155

Analysis of Citizens’ Priorities over Sustainable Development
Goals in Japan: Evidence from a Questionnaire Survey
Masachika SUZUKI1*, Kazuhiro IKEDA2, Takayoshi KUSAGO3,
Keishiro HARA4, Michinori UWASU 4 and Olga TYUNINA5*Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Sophia University
7-1 Kioi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, 102-8554 Tokyo, Japan
2
Faculty of Integrated Arts and Social Sciences, Japan Women’s University, Japan
3
Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University, Japan
4
Center for Environmental Innovation Design for Sustainability, Osaka University, Japan
5
Graduate Program in Sustainability Science, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences,
The University of Tokyo, Japan*email: suzuki@genv.sophia.ac.jp
1

Abstract
Discussions on the Post-2015 Development Agenda preceding the conclusion of 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development in September 2015 have included the integration of Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) into the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in order to cover broader sustainability
issues suitable for both developed and developing countries. While there is growing interest in negotiations
among policymakers surrounding 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, research efforts forunderstanding what citizens in different parts of the world really seek in life have been limited to a few
prominent initiatives such as MY World 2015. Based on an analysis of a survey study (n=1,855), this study
attempted to highlight citizens’ needs and interests in Japan among key MDGs/SDGs under discussion at theinternational level. This study was designed to compare priorities among citizens over 15 years of age inJapan in 25 social areas, including the environment, employment, health and safety as well as more specificissues in the particular area of sustainability. The results of the study indicate that the issues with higher
priority among Japanese citizens differ greatly from those originally perceived and addressed under the
MDGs. There is relatively stronger interest in environmental issues and social resilience than in poverty oraccess to primary health care and safe water drinking in Japan. Regarding environmental issues, anothernoteworthy finding is that there is higher interest in global or regional environmental issues such as climatechange and air pollution than in local environmental issues, such as waste management and soil
contamination, that may impact directly upon people’s daily lives. The results of the study suggest a need for
additional processes and mechanisms to integrate local needs and interests beyond the one-size-fits-all
approach. In the post-2015 period, local and regional goal setting may be required to meet specific local
conditions, while it may also be necessary to introduce monitoring efforts to ensure consistency between
global and local goals in the new period.
Key words: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Japan, Millennium Development Goals(MDGs),
questionnaire survey, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. Introduction
The setting of 2030 Agenda is a result of continuous
negotiations that lasted several years. Rio+20 resulted inongoing debates regarding the establishment of
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This change
from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
to SDGs implies that the new goals will include
global aspects of local environments, addressing the
Global Environmental Research
19/2015: 155–164
printed in Japansignificance of future perspectives for all regions on theplanet. As even state-of-the-art knowledge from scienceand academic research can barely grasp the whole
picture of such development (Kates et al., 2001, Kates,2011) and as sustainability often involves value
judgments, participation of the general public in thegoal-setting process is of critical importance (Schneider& Rist, 2014; Wiek et al., 2011). Nevertheless, research
initiatives for understanding priorities of the general©2015 AIRIES156

M. SUZUKI et al.

public among various goals have been limited to a few
studies such as the MY World 2015 survey (www.
myworld2015.org/ ) conducted by the United Nations(UN). In addition, in the original version of the MDGs,
target countries were limited to developing countries,
while there were lively debates about participation ofdeveloped countries in the Post-2015 Development
Agenda (Brito, 2012; Glaser, 2012; Horner, 2012; Sachs,2012). There is a strong necessity, therefore, for research
addressing MDG/ SDG issues that concern citizens indeveloped countries, including Japan.

2. Background
2.1 From the MDGs to the Post-2015 Development
AgendaThe MDGs were adopted in 2000 at the Millennium
Summit under the strong leadership of Kofi Annan,
Secretary-General of the UN at the time. Eight goals andtwenty-one targets were set with the central goal of“eradicate[ing] extreme hunger and poverty.” The date
for achieving these goals and targets was set for the endof 2015. As the deadline has approached, international
negotiations toward establishment of the Post-2015
Development Agenda have resulted in introducing of2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In 2012
Rio+20 (the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development) proposed establishing SDGs with astronger focus on environmental issues. 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development is the result of international
debates towards integrating SDGs into the Post-2015
Development Agenda.
2.2 Criticism of the MDGs
There is a general understanding that the MDGs set
in 2000 are highly valued for helping to reduce poverty
and hunger. There have been some critical reflections onthem as well, however. Firstly, although the goals are
regarded as simply worded and easy to understand(Aryeetey et al., 2012; Attaran, 2005; Elliott, 2005;
Fukuda-Parr & Greenstein, 2010; Higgins, 2013; Hulme& Fukuda-Parr, 2009; Langford, 2010; Toulmin &Gueye, 2003), there is criticism that setting goals in a“one-size-fits-all” format does not take into account the
specific characteristics and circumstances of eachcountry and region (Gauri, 2012; Gough & McGregor,
2004; Grown, 2005; Handoussa, 2009; Heeks, 2005;
Miranda & Patel, 2005; Vandemoortele, 2012). There
are opinions that along with setting universal goals, itwould be necessary to provide explanations of thesegoals in consideration of local and regional contexts(Fukuda-Parr et al., 2014; Glaser, 2012; Gore, 2004;
Grown, 2005; Melamed & Bergh, 2014; Nayyar, 2011;
Nhema, 2010; Vandemoortele, 2005). In this regard, it isthought that the general public’s priorities for MDGs
would be connected with income, living environment,
age and other specific attributes of individuals. Some arealso of the strong opinion that it will be necessary to set
targets reflecting these specific attributes side by sidewith the universal goals (Kanie et al., 2014; Nayyar,
2011; Nhema, 2010; Slay et al., 2013).
Another issue relating to the MDGs is that as thecentral goal was “eradicating extreme hunger andpoverty,” the main focus has been placed on developing
countries. There are on-going debates that the post-2015
Development Agenda should focus more on developed
countries as well (Evans & Steven, 2012; Jeremic &Sachs, 2014; Kanie et al., 2014; Lingan et al., 2012;
Manning et al., 2013). Therefore, a better understanding
is required about what concerns citizens of developed
countries, including Japan, in order to incorporate issues
that the MDGs have not previously addressed in the
Post-2015 Development Agenda.

2.3 MY World 2015 Survey
MY World 2015 primarily consists of an online
survey (www.myworld2015.org/ ) that examines theconcerns of the general public about the post-2015
Development Agenda. The survey asks individuals tovote for issues that are most important to them among
16 suggested variants. According to the website, morethan 7 million people have participated in the survey asof February 2015. Among the 16 suggested issues, thehