, the study of SDGs has experienced a consistent increase in research activity since its approval in 2015. The existing body of knowledge on SDGs provides researchers with the opportunity to explore the SDGs research domain from a variety of perspectives based on previous publications, which is essential for revealing the structure of the domain and helping researchers better understand the status quo and future trends of SDGs-related topics and to focus their studies more effectively. Some studies have attempted to assess the literature on SDGs by examining prior works. These studies can be classified into two types: qualitative and quantitative review studies. Among the qualitative SDGs review studies, Allen et al. ( 2018 ) conducted an assessment of national progress and approaches to implementing the SDGs in different countries based on existing literature. Caiado et al. ( 2018 ) discussed the roles and opportunities provided by ICTs and AI for achieving the SDGs. Lund et al. ( 2018 ) systematically reviewed how the SDGs can be used to address the social causes of mental disorders and how they could be improved to help prevent mental disorders. Leal Filho et al. ( 2020 ) explored the potential effects of the coronavirus pandemic on the SDGs. To analyze the inclusion, progress, and challenges of the implementation of SDGs, Persson et al. ( 2016 ) revised the SDGs based on alignment and internalization and concluded that increased attention and visibility of nationally defined and internalized targets are likely to enhance implementation effectiveness and should therefore be accommodated in the follow-up and review systems. Allen et al. ( 2016 ) revised and assessed 80 quantitative models that have the potential to support national development planning for the SDGs. Hak et al. ( 2016 ) highlighted the importance of indicators in analyzing the SDGs. Guo et al. ( 2022 ) measured and evaluated SDG indicators with big earth data for a more comprehensive analysis of SDGs.

In recent years, to supplement the existing qualitative reviews of SDGs research, scholars have also explored the SDGs domain through quantitative support such as meta-analysis and bibliometric analysis. Among these quantitative studies, Yamaguchi et al. ( 2023 ) performed a bibliometric analysis of the literature on SDGs to assess the evolution and consolidation of scientific research from 2015 to 2022 retrieved from the Web of Science core collection and descriptive bibliometric analysis. The results showed that the field of SDGs is fast-growing, with a trend toward diversification of research areas. Similarly, many bibliometric studies are being published on SDGs, mainly related to the business sector, education, and poverty (Pizzi et al., 2020 ; Prieto-Jiménez et al., 2021 ; Yu and Huang, 2021 ). However, there is little bibliometric research that covers the general aspects of the SDGs and their evolution. We believe that multi-disciplinary bibliometric research on the SDGs literature is still needed to enable researchers to capture more comprehensive, diverse, and detailed information in this area. To serve as a complement to previous bibliometric studies, this paper attempts to continue the bibliometric journey by exploring the SDGs research domain from a more holistic perspective. In simple words, this study investigates the bibliometric analysis of progress, challenges, opportunities, trends, and prospects of SDGs by the global community from 2015 to 2022, providing insight into the evolution and maturity of scientific research in this field.

The major factors that distinguish this study from previous bibliometric studies on SDGs are the use of a new bibliometric technique, the SciMat, which examines the intellectual structure of SDGs research from both static and dynamic perspectives. Additionally, we analyzed the contents of the most cited articles on each cluster generated by the SciMat tool. Diverse maps of science, including a word cloud of keywords, the most cited keywords, a conceptual structure map, a keyword co-occurrence network, and strategic diagrams, were constructed to depict the intellectual structure of the SDGs domain from different angles.

A bibliometric analysis of the SDGs can have a significant impact on understanding the evolution and consolidation of scientific research on the subject. It can provide an overview of scientific production, identify trends, gaps, and strengths in research, and establish relationships between different authors, institutions, and countries. In this way, bibliometric analysis can contribute to the planning of future research and improve the efficiency of efforts to achieve the SDGs. Furthermore, it can help assess the progress and impact of efforts already made to achieve the SDGs’ goals and targets, as well as identify areas where more effort and investment are needed. In short, a bibliometric analysis of the SDGs can provide a solid foundation for evidence-based decision-making and contribute to the success of global sustainable development efforts.

In order to analyze the published research on SDGs, we divided this work into several sections, such as this Introduction to the topic, containing a brief theoretical review and the objective of this study. Section two contains a literature review highlighting a brief evolutionary history of the development of MDGs and SDGs, the similarities/differences between MDGs and SDGs, and comparisons with other policies around the world. Section three describes the methodology used, database selection and search strategy, and bibliometric analysis. Section four presents the results and analysis, section five highlights the major discussions about SDGs, and section six shows the conclusions of this study. The study of SDGs has seen a steady rise in research since its approval in 2015. The exponential growth of publications has shown a slowing in recent years, suggesting a consolidation phase where literature reviews play a crucial role as high-evidence documents.

2 A brief history of the development of MDGs and SDGs

2.1 evolutionary history of mdgs and sdgs.

Toward the end of the twentieth century, defining development has increasingly become associated with ‘wellbeing,’ which is generally perceived as more than mere economic growth. There has been increasing consensus on rejecting the hegemony of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a monetary measure to establish the market value of the finished or final goods and services produced or availed during a specified time period by any country, as an indicator of development. By 1980, emphasis is given to devising alternative indicators to measure and assess development (Allen et al., 2018 ). Some alternatives are the Genuine Progress Indicator, World Value Survey, Gross National Happiness Index, Happy Planet Index, Better Life Index, and many others (Costanza et al., 2009 ; Rajkarnikar, 2022 ). This is in the context of the broader realization that overemphasis on economic growth-centric development has led to massive environmental degradation, economic inequality, conflict, and socio-cultural unrest. The challenges are how to define development. Which indicators are to be monitored to assess development?

Most importantly, ensure that these indicators emphasize improving environmental conditions, quality of social life, reducing economic inequality, and establishing peace and harmony; however, it does not compromise economic development. None of these alternative indicators of development are entirely adequate. However, they become a building block for the foundation of alternative thinking that emphasizes inclusiveness, sustainability, eco-friendly, trans-disciplinary-and-cooperative effort, and global consensus.

The UN’s MDGs were one of the outcomes of these discourses adopted by the UN in 2000. The MDGs comprised eight primary targets, with the first objective being to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger (Chen et al., 2023 ). This objective had a fixed target to reduce the number of people living on less than a dollar per day by half. The second objective was to achieve universal primary education, while the third was to promote gender equity and empower women. The fourth was to reduce child mortality rates below the age of five by two-thirds, and the fifth target was to improve maternal health. The sixth was to combat diseases such as AIDS and Malaria, and the seventh objective was to ensure environmental sustainability by enhancing access to drinking water and other environmental amenities, especially for underprivileged populations. The eighth SDG aimed to promote global partnerships for development. While the MDGs focused on individual development rather than national development, all SDGs promote the idea of equitable development. National and international cooperation is focused on making development accessible to all, especially those who are underprivileged and underdeveloped (Kherbache & Oukaci, 2020 ). By 2020, progress toward achieving the MDGs had been mixed. However, the MDGs framework was widely recognized as a successful program by the end of its term in 2015. For example, the number of people living in extreme poverty declined from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 836 million in 2015, and the average primary education enrolments across the developing world increased from 83% in 2000 to 91% in 2015. However, the positive trend in reducing poverty was interrupted in 2020 due to the COVID-19 crisis, leading to a significant increase in poverty, with the number of people living in extreme poverty rising by 70 million to surpass 700 million. The global extreme poverty rate rose to 9.3%, up from 8.4% in 2020 (World Bank, 2023 ). Similarly, substantial improvements were made in gender equality. Klasen ( 2018 ) found a persistent gender gap in areas of opportunities, wage rate, political and economic empowerment, and other well-being parameters. Some goals were achieved at the global level, while many countries failed to meet the target. For example, child and maternal mortalities were reduced by approximately half by 2015, but children from poor households were still more likely to be affected by malnutrition, and infant mortality rates were twice as high in the poorest households compared to those in richer households (Awaworyi Churchill, 2020 ).

Similarly, the goal of access to safe drinking water was not successfully achieved in rural areas (United Nations, 2015 ). In a nutshell, the progress was uneven. Further, in other goals, though a significant level of success was achieved, the target was not met. MDG assessments suggest adding new goals and changes to existing goals. For example, Swain and Yang-Wallentin ( 2020 ) indicate that adding a ninth goal to the eight MDGs eliminates extreme inequality at the national level in every country. The MDGs were criticized for their lack of adequate focus on people with disabilities (Wolbring, 2011 ), conflict and peace (Hill et al., 2010 ), and human rights (Fehling et al., 2013 ). To summarize, as MDG Gap Task Force, founded by the UN, gives a comprehensive view of the status of the implementation of the MDGs (United Nations, 2015 ). No development program or initiative is ever cent percent successful. The impact assessment of a program is always along with a continuous range in which the present status stands somewhere. From several impact reports, one thing is evident MDGs certainly made visible impacts on the targeted aspects. For example, one of the noteworthy achievements is a decline in extreme poverty from 47 to 14% from 1990 to 2015 (United Nations, 2015b ). Similarly, the share of undernourished people was also reduced to half.

Further, the child mortality rate declined by 45% during this period (United Nations, 2015b ). However, infectious diseases, gender, and income inequality continued to prevail, and millions of people were still in extreme poverty. Around the globe, more than 60 million people were affected by the conflict from 1990 to 2015 (United Nations, 2015b ). While MDGs had considerable achievements, there were some lacunas as well. The distribution pattern of MDGs implementation varies from region to region and goal to goal. Many developing nations were seriously off-target in cases of undernourishment, infant mortality, maternal mortality, and sanitation. For infant and maternal mortality, around 53% and 61% of the developing nations were reported to be seriously off-target. Again, 40% of the nations were seriously off-target for sanitation. On the other hand, many countries had remarkable progress in eradicating extreme poverty, achieving education and gender parity, and providing clean drinking water. The implementation of MDGs had a differential impact on different sections of people. For example, the poorer sections of the developing nations were often left out of the benefits reaped by MDGs (World Bank, 2016 ). Thus, the accomplishments of the MDGs have neither been uniform across all the goals nor across different parts of the globe. Regional variation in the level of achievement in the case of goals like infant mortality rate, maternal mortality rate, and eradication of malnutrition were low, indicating the poor status of these goals across the world.

On the other hand, high regional variations were noticed in the achievements of the goals, such as eradication of poverty, sanitation, maternal mortality rate, and infant mortality rate. There are also differences in the degree of consistency in implementing MDGs. For example, a very low level of consistency in the status of goals is noticed in countries of the Middle East, North Africa, and South Africa. The MDGs were targeted to be achieved by 2015, but the target status at the end of 2015 sowed the seed of thought among the policymakers to chalk out another set of goals to substantiate the earlier existing MDGs. Therefore, the 17 SDGs were reinvented out of the earlier eight MDGs.

The first framework of SDGs was chalked out at the Rio + 20 conferences (the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development) in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012 to carry forward the impetus sowed by the MDGs in the pursuit of holistic global development. In July 2014, a document containing 17 goals was proposed by the UN General Assembly Open Working Group (OWG) for the General Assembly’s approval in September 2015. This document served as the first official draft of the SDGs. The global community adopted the 2030 agenda for sustainable development goals, including 17 SDGs and 169 targets, and 232 indicators, in September 2015. Subsequently, global SDGs commenced in 2016 and offer an evidence-based policy framework for sustainable development and planning till 2030. SDGs represent the commitment of member countries to achieve sustainability in various sectors (Allen et al., 2018 ). SDGs became an important component of the international development agenda for all countries and significantly influenced national planning post-2015. While the SDGs are universal, the countries have the liberty to determine their priorities and target and scale, and pace of transformation.

Assessing the process of SDGs interventions and their progress over different goals by member countries continues to be challenging. As discussed by Allen et al. ( 2018 ), one of the overarching challenges is dealing with each goal in isolation. That means the integration of sustainable economic, social, and environmental development objectives is yet to be achieved. The interactive relationship between seventeen SDGs and 169 targets compels the planning practices to see it holistically. In 2016, in the first voluntary national review of SDGs was fairly presented, the implication of the knowledge gap of a detailed view of interactive relations among targets and goals and the ability to maintain a holistic perspective has an impairing impact on the planning and implementation of SDGs (Weitz et al., 2018 ).

2.2 Similarity and difference between MDGs and SDGs

Since there was a disparity in the achievement status of the MDGs, efforts were taken to build the SDGs in a way so that a sustainable world could be made with equal value for environmental sustainability, social inclusion, and economic development. It is essential to understand that SDGs are not formulated to replace MDGs; instead, they are intended to substantiate them. Some of the goals under SDGs are improvisations over the previous MDGs, while some new goals have been incorporated into this new framework. Compared to MDGs, SDGs are considered a broader and more complex, integrated, and stimulating agenda for all countries to implement.

Relative to the formulation of MDGs, the process of devising the SDGs was more participatory, involving consultation with civil societies, the private sectors, and the governments of a fair number of countries. The result is a far more comprehensive list of goals, far greater targets (169), and several indicators (232), including many of those goals left out by MDGs. For example, it emphasizes climate change, the environment, peace and conflict, work, and the ocean. However, like MDGs, SDGs are criticized for not emphasizing human rights (Sengupta, 2018 ).

Given the comprehensiveness of SDGs, their assessment requires immense human and financial capital that seems too enthusiastic for developing countries with limited resources (Fenny, 2018 ). The MDGs requirements were more modest (21 targets and 60 indicators) in nature and also complex. While 93 SDGs indicators out of 232 are classified as Tier 1. Again, these indicators are more conceptual clarity, and more than 50% of the countries regularly comply with these data. The left-out indicators are defined as Tier 2 (72 indicators) with conceptual clarity, but data are unavailable. However, the data related to Tier 3 (62 indicators) are not regularly collected by countries because of the non-availability of a well-established methodology or available format of data collection.

The challenge of ensuring environmental sustainability is more marked since the new SDGs try to integrate sustainability issues with multidimensional poverty and inequality. While MDGs considered four different types of environmental targets, the number has expressively increased in the SDGs, containing seven environmental goals (i.e., goals No. 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15), monitored through 77 indicators. The goals are as follows: Goal 7: ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all, Goal 9: build resilient infrastructure, promote sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation, Goal 11: make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, Goal 12: ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, Goal 13: take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts, Goal 14: conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources, and Goal 15: sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss.

2.3 Comparing with other policies around the world

The MDGs of the United Nations have been one of the most talked-about policy interventions globally in the last couple of decades. These policy targets have been formulated, critically reviewed, implemented, and analyzed for the achievements and impacts they have made on the globe. As global needs have changed with changing socio-political equations and dynamics, a strong need has been felt to shift the MDGs framework paradigm. Therefore, the MDGs have been revisited and reinvented to give rise to a set of SDGs. MDGs went on to a certain extent to achieve these goals. They paved the way for higher-order growth needs as SDGs, which aim to address more profound and complex health issues, including mental well-being, nutritional security, quality education, innovation, peace and justice, cultural vitality, equality, and environmental and social resilience, etc.

3 Methodology

The study’s methodology is based on a qualitative method focused on the content of papers related to SDGs, as proposed by Di Vaio et al. ( 2020 ). The methodology applied in this study has two stages. In the first stage, the data extraction method, which includes database selection, and the search strategy, were illustrated, and then the bibliometric analysis was done using bibliometric techniques with the help of appropriate software. These databases have been chosen because they notoriously publish theoretical or empirical studies on topics related to SDGs (Alvino et al., 2021 ). The details of the workflow are presented in Figure 1 .

Research flow, methodology, and tools

3.1 Database selection and search strategy

To collect data for this review, we must select one of the citation databases that index all literature related to SDGs. The Scopus and Web of Science are commonly used databases by the research community for literature searches and bibliometric analyses (Mishra et al., 2020 , 2021 ; Sudarsana & Baba, 2019 ). In this study, the Web of Science (WoS) core collection citation database was used as the primary source of data collection for processing and analysis. This study used the year 2015 because SDGs were adopted on September 2015, and further, we have extended it till October 2022, which is the most recent data available. This database is considered the most well-known citation database, and bibliographical data are stored in a well-structured manner (D’Amore et al., 2022 ; Harzing & Alakangas, 2016 ; Vaio et al., 2021 ), which sufficiently validates the use of the WoS database in the existing study. The effectiveness of the analysis results mainly depends on the search strategy technique. Thus, an effective search strategy was constructed according to the database characteristics after selecting the database to be used.

The following advance query was used: TS = (“sustainable development goals” OR “SDGS” OR “millennium development goals”), [refined by]: DOCUMENT TYPES: (ARTICLE OR REVIEWS) AND [excluding] PUBLICATION YEARS: (2023), Timespan: 2015–2022. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, A&HCI, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI, IC, CCR-EXPANDED. This query retrieved 12,176 publications (articles and reviews) from 2015 to 2022 on October 2 (2022). The above time period was fixed because SDGs were adopted on September 2015. The identified 12,176 literature records, the citation information, bibliographic information, abstract and keywords, and other information were exported to.txt format files. Then, the dataset in a Bibliometrix package file was transferred from Rstudio software for performing bibliometric analysis and thematic trend analysis (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ). Next, it was transferred to SciMat software for extracting strategic diagrams and thematic evolution maps, after which a specific analysis was performed (Cobo et al., 2012 ).

3.2 Bibliometric analysis

Bibliometrics uses mathematical and statistical methods to analyze literature quantitatively regarding scientific publications’ production, growth, maturation, and consumption. As a result, it has been widely used as an essential tool for assessing and analyzing development status in the research field in terms of the researcher’s production (Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015 ), the collaboration between institutions (Skute et al., 2019 ), the impact of state scientific investment in national R&D productivity (Fabregat-Aibar et al., 2019 ), and the academic quality (van Raan, 1999 ), among other possibilities (Glänzel, 2012 ). The bibliometrics analysis consists of performance analysis and science mapping analysis. Performance analysis is based on bibliometric indicators that measure the production of individual actors (author, intuition, county, and journal) and the impact achieved through publications and citation data. Science mapping analysis provides the topological and temporal representation of a particular research field’s cognitive and social structure (Cobo et al., 2012 ).

A wide variety of bibliometrics tools are available for bibliometric analysis; the mainstream bibliometrics analysis tools include Biblioshiny (R Package), VOSviewer, BibExcel, SciMAT, and CiteSpace (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ; Cobo et al., 2011 , 2012 ; Moral-Muñoz et al., 2020 ). Each tool has different mapping principles, algorithms, visual outputs, and strengths and weaknesses. However, a single tool is not suitable for all types of analysis (Cobo et al., 2011 ). Following Cobo’s review, CiteSpace, Biblioshiny (R Package), and SciMAT were finally selected for this study. The details of each tool as given below.

3.2.1 Biblioshiny (R-tool software)

Biblioshiny is an open-source application that has the potential to import data from different sources (Scopus, Web of Science, among others) and provides various types of bibliometrics analysis (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ). In this study, we have utilized several modules offered by the Bibliometrix application. These modules are primary information, annual scientific production, citation, more relevant sources, more relevant author and affiliation, country, and word cloud.

3.2.2 VOSviewer

VOSviewer is another bibliometric tool widely used for creating bibliometric networks of different actors (e.g., authors and organizations) using various network analysis methods such as co-author, co-citation, term co-occurrence, and bibliographic coupling (Van Eck & Waltman, 2009 ). In this study, we used the term co-occurrence analysis to identify major themes of a research domain. The maps obtained from this software include nodes and edges, indicating the keywords (nodes) and their relationship (edges). Interested readers are referred to the VOSviewer manual for more details about these different analyses ( https://www.vosviewer.com/publications ).

3.2.3 CiteSpace

CiteSpace is also an open-source package based on the Java platform developed by Drexel University (Chen, 2006 ). Indeed, its prime aim is to facilitate the dynamic tracking of emerging trends in the knowledge domain, focusing on identifying key points and turning points in developing knowledge in a field. In the present study, this is mainly applied to the burst detection of analysis function to find hotspots in the research field.

3.2.4 SciMAT

SciMAT is an open-source software tool developed to perform a bibliometrics analysis under a longitudinal framework and provides support to different types of analysis. In this study, we utilized the term co-occurrence module to identify closely linked concepts and explore the thematic evolution of the nexus during the last six years. The information related to the procedure and implementation of this software is presented in (Cobo et al., 2012 ). This software offers two types of maps: strategic diagrams and thematic evolution maps.

3.3 Strategic diagrams

Strategic diagrams (Figure 2 ) reflect the research themes and research keywords based on two indicators of cluster centrality (indicating the strength of interdisciplinary links and the centrality of the theme in research development) and density (indicating the degree of strength)) (Cobo et al., 2012 ). The first diagram (a) is a two-dimensions map divided into four quadrants based on their relevance. The themes are represented as a circle, and their size is proportional to publications associated with the theme. The second is a diagram where the components and their relationship are represented. The four areas, according to their relevance, are Motor themes (Q1: Upper-right quadrant), Highly developed and isolated themes (Q2: Upper-left quadrant), Emerging or declining themes (Q3: Lower-left quadrant), and Basic and transversal themes (Q4: Lower-right quadrant). Motor themes are well-developed topics and the main field of research. Highly developed and isolated themes are topics at a reasonable level in terms of density but are not very central and considered marginal. Emerging or declining is an undeveloped and marginal issue. At the same time, basic and transverse are central issues with a lack of proper density.

Structure of the strategic diagram

4 Result and analysis

To conduct a bibliometric analysis of SDGs related to data retrieved from the WoS in terms of publication, citations, and impact, the following analysis types were considered: Information about data, trends, and characteristics of research publication, most preferred and productive journals, productive author, journal and country, most cited documents, keyword analysis, and thematic evaluation. The detailed results are as follows.

4.1 Information about data

Table 1 provides information on articles retrieved from the Web of Science published from 2015 to 2022. It was found that 12,176 publications published in 1956 journals use 14,120 keywords plus and 26,262 author’s keywords. The number of authors contributing to this domain is 45345, a very high number. There is a high collaboration in SDGs literature, as shown by the collaboration index. The average citation per article is 15.06, and the articles per author ratio are 0.269, which means, on average, almost four authors have written one document.

4.2 Literature trend analysis and characteristics of research publication

In 2015, the SDGs were set up by the United Nations General Assembly (UN-GA) to work toward a sustainable society in which economic prosperity is achieved, and social and environmental concerns are met. Those goals are intended to be completed by 2030 and are included in an UN-GA Resolution called the 2030 Agenda or Agenda 2030. Since then, the interest of the academic community and specialists in the issue of sustainable development, implementations of SDGs at national, regional, and global levels, and informality have materialized in papers, reports, and various other publications.

Table 2 provides the year-wise growth rate of publications and their citations concerning SDGs. A total of 12176 research articles related to SDGs were published from 2015 to 2022, cited 189960 times in total, with an average citation rate per article of 15.06 during the period. In 2015, only 298 articles were published, and these articles received 8725 citations. Since then, it can be seen from Table 2 that the number of published journal articles about SDGs has an obviously and continuously increased trend. This trend shows that progressively more attention has been paid to this domain in recent years. Among the 12176 articles, about 51% were published in the last two years, while nearly 26% were published in 2022. The annual distribution of citation count has shown a slight fluctuation trend. The year 2022 had the highest number of articles, at 3249, and these articles have received 6487 citations. The highest number of citations (34736) was acquired in 2018.

4.3 Most preferred and productive journals for publications

Academic journals are considered the prime medium for disseminating scientific output and are worth researching in any scientific domain (Wuni et al., 2019 ). The most preferred and prominent journals that publish articles in the SDGs domain have been explored. A total number of 3732 articles regarding SDGs were published in these top 15 journals between 2015 and 2022. Table 3 gives the leading journals, each with the number of publications, citations, and the Impact Factor (IF). The leading journals preferred by the researcher are sustainability, Switzerland, with 1730 (12%) publications, 13545 citations, and 3.88 impact factor, followed by Journal of Cleaner Production, UK, with 371 (2.9%) publications, 8574 citations, and 11.07 IF, and Science of the Total Environment, Netherlands with 191 (1.5%) publications, 5655 citations, and 10.75 IF. The table shows that the Journal of Cleaner Production has the highest h-index of 51, the Sustainability has an h-index of 43, and the journal Science of the Total Environment has an h-index of 34. The table also shows that although sustainability has 1359 more publications (total of 1730) than the Journal of Cleaner Production (total of 371 publications), the Journal of Cleaner Production’s impact factor is almost three times higher than Sustainability. A very interesting feature is that in SDGs, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is the 6 th most productive journal having a total number of productions of 153, but its h-index is too low. It is also observed that Switzerland produces a greater number of journals in this field than other countries.

4.4 Highly productive countries and their collaborations

All corresponding authors and their affiliations in each article were considered in the analysis of the most predominant ones. The articles originate from 137 countries/regions. Figure 3 shows the geographical distribution of production for the countries/regions. Table 4 presents the statistics of the top 10 countries/regions based on the total publications in this field. The USA is the most prolific country with 1313 publications (10.7%), followed by China and the UK with 1310 (10.7%) and 1171 (9.6%) publications each. The three countries account for 31% of the total publications, indicating their prominent position in the research field. Furthermore, the USA’s publications have received the highest number of citations (34013) compared to others, showing that it dominates the publication count and has a solid academic influence in the research field.

Geographical distribution of production in the WoS

Concerning collaboration, the UK and the USA again topped for both Single Country Publications (SCP) and Multiple Country Publication (MCP) (Table 4 ). The ratio of MCP to total publications for most of the Top 10 countries was 22–62%. Still, it was about 50% for the UK, reflecting that each country exhibited a strong preference for international cooperation regarding the SDGs study. Table 4 also includes the 2022 SDGs Index Rank of each country.

4.5 Highly productive institutions/organizations

Table 5 provides the top 10 most productive institutions/organizations in SDGs research in terms of publications. The first-ranked institution is the University of Oxford in the UK, which has published 307 articles in this research field, and most of the articles related to maternal mortality (Kassebaum et al., 2016 ; GBD 2017 DALYs and HALE Collaborators, 2018 ) and maternal health (Patel et al., 2018 ) (see Table 6 ). The second and third were the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and the Tehran University of Medical Sciences, which published 259 and 244 articles, respectively. The majority of these ten institutions are from the UK (30%) and Australia (20%), and the rest are from Iran (10%), South Africa (10%), the USA (10%), China (10%) and Brazil (10%). It is important to note that there is no single institution from India, even though it was placed in the top ten countries list.

Regarding collaborations, the University of Oxford has strong collaborations with other institutions, especially the University of Cape Town, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, King’s College London, Johns Hopkins University, and Stanford University, as depicted in Fig.  4 .

Collaboration network of top 50 organizations/instructions. The node represents a country; the size of a node is proportional to the number of appearances in the dataset. The line represents relationships between two organizations; the thickness of the line reflects the strength of the relationships

4.6 Analysis of the highly productive authors

In this section, the main authors who structured the field of research on the SDGs were identified. Figure 5 presents Lotka’s law distribution map. The ordinate indicates the proportion of authors of different kinds of literature to all authors, and the abscissa indicates the number of documents. The dotted line in the figure is a general image description of Lotka’s law. As shown in Figure 3 , 35605 researchers published an article, accounting for 78.5% of the total. The number of scholars who published more than six papers was 921, accounting for 0.2% of the total. It can be seen that the researchers in the SDGs research area and the number of documents are similar to the dotted line in the figure, which basically obeys the general law of Lotka’s law. This reflects that the number of authors who have written only one or two articles in the field of SDGs is relatively large. Most scholars in this field have just started in this area, and perhaps this is why research has not yet been in-depth.

The frequency distribution of scientific productivity

Table 7 provides the top 10 most prolific authors by the number of articles from 2015 to 2022, which account for 2.3% of overall articles published from 2015 to 2022. The author with the largest number of papers published and the highest h-index is Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhutta. He has published papers in the field of SDGs since 2015. His main research direction is to evaluate health-related SDGs, as presented in Table 8 . One of Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhutta’s papers is ‘Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 315 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015’, published in Lancet in 2016, has the highest number of citations ( TC = 1196). Regarding citations, Christopher J. L. Murray has achieved the highest citations compared with other authors. Andrew Adewale Alola, Avik Sinha, and Festus Victor Bekun are published on the same topic, i.e., renewable energy. From the geographical perspective, the core authors from the USA account for 30% of the top 10 core authors, which means that the USA currently has stronger research strength in the SDGs research field than other countries.

4.7 Keyword analysis

Researchers are using keywords to provide a concise description of the research content. As a result, it is one way to identify hot topics and themes of a research domain based on keyword analysis (Zhang et al., 2016 ). The selected documents in the field of SDGs were further examined based on highly occurred keywords via bibliometric software. The Web of Science database offers two types of keywords- author’s keywords and keywords plus. Keywords plus are words or phrases that frequently appear in the titles of an article’s references but do not appear in the title of the article itself (Garfield, 1990 ). The results of this analysis are presented in the form of word clouds. Word cloud analyses of the 30 most frequent keywords in the publication collection are shown in Figure 6 , where a higher occurrence results in a larger font size. The published research trends focused on common terms such as management, impact, health, policy, framework, and governance

Word clouds of the 30 most frequent keywords plus

A deeper analysis was conducted on the co-occurrence of 3739 authors’ keywords which appeared at least ten times in the collection (Figure 7 ). Each node represents a keyword (or topic). The thickness of lines between two nodes represents the strength of the relationship between them, determined by the frequency they appeared together in published papers. Some core research areas were highlighted: sustainable development goals, climate change, agenda 2030, circular economy, Africa, poverty, global health, governance, food security, sub-Saharan Africa, millennium development goals, universal health coverage, indicators, gender, and inequality. The 288 most frequent authors’ keywords were classified into 11 different clusters coded in different colors. Figures 7 and 8 depict several keywords that frequently appeared with sustainable development goal keywords together in published papers.

The co-occurrence of 739 authors’ keywords (at least ten times). The thickness of lines represents the strength of the relationship between keywords, determined by the frequency they appeared together in published papers

The keywords that frequently appeared with the sustainable-development-goals keyword in published papers

4.8 Keyword burst analysis

We carried out keyword burst detection to identify research hotspots of the SDGs domain using CiteSpace (Bommer et al., 2018 ). Table 9 shows 39 keywords with bursts of at least one year. In chronological order, the burst keywords in the SDGs field have changed over the years from 2015 to 2022. The keywords with a burst period greater than four years include global burden (2015–2020), human rights (2015–2020), child mortality (2015–2019), disease (2015–2019), aid (2015–2019), and maternal mortality (2015–2019), which direct that these topics got more attention and are more influential than other keywords. Thus, they became research hotspots of the SDGs domain in corresponding periods. Besides, the perspective and future beginning to burst in 2019 continue to the present, which is currently research hotspots. In connection to burst strength, the millennium development goal (53.01) is the strongest burst, followed by care (24.26), morality (23.75), health (18.33), developing country (17.92), and intervention (16.23), which are research hotspots in their corresponding periods. We argue that the SDGs field’s research hotspots are currently the perspective and future of SDGs-related research.

4.9 Research topics and thematic evolution

SciMAT software offers two types of maps: strategic diagrams and thematic evolution maps. A strategic diagram has been widely used to analyze the trend of change in topics in terms of density and centrality. In contrast, a thematic evolution map has been used to analyze the evolution of topics. To trace the most highlighted themes of the SDGs domain, the study period was divided into two annual intervals (2015–2018 and 2019–2022). Thematic maps of authors’ keywords for each interval and the whole period were generated using SciMAT software from the co-word analysis. In the thematic map (strategic diagram), the circle size is proportional to the number of documents associated with each research theme. An analysis of the results obtained for each period is shown below.

4.9.1 First period (2015–2018)

According to the strategic diagram (Figure 9 ), four research themes can be observed in the 2434 papers selected in this period contributed by 11974 authors: Climate-Change, Millennium-Development-Goals, Middle-Income-Country, Model and Determinants. Of these, two were considered motor themes (Climate-Change and Millennium-Development-Goals), one a highly developed and isolated theme (Middle-Income-Country), one emerging or declining (Model), and finally, one other was considered basic (Determinants). The performance measures for each theme, as shown in Table 10 , complement the information provided by the diagram. According to Table 10 , the following two relevant themes are highlighted: Climate-Change and Millennium-Development-Goals. These themes attain a high impact rate in comparison with the remaining themes.

Strategic diagram for the 2015–2018 period

The motor theme Climate-Change obtained the highest citation count in this period and recorded the highest h-index score. It is related to general topics of SDGs (Climate Action). Mainly, it is focused on how it affects every country on every count due to the rise in average surface temperatures on Earth. It has become a hot research field today since it disrupts national economies and affects lives, costing people, communities, and countries dearly today and even more tomorrow. Figure 10 a depicts a cluster network of Climate-Change. Topics Such as progress on health and climate change (Watts et al., 2017 ), approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics (Reed, 2016 ), soil health and carbon management (Lal, 2016 ), importance of soil and its awareness (Keesstra et al., 2016 ), land degradation Neutrality (Cowie et al., 2018 ), nature-based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services (Keesstra et al., 2018 ), national land system sustainability emergency via sustainability programs (Bryan et al., 2018 ), Strengthening protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services (Xu et al., 2017 ), Smart Sustainable Cities (Bibri & Krogstie, 2017 ), future economic consequences of diabetes and Kidney Disease (Luyckx et al., 2018 ), maternal mortality (GBD 2017 DALYs and HALE Collaborators, 2018 ; Kassebaum et al., 2016 ), Sustainable Wellbeing (Costanza et al., 2016 ), social inclusiveness (Gupta & Vegelin, 2016 ), policy for managing the food, water, and energy (Rasul, 2016 ), approaches for Global Sustainable Development (Liu et al., 2018 ), implementation of SDGs (Stafford-Smith et al., 2017 ), sustainable development indicators (Hak et al., 2016 ), transformative innovation policy (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018 ), off-grid solar energy (Nerini et al., 2018 ), electricity access (Alstone et al., 2015 ) are disused in this cluster.

Thematic network of ( a ) climate-change and ( b ) millennium-development-goals

Millennium-Development-Goals is one of the motor themes and is the second most crucial theme of this period. This theme comprises research conducted on different aspects of Nations Millennium Development Goals (Figure 10 b), especially healthcare access and quality (Abbott et al., 2017 ; Fullman et al., 2018 ; Milat et al., 2015 ), health policy (Buse & Hawkes, 2015 ), Children mortality (Ebener et al., 2015 ; Wolf et al., 2018 ), global rules for the private sector (Scheyvens et al., 2016 ), drinking water (Adams, 2018 ; Martinez-Santos, 2017 ), poverty (Asadullah & Savoia, 2018 ), MDGs progress (Gaffey et al., 2015 ; Mohammadi et al., 2017 ; Moucheraud et al., 2016 ). It mainly focuses on the global development agenda transitions from the MDGs to the SDGs.

The basic and transversal theme determinants are composed of a few publications, but they received the best impact (h-index) in this period. It represents the research conducted (Figure 11 a) on different aspects of Determinants, such as women, infants, and inequality. It mainly focuses on delivery care services (Pulok et al., 2016 ), Intimate partner violence (Mohammed et al., 2017 ), maternal health care services (Ganle, 2016 ; Mehata et al., 2017 ), and mortality (Ahmed et al., 2016 ; Dendup et al., 2018 ). Middle-Income-Countries is a highly developed and isolated theme that represents research conducted on Middle-Income-Countries (Figure 11 b) with living conditions of poor rural households, Early Childhood Development (Black et al., 2015 , 2017 ; Richter et al., 2017 ), Equity in vaccination coverage nutrition (Arsenault et al., 2017 ), and child marriage (Kalamar et al., 2016 ).

Thematic networks of ( a ) determinants and ( b ) middle-income-countries

4.9.2 Second period (2019–2022)

In this period, a total of 9742 publications were contributed by 36816 authors, distributed in eight SDGs themes (Figure 12 ), with five major research themes (Motor themes plus basic theme): Sustainable-Development-Goals, CO 2 -Emissions, Areas, Emissions, and Strategies. Regarding the performance measures shown in Table 11 , five themes stand out due to the citations achieved and scored h-index over 8: Sustainable-Development-Goals, CO 2 -Emissions, Strategies, Children, and Areas. However, the motor themes Sustainable-Development-Goals and CO 2 -Emissions are the most inflectional for structuring the SDGs research field.

Strategic diagram for the 2019–2021 period

Sustainable-Development was consolidated as a motor theme in this period (Figure 12 ). Moreover, it is the theme with the highest number of documents and achieves the highest number of citations count and h-index score. It obtains the highest density score, which means that its research has great internal cohesion. SDGs rise from the evolution of the themes of Climate change, Model, and Millennium-Development-Goal of the previous period. The research (Figure 13 a) on this theme relates to 17 goals.

Thematic network of ( a ) SDGs, ( b ) CO 2 -Emissions, ( c ) strategies, and ( d ) children

To further show more information from this cluster, some most cited papers of this cluster are also investigated. To name a few, Salvia et al. ( 2019 ) examined the difficulties and potentials in pursuing and implementing the SDGs, especially among developing nations. Schroeder et al. ( 2019 ) studied the contribution of circular economy practices such as repair, remanufacturing, and recycling to SDGs. More efforts in skill training, technology development, and multistakeholder partnerships are required to make advanced Circular Economy practices. Hughes et al. ( 2019 ) discussed Blockchain research, practice, and its potential in the future in various fields and factors. Leal et al. ( 2019 ) noted that the implementation of the SDGs at universities is still in the initial stage. They provided an overview of the level of emphasis placed on the SDGs by Higher Education Institutions. Nerini et al. ( 2019 ) explored the connection of climate change action with other SDGs. They suggested that climate change action can strengthen all 17 SDGs while undermining efforts to achieve 12. Governance processes and structures must be better connected to maximize the legitimacy and effectiveness of action in both domains. Huovila et al. ( 2019 ) reported the standardized indicators for smart, sustainable cities that balance sustainability and smartness. Fonseca et al. ( 2020 ) mapped the relationship between SDGs. They found no significant correlation with other SDGs, epically Climate action and partnerships for the goals, which provides scope for future research.

The theme of CO 2 emissions emerged during this period and can be considered one of the main topics of SDGs, as evidenced by its high h-index score and the considerable number of citations. CO 2 emissions have evolved from the themes of Determinants and Millennium Development Goals in the previous period. Across the globe, countries are consistently facing one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century: saving and sustaining the environment. The most developed countries are often the largest emitters of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), resulting in an urgent policy drive toward environmental sustainability.

The research on this theme relates to ecological footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, natural resources, pollution, technological innovation, and supply chain (Figure 13 b). To further show more information from this cluster, some most cited papers of this cluster are also investigated. To name a few, following the SDG 17 of improving global partnerships for sustainable development, Shahbaz et al. ( 2019 ) explored the association between foreign direct investment and carbon emissions in the Middle East and North African region in the 1990–2015 period. They found that there is a need to develop comprehensive trade and energy policies by targeting cleaner production practices for a sustainable environment and fulfilling the objectives of SDGs. Sarkodie and Strezov ( 2019 ) examined the effect of foreign direct investment inflows, economic development, and energy consumption on disaggregate greenhouse gas emissions. Alola et al. ( 2019 ) discussed the role of trade policy, energy consumption, economic growth, and fertility rate on environmental pollution in 16 European member countries. Saint Akadiri et al. ( 2019 ) reported that by using renewable energy, carbon emission mitigation is very much achievable in the EU-28 countries and should also be adopted by all countries as an effective global policy to achieve SDGs by the year 2030.

The basic theme of strategies appears in this period as one of the emerging research themes. It mainly focuses (Figure 13 c) on 17 SDGs strategies for promoting sustainable practices and solutions that address our society’s main issues. To further show more information from this cluster, some most cited papers of this cluster are also investigated. To name a few, Chen et al. ( 2020 ) proposed strategies for green chemistry principles implementation from the aspects of governance, industry, and education. Dantas et al. ( 2021 ) reviewed the contribution of the circular economy and industry 4.0 toward achieving SDGs.

The highly developed and isolated motor theme of children appears in this period as a bifurcation of the MDGs theme from the previous period. The research (Figure 13 d) is related to disease, risk, interventions, childhood development, and disability. To further present information from this cluster, we investigated some of the most cited papers. The bold new target of safely managed water, sanitation, and hygiene for all by 2030 warrants the attention of researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. Cumming et al. ( 2019 ) reported that major water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions did not affect childhood stunting, and mixed effects on childhood diarrhea resulted from five consensus points. Chen et al. ( 2019 ) studied how dietary changes can significantly contribute to achieving the 2030 national SDGs. Early childhood development is key to achieving SDGs and can be negatively influenced by many adversities, including home violence, neglect, abuse, and parallel health. There were consistent and strongly negative relationships between all measures of childhood adversity and all five childhood growth and development outcome measures at the age of 18 months (Bhopal et al., 2019 ). Bhutta et al. ( 2020 ) reported how countries could reduce child stunting, with or without closing geographical, economic, and other population inequalities. Josenhans et al. ( 2020 ) studied the sexual exploitation of boys. Hall et al. ( 2019 ) suggested that research should focus on interventions to alleviate poverty-related stress to achieve the United Nations SDGs. Toska et al. ( 2020 ) reported that children of an adolescent mother with AIDS show more health problems than others. This should be controlled in a country with a high number of adolescents.

4.9.3 The most cited publications

The contents of the most cited papers are considered to be of great importance in the academic world, as they reflect the impact of research in a particular field. By analyzing the most cited papers, it is possible to understand the current state of knowledge in a certain area and identify gaps that need to be filled in future research. In this context, it is also possible to understand the implications for future research based on the contents of the most cited papers (Gaffey et al., 2015 ). When it comes to the SDGs, the most cited papers are a reflection of the current state of research in the field and provide important insights into the areas that need further investigation. Table 12 displays the most frequently cited papers according to the total number of citations received. It is noteworthy that the papers authored by Liu et al. ( 2016 ), Pecl et al. ( 2017 ), Zhang et al. ( 2015 ), Black et al. ( 2017 ) Kruk et al. ( 2018 ), Patel et al. ( 2018 ), Black ( 2015 ), and GBD 2017 DALYs and HALE Collaborators ( 2018 ), Kassebaum et al. ( 2016 ) occupy the top 10 spots in the ranking. The majority of these papers focus on health, climate change, nitrogen, and agriculture.

The selected articles address various topics related to the SDGs established by the United Nations. The most cited papers on the SDGs reflect this need, as they often involve the analysis of inequalities and the identification of ways to ensure that everyone has access to the resources and opportunities they need to thrive (Zhu et al., 2021 ). Among the top 10 most cited articles, we have selected the six most highly cited ones for special attention. Liu et al. ( 2016 ) study investigated the causes of infant mortality at the global, regional, and national levels, offering important implications for achieving SDGs related to health. Meanwhile, Pecl et al. ( 2017 ) discussed the effects of climate change on biodiversity, highlighting the importance of preserving ecosystems for human well-being. Zhang et al. ( 2015 ) analyzed nitrogen management as a form of sustainable development, given its importance for agriculture and pollution reduction. On the other hand, Black et al. ( 2017 ) conducted a study on early childhood development, emphasizing the importance of this period for the formation of healthy and productive adults. Kruk et al. ( 2018 ) addressed the need for high-quality health systems to achieve SDGs related to health, highlighting the importance of innovation and political commitment. Finally, Patel et al. ( 2018 ) work explored the relationship between mental health and sustainable development, emphasizing the need for public policies that address this issue in an integrated manner. Together, these articles highlight the complexity and interdependence of the SDGs, as well as the need for an integrated approach to sustainable development. In addition, the studies emphasize the importance of research and innovation in addressing global challenges and achieving the goals established by the United Nations (Table 12 ).

In conclusion, the contents of the most cited papers on the SDGs provide important insights into the current state of research in the field and the implications for future research. The need for interdisciplinary approaches, practical solutions, a focus on equity and social justice, and innovation and technological solutions are some of the key implications that can be derived from the analysis of the most cited papers. By considering these implications, future research can contribute to the achievement of the SDGs and ensure that everyone has access to a high quality of life and prosperity.

5 Discussion

To assess the distribution of SDGs in literature review publications over the years, the articles were individually analyzed and classified. It should be noted that the publications could be included in multiple categories. As a result, the majority of documents were categorized under general aspects of sustainability, including environmental sciences, environmental studies, and green science and sustainable technology.

The results of the bibliometric analysis indicate that research and development on the SDGs are more concentrated in developed countries than in developing and underdeveloped nations. This trend highlights the need for greater investment and engagement from developing countries in addressing the global sustainability challenges posed by the SDGs. This study is the first to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the SDGs and examine the progress, challenges, and opportunities during the period from 2015 to 2022. The results of this study reveal differences in the utilization of the SDGs theme.

Based on the analysis and results obtained from this paper, we have observed a huge disparity in participation in the development process through scientific contributions. The current development trajectories also follow the same path, with countries and regions with more resources contributing more than those with fewer resources. According to Sweileh ( 2020 ), the highest volumes of research are found in SDGs 1, 3, 11, 12, and 15. Similar results were obtained by Sianes et al. ( 2022 ), who used bibliometric methodologies to evaluate the impacts of SDGs on the academic agenda, while Salvia et al. ( 2019 ) highlighted that SDGs 11, 12, 13, and 15 were high research themes, and SDGs 8 and 14 were least researched.

According to the results obtained, articles related to SDGs on hunger, energy, and peace were only published starting in 2017, while articles related to more applied and diverse SDGs research were found starting in 2018, as also reported by Yamaguchi et al. ( 2023 ). Regarding the studies published starting in 2018, those of an environmental nature, i.e., related to nature and technology areas such as water and sanitation, industry, innovation and infrastructure, food and agriculture, business and management, development studies, and urban studies, climate change, and ecosystems, can be highlighted. These results show progress and a trend in SDGs studies, pointing to a growth in environmental research. Similar findings have been reported in previous studies by Sweileh ( 2020 ), Londono-Pineda and Cano ( 2022 ), and Yamaguchi et al. ( 2023 ). However, Yamaguchi et al. ( 2023 ) focused on the most cited articles, and Sweileh ( 2020 ) only analyzed articles with the phrase “sustainable development goal”, while this study has a broader scope. In addition, Londono-Pineda and Cano ( 2022 ) analyzed the main methodologies used for evaluating SDGs through bibliometric analysis. Scopus and Web of Science were identified by El Mohadab et al. ( 2020 ) as the primary databases for bibliometric analysis.

This study demonstrates that countries with the most institutional affiliations from authors also have corresponding funding to support research in diverse universities and institutions. Most of the publications found were articles published in highly indexed journals. However, the concentration of cutting-edge knowledge in specific countries, institutions, and authors is a concern. According to Londono-Pineda and Cano ( 2022 ), co-authorship can be an efficient strategy for institutions in developing countries to generate high-impact publications on issues related to SDG assessments. Sweileh ( 2020 ) notes that collaboration related to SDGs in America and Europe is strong, but collaboration in African and Asian countries is poor. To promote a more comprehensive assessment of the SDGs, it is necessary to transcend independent SDG assessments and recognize the thresholds of each dimension, allowing for the consideration of trade-offs among the SDGs. Didegah and Thelwall ( 2013 ) suggest that inviting and collaborating with researchers from third-world countries would help publish high-impact factor journals and attract funds for research proposals related to SDGs.

It can be inferred that there is a regionalization of research interest related to various goals and targets of SDGs. The developed world (USA, Canada, Australia, and Europe) is more interested in SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 13 (Climate Action) but the African world more interested in SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 15 (Life on Land) (Körfgen et al., 2018 ; Salvia et al., 2019 ). Thus, it is observed that most of the research on SDGs is related to social problems like poverty, hunger, education, conflict, gender, and peace. However, global warming and climate change are also global environmental threats to the life-supporting system on earth (Zhenmin & Espinosa, 2019 ). These results were expected, as environmental sciences are an interdisciplinary academic field that integrates physics, biology, and geography and studies the environment and the solution to environmental problems, covering a wide range of topics (Yamaguchi et al., 2023 ).

The top 10 countries, institutions, and authors publishing on SDGs represent the world’s developed economies. However, most research carried out was related to social problems (poverty, hunger, education, gender, and peace) in the underdeveloped world (Yamaguchi et al., 2023 ). The lack of participation or opportunity to contribute to the global goals research would make countries remain unaware of the happenings around the world, thus making SDGs 2030 unattainable. One of the primary goals of the SDGs is to demonstrate the world as a whole rather than just a few countries. However, the patterns of research and development highlight that research interest is regionalized according to the scale of the problem in their area (Sweileh, 2020 ).

Climate, ecosystems, health systems, and inequality have been major research areas in the past, contributing to SDGs 13, 14, 15, 3, and 10 (Yamaguchi et al., 2023 ). The highly productive countries contributing to SDGs research themes include the USA, UK, Australia, Germany, China, Switzerland, Spain, India, and South Africa. European countries, including Sweden, Austria, France, Finland, and Denmark, are top of the list of high research citations. The top 10 productive institutions/organizations in SDGs research are based on the UK, USA, Australia, Switzerland, and South Africa. The top 10 prolific authors in SDGs come from the USA, Switzerland, the UK, Canada, and Iran. The gap is evident in the goals covered, countries’ participation, institutions, and the share of authors from particular regions. Developed countries research more on SDGs than developing and underdeveloped countries, where most of the world population lives (Salvia et al., 2019 ; Sweileh, 2020 ). The voices of these people are silent in research publications. Their narratives fail to find a place in our research documents.

The study makes a valuable contribution to the literature as the first review to focus on the most frequently evaluated SDGs, and one of the few studies, along with Sweileh ( 2020 ), Londono-Pineda and Cano ( 2022 ), and Yamaguchi et al. ( 2023 ), to identify the recurrent types of assessments related to the 2030 Agenda for SDGs. The findings are in line with the need for research that promotes more comprehensive assessments of the agenda, as highlighted by Ahner-Mchaffie et al. ( 2018 ), El Mohadab et al. ( 2020 ), Meschede ( 2020 ) and Zhu et al. ( 2021 ). To achieve a more comprehensive assessment of the SDGs, it is essential to move beyond individual evaluations and instead recognize the interdependence and trade-offs among the various dimensions, which can be achieved by acknowledging the thresholds of each SDG.

6 Concluding remarks: the way forward

This study investigated the bibliometric analysis of trends, trajectories, and prospects of SDGs by the global community based on the Web of Science core database from 2015 to 2022. Even after seven years of implementation of SDGs, the agenda of 2030 are having still complex interlink age between goals and also overambitious targets. The result of the study revealed an increasing trend of publication during the studied period, but goals are not highlighted in a consolidated manner.

The top five countries with the highest number of publications and citations are from the developed world (USA, China, UK, Australia, and Spain), whereas the least contributing countries are from the developing world. Again, the top 5 productive authors are also from the developed world. It has been highlighted that good health and well-being are the thematic areas of research for the underdeveloped world, and climate action is a focus area of research for high-income countries. Thus, it shows that the goals of SDGs are not consolidated but divisive in nature, and the reason may be practical challenges surrounding implementing SDGs. Again, keyword analysis emphasized about core research areas: ‘sustainable development goals, climate change, agenda 2030, circular economy, Africa, poverty, global health, governance, food security, sub-Saharan Africa, millennium development goals, universal health coverage, indicators, gender, and inequality’; and these words are primary needs of human life.

The goals related to the basic needs of human being to just have human life should not treat as unrealistic aspirations and call for prioritizing SDGs. Therefore, education, funding, and innovation of green technology are critical elements to achieve the target of SDGs in 2030. Again, there is a need for a periodical investigation of SDGs-related published documents to get an insight into the gap in achieving the global 2030 agenda.

There is no specific theory regarding the SDGs. Instead, they represent a holistic approach to global development with 17 interconnected and interdependent goals. Achieving them requires collaboration from all sectors of society, emphasizing an integrated approach, technology, financial inclusion, and continuous monitoring. The importance of collaboration, an integrated approach, technology, financial inclusion, and continuous monitoring has been identified as the main theoretical findings of the SDGs. There are no specific practical discoveries related to the SDGs, as they represent a holistic approach to global development, with goals such as eradicating poverty, ensuring gender equality, protecting the environment, and promoting economic growth. Practical advancements related to the SDGs have been made in areas such as policy and decision-making, partnerships and collaboration, data and measurement, and financing. The implementation of SDGs has also demonstrated the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach, innovative financing mechanisms, and technology to achieve sustainable development.

Studies on the SDGs are highly complex due to the interdisciplinary nature and scope of the objectives and targets involved in this theme. Therefore, more research should be carried out to fill this gap by developing more effective and reliable methods to verify progress toward the SDGs. To achieve this, it is recommended to incorporate other bibliographic databases to further increase the reach of the bibliometric review of this topic, including non-Web of Science databases and the inclusion of grey literature such as reports from government and non-governmental agencies.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request.

Abbott, P., Sapsford, R., & Binagwaho, A. (2017). Learning from Success: How rwanda achieved the millennium development goals for health. World Development, 92 , 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.013

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams, E. A. (2018). Thirsty slums in African cities: Household water insecurity in urban informal settlements of Lilongwe, Malawi. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 34 (6), 869–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1322941

Ahmed, Z., Kamal, A., & Kamal, A. (2016). Statistical analysis of factors affecting child mortality in Pakistan. Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 26 (6), 543–544.

Google Scholar  

Ahner-McHaffie, TW, Guest, G, Petruney, T, Eterno, A, Dooley B (2018) Evaluating the impact of integrated development: are we asking the right questions? A systematic review. Gates Open Research . https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12755.2

Alcántara-Ayala, I. (2002). Geomorphology, natural hazards, vulnerability and prevention of natural disasters in developing countries. Geomorphology, 47 (2–4), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(02)00083-1

Allen, C., Metternicht, G., & Wiedmann, T. (2018). Initial progress in implementing the sustainable development goals (SDGs): A review of evidence from countries. Sustainability Science, 13 (5), 1453–1467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0572-3

Allen, C., Metternicht, G., & Wiedmann, T. (2016). National pathways to the sustainable development goals (SDGs): A comparative review of scenario modelling tools. Environmental Science & Policy, 66 , 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.09.008

Alola, A. A., Bekun, F. V., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 685 , 702–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.13

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Alstone, P., Gershenson, D., & Kammen, D. M. (2015). Decentralized energy systems for clean electricity access. Nature Climate Change, 5 (4), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2512

Alvino, F., Di Vaio, A., Hassan, R., & Palladino, R. (2021). Intellectual capital and sustainable development: A systematic literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22 (1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2019-0259

Aravindaraj, K., & Rajan Chinna, P. (2022). A systematic literature review of integration of industry 40 and warehouse management to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 5 , 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2022.100072

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11 (4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Arsenault, C., Harper, S., Nandi, A., Rodriguez, J. M. M., Hansen, P. M., & Johri, M. (2017). Monitoring equity in vaccination coverage: A systematic analysis of demographic and health surveys from 45 Gavi-supported countries. Vaccine, 35 (6), 951–959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.12.041

Asadullah, M. N., & Savoia, A. (2018). Poverty reduction during 1990–2013: Did millennium development goals adoption and state capacity matter? World Development, 105 , 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.010

Awaworyi Churchill, S. (2020). Hitting the Right Targets: Understanding What Works in the Development Process. In Awaworyi Churchill, S. (Eds), Moving from the Millennium to the Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 1–9). Springer: London. doi https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1556-9_1

Bebbington, J., & Unerman, J. (2018). Achieving the united nations sustainable development goals: An enabling role for accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal., 31 (1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929

Bhopal, S., Roy, R., Verma, D., Kumar, D., Avan, B., Khan, B., Gram, L., Sharma, K., Amenga-Etego, S., Panchal, S. N., Soremekun, S., Divan, G., & Kirkwood, B. R. (2019). Impact of adversity on early childhood growth & development in rural India: Findings from the early life stress sub-study of the SPRING cluster randomised controlled trial (SPRING-ELS). Plos One, 14 (1), e0209122. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209122

Bhutta, Z. A., Akseer, N., Keats, E. C., Vaivada, T., Baker, S., Horton, S. E., Katz, J., Menon, P., Piwoz, E., Shekar, M., Victora, C., & Black, R. (2020). How countries can reduce child stunting at scale: Lessons from exemplar countries. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 112 , 894–904.

Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017). Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31 , 183–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.016

Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. (2017). Global governance by goal-setting: The novel approach of the UN sustainable development goals. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27 , 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010

Black, M. M., Perez-Escamilla, R., & Rao, S. F. (2015). Integrating nutrition and child development interventions: scientific basis, evidence of impact, and implementation considerations. Advances in Nutrition, 6 (6), 852–859. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.115.010348

Black, M. M., Walker, S. P., Fernald, L. C. H., Andersen, C. T., DiGirolamo, A. M., Lu, C., McCoy, D. C., Fink, G., Shawar, Y. R., Shiffman, J., Devercelli, A. E., Wodon, Q. T., Vargas-Barón, E., & Grantham-McGregor, S. (2017). Lancet Early Childhood Development Series Steering Committee. Early childhood development coming of age: science through the life course. Lancet, 389 (10064), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31389-7

Bommer, C., Sagalova, V., Heesemann, E., Manne-Goehler, J., Atun, R., Bärnighausen, T., Davies, J., & Vollmer, S. (2018). Global economic burden of diabetes in adults: projections from 2015 to 2030. Diabetes Care, 41 (5), 963–970.

Britto PR, Lye SJ, Proulx K., Yousafzai AK, Matthews SG, Vaivada T, Perez-Escamilla R, Rao NIPP, Fernald LCH, MacMillan H, Hanson M, Wachs TD, Yao H, Yoshikawa H, Cerezo A, Leckman JF, Bhutta ZA (2017) Early Childhood Development Interventions Review Group, for the Lancet Early Childhood Development Series Steering Committee. Nurturing care: promoting early childhood development . Lancet, 389(10064): 91–102. doi https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31390-3

Bryan, B. A., Gao, L., Ye, Y., Sun, X., Connor, J. D., Crossman, N. D., Stafford-Smith, M., Wu, J., He, C., Yu, D., Liu, Z., Li, A., Huang, Q., Ren, H., Deng, X., Zheng, H., Niu, J., Han, G., & Hou, X. (2018). China’s response to a national land-system sustainability emergency. Nature, 559 , 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0280-2

Buse, K., & Hawkes, S. (2015). Health in the sustainable development goals: Ready for a paradigm shift? Global Health, 11 , 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-015-0098-8

Caiado, R. G. G., Leal Filho, W., Quelhas, O. L. G., Nascimento, D. L. M., & Ávila, L. V. (2018). A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the implementation of the sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198 , 1276–1288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.102

Chasse, D. S. (2016). The roots of the millennium development goals: A framework for studying the history of global statistics. Hist. Soc. Res. Sozialforsch., 41 (2), 218–237.

Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

Chen, C. X., Chaudhary, A., & Mathys, A. (2019). Dietary change scenarios and implications for environmental, nutrition, human health and economic dimensions of food sustainability. Nutrients, 11 (4), 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11040856

Chen, J., & Wang, B. (2022). Mobilising therapeutic landscapes: Lifestyle migration of the Houniao and the spatio-temporal encounters with nature. Geoforum, 131 , 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.03.018

Chen, L., Huang, H., Han, D., Wang, X., Xiao, Y., Yang, H., & Du, J. (2023). Investigation on the spatial and temporal patterns of coupling sustainable development posture and economic development in world natural heritage sites: A case study of Jiuzhaigou China. Ecological Indicators, 146 , 109920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109920

Chen, T. L., Kim, H., Pan, S. Y., Tseng, P. C., Lin, Y. P., & Chiang, P. C. (2020). Implementation of green chemistry principles in circular economy system towards sustainable development goals: Challenges and perspectives. Science of the Total Environment, 716 , 136998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136998

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (8), 1609–1630. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22688

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525

Costanza, R., Daly, L., Fioramonti, L., Giovannini, E., Kubiszewski, I., Mortensen, L. F., Pickett, K. E., Ragnarsdottir, K. V., De Vogli, R., & Wilkinson, R. (2016). Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN sustainable development goals. Ecological Economics, 130 , 350–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.009

Costanza, R., Hart, M., Posner, S., & Talberth, J. (2009). Beyond GDP: The need for new measures of progress. Pardee paper No. 4, Boston: Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future

Cowie, A. L., Orr, B. J., Sanchez, V. M. C., Chase, P., Crossman, N. D., Erlewein, A., Louwagie, G., Maron, M., Metternicht, G. I., Minelli, S., Tengberg, A. E., Walter, S., & Welton, S. (2018). Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. Environmental Science & Policy, 79 , 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.10.011

Cumming, O., Arnold, B. F., Ban, R., Clasen, T., Mills, J. E., Freeman, M. C., Gordon, B., Guiteras, R., Howard, G., Hunter, P. R., Johnston, R. B., Pickering, A. J., Prendergast, A. J., Prüss-Ustün, A., Rosenboom, J. W., Spears, D., Sundberg, S., Wolf, J., Null, C., … Colford, J. M., Jr. (2019). The implications of three major new trials for the effect of water, sanitation and hygiene on childhood diarrhea and stunting: A consensus statement. BMC Medicine, 17 , 173. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1410-x

D’Amore, G., Di Vaio, A., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & Boccia, F. (2022). Artificial intelligence in the water-energy-food model: A holistic approach towards sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 14 (2), 867. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020867

Dantas, T. E. T., de Souza, E. D., Destro, I. R., Hammes, G., Rodriguez, C. M. T., & Soares, S. R. (2021). How the combination of circular economy and industry 4.0 can contribute towards achieving the Sustainable development goals. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26 , 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.005

Death, C., & Gabay, C. (2015). Doing biopolitics differently? Radical potential in the post-2015 MDG and SDG debates. Globalizations . https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2015.1033172

Dendup, T., Zhao, Y., & Dema, D. (2018). Factors associated with under-five mortality in Bhutan: an analysis of the Bhutan National Health survey 2012. BMC Public Health . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6308-6

Di Vaio, A., Palladino, R., Hassan, R., & Escobar, O. (2020). Artificial intelligence and business models in the sustainable development goals perspective: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research , 121 , 283–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.019

Di Vaio, A., Hassan, R., Chhabra, M., Arrigo, E., & Palladino, R. (2022). Sustainable entrepreneurship impact and entrepreneurial venture life cycle: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 378 , 134469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134469

Di Vaio, A., Trujillo, L., D’Amore, G., & Palladino, R. (2021). Water governance models for meeting sustainable development Goals: A structured literature review. Utilities Policy, 72 , 101255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2021.101255

Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7 (4), 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.006

Doyle, M. W., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2014). Eliminating extreme inequality: A sustainable development goal, 2015–2030. Ethics & International Affairs, 28 (1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679414000021

Ebener, S., Guerra-Arias, M., Campbell, J., Tatem, A. J., Moran, A. C., Johnson, F. A., Fogstad, H., Stenberg, K., Neal, S., Bailey, P., Porter, R., & Matthews, Z. (2015). The geography of maternal and newborn health: the state of the art. International Journal of Health Geographics . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-015-0012-x

Eisenmenger, N., Pichler, M., Krenmayr, N., Noll, D., Plank, N., Schalmann, E., Wandl, M.-T., & Gingrich, S. (2020). The sustainable development goals prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: A critical reflection on the SDGs from a socio-ecological perspective. Sustainability Science, 15 (4), 1101–1110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00813-x

El Mohadab, M., Bouikhalene, B., & Safi, S. (2020). Bibliometric method for mapping the state of the art of scientific production in Covid-19. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 139 , 110052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110052

Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientom., 105 , 1809–1831.

Espinoza, N. S., dos Santos, C. A. C., de Oliveira, M. B. L., Silva, M. T., Santos, C. A. G., Silva, R. M., Mishra, M., & Ferreira, R. R. (2023). Assessment of urban heat islands and thermal discomfort in the Amazonia biome in Brazil: A case study of Manaus city. Building and Environment, 227 (1), 109772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109772

Fabregat-Aibar, L., Barberà-Mariné, M. G., Terceño, A., & Pié, L. (2019). A bibliometric and visualization analysis of socially responsible funds. Sustainability, 11 (9), 2526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092526

Fehling, M., Nelson, B. D., & Venkatapuram, S. (2013). Limitations of the millennium development goals: A literature review. Global Public Health, 8 (10), 1109–1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2013.845676

Fenny, A. P., Crentsil, A. O., & Ackah, C. (2018). The health MDGs in Ghana: Lessons and implications for the implementation of the sustainable development goals. Journal of Public Health, 26 , 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-017-0854-8

Fonseca, L. M., Domingues, J. P., & Dima, A. M. (2020). Mapping the sustainable development goals relationships. Sustainability, 12 , 3359. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083359

Fullman, N., et al. (2018). Measuring performance on the healthcare access and quality index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: A systematic analysis from the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet, 391 (10136), 2236–2271.

Gaffey, M. F., Das, J. K., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2015). Millennium development goals 4 and 5: Past and future progress. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 20 (5), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2015.07.00

Ganle, J. K. (2016). Ethnic disparities in utilisation of maternal health care services in Ghana: Evidence from the 2007 Ghana maternal health survey. Ethnicity & Health, 21 (1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2015.1015499

Garcia-Feijoo, M., Eizaguirre, A., & Rica-Aspiunza, A. (2020). Systematic review of sustainable-development-goal deployment in business schools. Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010440

Garfield, E. (1990). KeyWords Plus™ − ISIS breakthrough retrieval method. 1. Expanding your searching power on current-contents on diskette. Current Contents, 32 , 5–9.

GBD 2017 DALYs and HALE Collaborators. (2018). Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 359 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018 Nov 10;392(10159):1859–1922. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32335-3. Erratum in: Lancet. 2019 Jun 22;393(10190):e44. PMID: 30415748; PMCID: PMC6252083.

Glänzel, W. (2012). Métodos bibliométricos para la detección y análisis de temas de investigación emergentes. Profesional De La Información, 21 (2), 194–201. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2012.mar.11

Glass, L. M., & Newig, J. (2019). Governance for achieving the sustainable development goals: how important are participation, policy coherence, reflexivity, adaptation and democratic institutions? Earth System Governance, 2 , 100031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2019.100031

Guo, H., Liang, D., Sun, Z., Chen, F., Wang, X., Li, J., Zhu, L., Bian, J., Wei, Y., Huang, L., Chen, Y., Peng, D., Li, X., Lu, S., Liu, J., & Shirazi, Z. (2022). Measuring and evaluating SDG indicators with big earth data. Science Bulletin, 67 (17), 1792–1801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2022.07.015

Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16 , 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z

Hak, T., Janouskova, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60 , 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003

Hall, B. J., Garabiles, M. R., de Hoop, J., Pereira, A., Prencipe, L., & Palermo, T. M. (2019). Perspectives of adolescent and young adults on poverty-related stressors: a qualitative study in Ghana Malawi and Tanzania. BMJ Open, 9 (10), e027047. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027047

Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google scholar, Scopus and the web of science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106 (2), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9

Hemingway, R., & Gunawan, O. (2018). The natural hazards partnership: A public-sector collaboration across the UK for natural hazard disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27 , 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.11.014

Hemming, S., de Zwart, F., Elings, A., Righini, I., & Petropoulou, A. (2019). Remote control of greenhouse vegetable production with artificial intelligence-Greenhouse climate, irrigation, and crop production. Sensors, 19 (8), 1807. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19081807

Hill, P. S., Mansoor, G. F., & Claudio, F. (2010). Conflict in least-developed countries: Challenging the millennium development goals. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88 (8), 562. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.09.071365

Huang, C. L., & Chang, Y. C. (2022). Growth impact of equity market crises: A global perspective. International Review of Economics & Finance, 78 , 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2021.11.004

Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Misra, S. K., Rana, N. P., Raghavan, V., & Akella, V. (2019). Blockchain research, practice and policy: Applications, benefits, limitations, emerging research themes and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 49 , 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.005

Huovila, A., Bosch, P., & Airaksinen, M. (2019). Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for Smart sustainable cities: What indicators and standards to use and when? Cities, 89 , 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.029

Josenhans, V., Kavenagh, M., Smith, S., & Wekerle, C. (2020). Gender, rights and responsibilities: The need for a global analysis of the sexual exploitation of boys. Child Abuse & Neglect, 110 (1), 104291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104291

Kalamar, A. M., Lee-Rife, S., & Hindin, M. J. (2016). Interventions to prevent child marriage among young people in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of the published and gray literature. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59 (3), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.06.015

Keesstra, S., Nunes, J., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z., & Cerdà, A. (2018). The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment, 610 , 997–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077

Keesstra, S. D., Bouma, J., Wallinga, J., Tittonell, P., Smith, P., Cerdà, A., Montanarella, L., Quinton, J. N., Pachepsky, Y., van der Putten, W. H., Bardgett, R. D., Moolenaar, S., Mol, G., Jansen, B., & Fresco, L. O. (2016). The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations sustainable development goals. The Soil, 2 (2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2-111-2016

Kherbache, N., & Oukaci, K. (2020). Assessment of capital expenditure in achieving sanitation-related MDG targets and the uncertainties of the SDG targets in Algeria. World Development Perspectives, 19 , 100236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100236

Khojasteh, D., Davani, E., Shamsipour, A., Haghani, M., & Glamore, W. (2022). Climate change and COVID-19: Interdisciplinary perspectives from two global crises. Science of the Total Environment, 844 , 157142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157142

Klasen, S. (2018). The impact of gender inequality on economic performance in developing countries. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 10 , 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023429

Körfgen, A., Förster, K., Glatz, I., Maier, S., Becsi, B., Meyer, A., Kromp-Kolb, H., & Stötter, J. (2018). It’s a hit! Mapping Austrian research contributions to the sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 10 (9), 3295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093295

Kroll, C., Warchold, A., & Pradhan, P. (2019). Sustainable development goals (SDGs): Are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies? Palgrave Communications, 5 (1), 140. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0335-5

Kruk, M. E., Gage, A. D., Arsenault, C., Jordan, K., Leslie, H. H., Roder-DeWan, S., Adeyi, O., Barker, P., Daelmans, B., Doubova, S. V., English, M., García-Elorrio, E., Guanais, F., Gureje, O., Hirschhorn, L. R., Jiang, L., Kelley, E., Lemango, E. T., Liljestrand, J., … Pate, M. (2018). High-quality health systems in the sustainable development goals era: Time for a revolution. The Lancet Global Health, 6 (11), e1196–e1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30386-3

Lal, R. (2016). Soil health and carbon management. Food and Energy Security, 5 (3), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.96

Le Blanc, D. (2015). Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. In Sustainable Development , 23 (3), 176–187. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1582

Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L. L., Lange Salvia, A., Rayman-Bacchus, L., & Platje, J. (2020). COVID-19 and the UN sustainable development goals: Threat to solidarity or an opportunity? Sustainability, 12 (13), 5343. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135343

Leal, W., Shiel, C., Paço, A., Mifsud, M., Ávila, L. V., Brandli, L. L., Molthan-Hill, P., Pace, P., Azeiteiro, U. M., Vargas, V. R., & Caeiro, S. (2019). Sustainable development goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling behind or getting ahead of the pack? Journal of Cleaner Production, 232 , 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.309

Liu, J. G., Hull, V., Godfray, H. C. J., Tilman, D., Gleick, P., Hoff, H., Pahl-Wostl, C., Xu, Z., Chung, M. G., Sun, J., & Li, S. (2018). Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 1 (9), 466–476. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0135-8

Liu, L., Oza, S., Hogan, D., Chu, Y., Perin, J., Zhu, J., Lawn, J. E., Cousens, S., Mathers, C., & Black, R. E. (2016). Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000–15: An updated systematic analysis with implications for the sustainable development goals. Lancet, 388 (10063), 3027–3035. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31593-8

Lomazzi, M., Laaser, U., Theisling, M., Tapia, L., & Borisch, B. (2014). Millennium development goals: How public health professionals perceive the achievement of MDGs. Global Health Action, 7 (1), 24352. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v7.24352

Londono-Pineda, A. A., & Cano, J. A. (2022). Assessments under the United Nations sustainable development goals: A bibliometric analysis. Environmental and Climate Technologies, 26 (1), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2022-0014

Lund, C., Brooke-Sumner, C., Baingana, F., Baron, E. C., Breuer, E., Chandra, P., Haushofer, J., Herrman, H., Jordans, M., Kieling, C., Medina-Mora, M. E., Morgan, E., Omigbodun, O., Tol, W., Patel, V., & Saxena, S. (2018). Social determinants of mental disorders and the sustainable development goals: A systematic review of reviews. Lancet Psychiatry, 5 , 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30060-9

Luyckx, V. A., Tonelli, M., & Stanifer, J. W. (2018). The global burden of kidney disease and the sustainable development goals. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 96 (6), 414. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.206441

Martinez-Santos, P. (2017). Does 91% of the world’s population really have ‘sustainable access to safe drinking water’? International Journal of Water Resources Development, 33 (4), 514–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1298517

Matcharashvili, T., Tsveraidze, Z., Sborshchikovi, A., & Matcharashvili, T. (2014). The importance of bibliometric indicators for the analysis of research performance in Georgia. Trames Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 18 (4), 345. https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2014.4.03

McArthur, J. W. (2014). The origins of the millennium development goals. The SAIS Review of International Affairs, 34 (2), 5–24.

Mehata, S., Paudel, Y. R., Dariang, M., Aryal, K. K., Lal, B. K., Khanal, M. N., & Thomas, D. (2017). Trends and inequalities in use of maternal health care services in Nepal: Strategy in the search for improvements. BioMed Research International, 2017 , 5079234. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5079234

Mehmood, H., Liao, D., & Mahadeo, K. (2020). A review of artificial intelligence applications to achieve water-related sustainable development goals, in IEEE/ITU International Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Good, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1109/AI4G50087.2020.9311018

Mensah, J. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 5 (1), 1653531. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1653531

Meschede, C. (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals in scientific literature: A bibliometric overview at the meta-level. Sustainability, 12 (11), 4461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114461

Milat, A. J., Bauman, A., & Redman, S. (2015). Narrative review of models and success factors for scaling up public health interventions. Implementation Science, 10 , 113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0301-6

Mishra, M., Sudarsan, D., Kar, D., Naik, A. K., Das, P., Santos, C. A. G., & Silva, R. M. (2020). The development and research trend of using DSAS tool for shoreline change analysis: A scientometric analysis. Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering, 14 (1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.4090/juee.2020.v14n1.069077

Mishra, M., Santos, C. A. G., Nascimento, T. V. M., Dash, M. K., Silva, R. M., Kar, D., & Acharyya, T. (2022). Mining impacts on forest cover change in a tropical forest using remote sensing and spatial information from 2001–2019: A case study of Odisha (India). Journal of Environmental Management, 302 , 114067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114067

Mishra, M., Sudarsan, D., Santos, C. A. G., Mishra, S. K., Kar, D., Baral, K., & Pattnaik, N. (2021). An overview of research on natural resources and indigenous communities: A bibliometric analysis based on Scopus database (1979–2020). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 193 (2), 59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08793-2

Mohammadi, Y., Parsaeian, M., Mehdipour, P., Khosravi, A., Larijani, B., Sheidaei, A., Mansouri, A., Kasaeian, A., Yazdani, K., Moradi-Lakeh, M., Kazemi, E., Aghamohamadi, S., Rezaei, N., Chegini, M., Haghshenas, R., Jamshidi, H., Delavari, F., Asadi-Lari, M., & Farzadfar, F. (2017). Measuring Iran’s success in achieving Millennium Development Goal 4: A systematic analysis of under-5 mortality at national and subnational levels from 1990 to 2015. The Lancet Global Health, 5 (5), e537–e544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30105-5

Mohammed, B. H., Johnston, J. M., Harwell, J. I., Yi, H., Tsang, K. W. K., & Haidar, J. A. (2017). Intimate partner violence and utilization of maternal health care services in Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. BMC Health Services Research, 17 , 178. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2121-7

Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. Profesional de la Informacion . https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03

Morley, C. P., Wang, D. L., Mader, E. M., Plante, K. P., Kingston, L. N., & Rabiei, A. (2017). Analysis of the association between millennium development goals 4 & 5 and the physician workforce across international economic strata. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 17 (1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-017-0126-2

Moucheraud, C., Owen, H., Singh, N. S. N. G., Requejo, J. C. K., Lawn, J. E., & Berman, P. (2016). The Countdown Case Study Collaboration Group 2016 Countdown to 2015 country case studies: what have we learned about processes and progress towards MDGs 4 and 5? BMC Public Health, 16 (Suppl 2), 794. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3401-6

Nerini, F. F., Sovacool, B., Hughes, N., Cozzi, L., Cosgrave, E., Howells, M., Tavoni, M., Tomei, J., Zerriffi, H., & Milligan, B. (2019). Connecting climate action with other sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 2 (8), 674–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0334-y

Nerini, F. F., Tomei, J., To, L. S., Bisaga, I., Parikh, P., Black, M., Borrion, A., Spataru, C., Broto, V. C., Anandarajah, G., Milligan, B., & Mulugetta, Y. (2018). Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the sustainable development goals. Nature Energy, 3 (1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0036-5

Nishant, R., Kennedy, M., & Corbett, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence for sustainability: Challenges, opportunities, and a research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 53 , 102104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102104

Patel, V., Saxena, S., Lund, C., Thornicroft, G., Baingana, Bolton FP., Chisholm, D., Collins, P. Y., Cooper, J. L., Eaton, J., Herrman, H., Herzallah, M. M., Huang, Y., Jordans, M. J. D., Kleinman, A., Medina-Mora, M. E., Morgan, E., Niaz, U., Omigbodun, O., Prince, M., … Unütze, J. (2018). The Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development. The Lancet, 392 (10157), 1553–1598.

Pecl, G. T., Araújo, M. B., Bell, J. D., Blanchard, J., Bonebrake, T. C., Chen, I. C., Clark, T. D., Colwell, R. K., Danielsen, F., Evengård, B., Falconi, L., Ferrier, S., Frusher, S., Garcia, R. A., Griffis, R. B., Hobday, A. J., Janion-Scheepers, C., Jarzyna, M. A., Jennings, S., … Williams, S. E. (2017). Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science., 355 (6332), 9214. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9214

Perifanis, N.-A., & Kitsios, F. (2023). Investigating the influence of artificial intelligence on business value in the digital era of strategy: A literature review. Information, 14 , 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14020085

Persson, Å., Weitz, P. N., & Nilsson, M. (2016). Follow-up and Review of the Sustainable Development Goals: Alignment vs Internalization. Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, 25 (1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12150

Pizzi, S., Caputo, A., Corvino, A., & Venturelli, A. (2020). Management research and the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs): a bibliometric investigation and systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276 , 124033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124033

Prieto-Jiménez, E., López-Catalán, L., López-Catalán, B., & Domínguez-Fernández, G. (2021). Sustainable Development Goals and Education: A Bibliometric Mapping Analysis. In Sustainability , 13 (4), 2126. MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042126

Pulok, M. H., Sabah, M. N. U., Uddin, J., & Enemark, U. (2016). Progress in the utilization of antenatal and delivery care services in Bangladesh: where does the equity gap lie? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0970-4

Rajkarnikar, P. J. (2022). Approaches to, and measures of, progress. In F. Stilwell, D. Primrose, & T. Thornton (Eds.), Handbook of alternative theories of political economy (pp. 443–457). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Rasul, G. (2016). Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the sustainable development goals in South Asia. Environmental Development, 18 , 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.12.001

Reed, J., Van Vianen, J., Deakin, E. L., Barlow, J., & Sunderland, T. (2016). Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: Learning from the past to guide the future. Global Change Biology, 22 (7), 2540–2554. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13284

Richter, L. M., Daelmans, B., Lombardi, J., Heymann, J., Boo, F. L., Behrman, J. R., Lu, C., Lucas, J. E., Perez-Escamilla, R., Dua, T., Bhutta, Z. A., Stenberg, K., Gertler, P., & Darmstadt, G. L. (2017). Investing in the foundation of sustainable development: Pathways to scale up for early childhood development. Lancet, 389 (10064), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31698-1

Saint Akadiri, S., Alola, A. A., Akadiri, A. C., & Alola, U. V. (2019). Renewable energy consumption in EU-28 countries: Policy toward pollution mitigation and economic sustainability. Energy Policy, 132 , 803–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.040

Salvia, A. L., Leal, W., Brandli, L. L., & Griebeler, J. S. (2019). Assessing research trends related to sustainable development goals: Local and global issues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208 , 841–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.242

Sarkodie, S. A., & Strezov, V. (2019). Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Science of the Total Environment, 646 , 862–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.365

Scheyvens, R., Banks, G., & Hughes, E. (2016). The private sector and the SDGs: The need to move beyond ‘business as usual.’ Sustainable Development, 24 (6), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1623

Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47 (9), 1554–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011

Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K., & Weber, U. (2019). The relevance of circular economy practices to the sustainable development goals. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23 (1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12732

Sengupta, M. (2018). Transformational change or tenuous wish list? A critique of SDG 1’(‘End poverty in all its forms everywhere’). Social Alternatives, 37 (1), 12–17.

Shahbaz, M., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & Sinha, A. (2019). Foreign direct Investment-CO2 emissions nexus in Middle East and North African countries: Importance of biomass energy consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217 , 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.282

Sianes, A., Vega-Munoz, A., Tirado-Valencia, P., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2022). Impact of the sustainable development goals on the academic research agenda a scientometric analysis. PloS One, 17 (3), e0265409. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409

Silva, R. M., Lopes, A. G., & Santos, C. A. G. (2023). Deforestation and fires in the Brazilian Amazon from 2001 to 2020: Impacts on rainfall variability and land surface temperature. Journal of Environmental Management, 326 (1), 116664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116664

Skute, I., Zalewska-Kurek, K., Hatak, I., & de Weerd-Nederhof, P. (2019). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44 , 916–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9637-1

Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers, B., Kanie, N., Stigson, B., Shrivastava, P., Leach, M., & O’Connell, D. (2017). Integration: The key to implementing the sustainable development goals. Sustainability Science, 12 (6), 911–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0383-3

Sudarsana, D., & Baba, M. S. (2019). Global nuclear fuel research during 2000 to 2017: A scientometric analysis. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 66 , 85–93.

Swain, R. B., & Yang-Wallentin, F. (2020). Achieving sustainable development goals: Predicaments and strategies. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27 (2), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1692316

Sweileh, W. M. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on “sustainable development goals” with emphasis on “good health and well-being” goal (2015–2019). Globalization and Health, 16 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00602-2

Toska, E., Laurenzi, C. A., Roberts, K. J., Cluver, L., & Sherr, L. (2020). Adolescent mothers affected by HIV and their children: A scoping review of evidence and experiences from sub-Saharan Africa. Global Public Health, 15 (11), 1655–1673. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1775867

United Nations (2015a). The millennium development goals report . New York

United Nations (2015b). A/RES/70/1 – Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development . Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, p 35. Retrieved January 7, 2023, from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N15/291/89/PDF/N1529189.pdf?OpenElement

United Nations (2014). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2014. New York, USA.

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). VOSviewer: A computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84 , 523–538.

Van Raan, A. (1999). Advanced bibliometric methods for the evaluation of universities. Scientometrics, 45 (3), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457601

Vinuesa, R., Azizpour, H., Leite, I., Balaam, M., Dignum, V., Domisch, S., Felländer, A., Langhans, S. D., Tegmark, M., & Nerini, F. F. (2020). The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the sustainable development goals. Nature Communications, 11 , 233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y

Visvizi, A. (2022). Artificial intelligence (AI) and sustainable development goals (SDGs): Exploring the impact of AI on politics and society. Sustainability, 14 , 1730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031730

Wahab, E. O., Odunsi, S. O., & Ajiboye, O. E. (2012). Causes and consequences of rapid erosion of cultural values in a traditional African society. Journal of Anthropology, 327061 , 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/327061

Watts, N., Adger, W. N., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Bai, Y., Byass, P., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Colbourn, T., Cox, P., Davies, M., Depledge, M., Depoux, A., Dominguez-Salas, P., Drummond, P., Ekins, P., Flahault, A., Grace, D., Graham, H., Haines, A., Hamilton, I., … Costello, A. (2017). The Lancet Countdown: Tracking progress on health and climate change. Lancet, 389 (10074), 1151–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32124-9

Weitz, N., Carlsen, H., Nilsson, M., & Skanberg, K. (2018). Towards systemic and contextual priority setting for implementing the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability Science, 13 (2), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0470-0

Wolbring, G. (2011). People with disabilities and social determinants of health discourses. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 102 (4), 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404058

Wolf, J., Hunter, P. R., Freeman, M. C., Cumming, O., Clasen, T., Bartram, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Johnston, R., Medlicott, K., Boisson, S., & Prüss-Ustün, A. (2018). Impact of drinking water, sanitation and handwashing with soap on childhood diarrheal disease: Updated meta-analysis and meta-regression. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 23 (5), 508–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.13051

World Bank. (2016). Global Monitoring Report 2015/2016: Development goals in an era of demographic change (p. 2016). World Bank.

Book   Google Scholar  

World Bank (2023). Understanding Poverty: Poverty . Retrieved February 17, 2023, from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview .

Wuni, I. Y., Shen, G. Q. P., & Osei-Kyei, R. (2019). Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018. Energy and Building, 190 , 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.02.010

Xu, W., Xiao, Y., Zhang, J., Yang, W., Zhang, L., Hull, V., Wang, Z., Zheng, H., Liu, J., Polasky, S., Jiang, L., Xiao, Y., Shi, X., Rao, E., Lu, F., Wang, X., Daily, G. C., & Ouyang, Z. (2017). Strengthening protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (7), 1601–1606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620503114

Yamaguchi, N. U., Bernardino, E. G., Ferreira, M. E. C., de Lima, B. P., Pascotini, M. R., & Yamaguchi, M. U. (2023). Sustainable development goals: A bibliometric analysis of literature reviews. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30 (3), 5502–5515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24379-6

Yu, Y., & Huang, J. (2021). Poverty reduction of sustainable development goals in the 21st Century: A Bibliometric Analysis. In Frontiers in Communication , (Vol. 6). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.754181

Zhang, X., Davidson, E. A., Mauzerall, D. L., Searchinger, T. D., Dumas, P., & Shen, Y. (2015). Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature, 528 (7580), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15743

Zhang, J., Yu, Q., Zheng, F., Long, C., Lu, Z. and Duan, Z. (2016). Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords. Journal of the association for information science and technology , 67 , 967–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23437

Zhenmin, L., & Espinosa, P. (2019). Tackling climate change to accelerate sustainable development. Nature Climate Change, 9 , 494–496. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0519-4

Zhu, D., Chen, W., Qu, X., Zheng, Y., Bi, J., Kan, H., Luo, Y., Ying, G., Zeng, E. Y., Zhao, F., Zhu, L., Zhu, Y., & Tao, S. (2021). Future research needs for environmental science in China. Geography and Sustainability, 2 , 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2021.09.003

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Geography, Fakir Mohan University, Vyasa Vihar, Nuapadhi, Balasore, Odisha, 756089, India

Manoranjan Mishra

Department of Library and Information Science, Berhampur University, Berhampur, Odisha, 760007, India

Sudarsan Desul

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, 58051-900, Brazil

Celso Augusto Guimarães Santos

Department of Anthropology, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, 211002, India

Shailendra Kumar Mishra

Faculty of Fisheries and Food Science, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia

Abu Hena Mustafa Kamal

Department of Geology, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751004, India

Shreerup Goswami

Department of Geography and Environmental Science, Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of Fort Hare, Alice, 5700, South Africa

Ahmed Mukalazi Kalumba

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, NIT Rourkela, Rourkela, 769008, India

Ramakrishna Biswal

Department of Geosciences, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, 58051-900, Brazil

Richarde Marques da Silva

Graduate Program in Meteorology, Federal University of Campina Grande, Campina Grande, 58109-970, Brazil

Carlos Antonio Costa dos Santos

Department of Environment Studies, Berhampur University, Berhampur, Odisha, 760007, India

Manoranjan Mishra & Kabita Baral

Department of Library and Information Science, Tripura University, Agartala, 799022, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MM, DS, and CAGS designed the research; MM and DS wrote the original draft; DS, CAGS, and RMS worked on the visualization; MM, DS, CAGS, SKM, AHMK, SG, KAM, RKB, RMS, CACS, KB performed the manuscript review and editing; MM provided funding acquisition, project administration, and resources; and MM, DS, CAGS, SKM, AHMK, SG, KAM, RKB, RMS, CACS, and KB wrote the final paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Celso Augusto Guimarães Santos .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mishra, M., Desul, S., Santos, C.A.G. et al. A bibliometric analysis of sustainable development goals (SDGs): a review of progress, challenges, and opportunities. Environ Dev Sustain 26 , 11101–11143 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03225-w

Download citation

Received : 01 September 2022

Accepted : 31 March 2023

Published : 07 May 2023

Issue Date : May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03225-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Systematic literature review
• Bibliometric analysis
• Sustainability
• Sustainable development
• Environment
• Web of science
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Sustainable Development Agenda

17 Goals for People, for Planet

World leaders came together in 2015 and made a historic promise to secure the rights and well-being of everyone on a healthy, thriving planet when they adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) .

The Agenda remains the world’s roadmap for ending poverty, protecting the planet and tackling inequalities. The 17 SDGs, the cornerstone of the Agenda, offer the most practical and effective pathway to tackle the causes of violent conflict, human rights abuses, climate change and environmental degradation and aim to ensure that no one will be left behind. The SDGs reflect an understanding that sustainable development everywhere must integrate economic growth, social well-being and environmental protection.

Keeping the Promise

While a fragile global economy, rising conflicts and the climate emergency have placed the promise of the Goals in peril, we can still turn things around in the remaining seven years. Notably, there has been some SDG success since 2015 with improvements in key areas, including poverty reduction, child mortality, electricity access and the battle against certain diseases.

Countries continue to supercharge efforts to achieve the SDGs. We see this at the annual High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development — the central platform for reviewing progress on the SDGs — where for the last eight years, countries, civil society and businesses have gathered to showcase the bold actions they are taking to achieve the SDGs.

Summit of the Future

Heads of State and Government will gather at UN Headquarters in New York on 22-23 September 2024 to address the critical challenges and gaps in global governance exposed by recent global shocks. This Summit aims to reaffirm commitments to the  Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)  and the United Nations Charter while enhancing cooperation and laying the foundations for a reinvigorated multilateral system. The Summit will result in a negotiated Pact for the Future, an action-oriented document aimed to bolster global cooperation and adapt to current challenges effectively for the benefit of all and for future generations. In addition, the Secretary-General of the United Nations is convening the  Summit of the Future Action Days  on 20 and 21 September 2024 to generate additional opportunities for the engagement of all actors.

SDG Report 2024

The annual SDG reports provide an overview of the world’s implementation efforts to date, highlighting areas of progress and where more action needs to be taken. They are prepared by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, with input from international and regional organizations and the United Nations system of agencies, funds and programmes. Several national statisticians, experts from civil society and academia also contribute to the reports.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is sustainable development?

• Sustainable development has been defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
• Sustainable development calls for concerted efforts towards building an inclusive, sustainable and resilient future for people and planet.
• For sustainable development to be achieved, it is crucial to harmonize three core elements: economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection. These elements are interconnected and all are crucial for the well-being of individuals and societies.
• Eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions is an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. To this end, there must be promotion of sustainable, inclusive and equitable economic growth, creating greater opportunities for all, reducing inequalities, raising basic standards of living, fostering equitable social development and inclusion, and promoting integrated and sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems.

How will the Sustainable Development Goals be implemented?

• The Addis Ababa Action Agenda  that came out of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development provided concrete policies and actions to support the implementation of the new agenda.
• Implementation and success will rely on countries’ own sustainable development policies, plans and programmes, and will be led by countries. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be a compass for aligning countries’ plans with their global commitments.
• Nationally owned and country-led sustainable development strategies will require resource mobilization and financing strategies.
• All stakeholders: governments, civil society, the private sector, and others, are expected to contribute to the realisation of the new agenda.
• A revitalized global partnership at the global level is needed to support national efforts. This is recognized in the 2030 Agenda.
• Multi-stakeholder partnerships have been recognized as an important component of strategies that seek to mobilize all stakeholders around the new agenda.

How will the Sustainable Development Goals be monitored?

• At the global level, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets of the new agenda will be monitored and reviewed using a set of global indicators. The global indicator framework for Sustainable Development Goals was developed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) and agreed upon at the 48 th  session of the United Nations Statistical Commission held in March 2017.
• Governments will also develop their own national indicators to assist in monitoring progress made on the goals and targets.
• Chief statisticians from Member States are working on the identification of the targets with the aim to have 2 indicators for each target. There will be approximately 300 indicators for all the targets. Where the targets cover cross-cutting issues, however, the number of indicators may be reduced.
• The follow-up and review process will be informed by an annual SDG Progress Report to be prepared by the Secretary-General.
• The annual meetings of the High-level Political Forum on sustainable development will play a central role in reviewing progress towards the SDGs at the global level. The means of implementation of the SDGs will be monitored and reviewed as outlined in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the outcome document of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development, to ensure that financial resources are effectively mobilized to support the new sustainable development agenda.

How much will the implementation of this sustainable development agenda cost?

• To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, annual investment requirements across all sectors have been estimated at around $5-7 trillion. Current investment levels are far from the scale needed. With global financial assets estimated at over $200 trillion, financing is available, but most of these resources are not being channeled towards sustainable development at the scale and speed necessary to achieve the SDGs and objectives of the Paris Agreement on climate change.
• Interest and investment in the Sustainable Development Goals are growing and investment in the Goals makes economic sense. Achieving the SDGs could open up US$12 trillion of market opportunities and create 380 million new jobs by 2030.
• The  Global Investors for Sustainable Development Alliance , a UN-supported coalition of 30 business leaders  announced  in October 2019, works to provide decisive leadership in mobilizing resources for sustainable development and identifying incentives for long-term sustainable investments.Net Official Development Assistance totaled $149 billion in 2018, down by 2.7% in real terms from 2017.

How does climate change relate to sustainable development?

• Climate change is already impacting public health, food and water security, migration, peace and security. Climate change, left unchecked, will roll back the development gains we have made over the last decades and will make further gains impossible.
• Investments in sustainable development will help address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building climate resilience.
• Conversely, action on climate change will drive sustainable development.
• Tackling climate change and fostering sustainable development are two mutually reinforcing sides of the same coin; sustainable development cannot be achieved without climate action. Conversely, many of the SDGs are addressing the core drivers of climate change.

Are the Sustainable Development Goals legally binding?

• No. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are not legally binding.
• Nevertheless, countries are expected to take ownership and establish a national framework for achieving the 17 Goals.
• Implementation and success will rely on countries’ own sustainable development policies, plans and programmes.
• Countries have the primary responsibility for follow-up and review, at the national, regional and global levels, with regard to the progress made in implementing the Goals and targets by 2030.
• Actions at the national level to monitor progress will require quality, accessible and timely data collection and regional follow-up and review.

How are the Sustainable Development Goals different from the MDGs?

• The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 169 targets are broader in scope and go further than the MDGs by addressing the root causes of poverty and the universal need for development that works for all people. The goals cover the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection.
• Building on the success and momentum of the MDGs, the new goals cover more ground, with ambitions to address inequalities, economic growth, decent jobs, cities and human settlements, industrialization, oceans, ecosystems, energy, climate change, sustainable consumption and production, peace and justice.
• The new Goals are universal and apply to all countries, whereas the MDGs were intended for action in developing countries only.
• A core feature of the SDGs is their strong focus on means of implementation—the mobilization of financial resources—capacity-building and technology, as well as data and institutions.
• The new Goals recognize that tackling climate change is essential for sustainable development and poverty eradication. SDG 13 aims to promote urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.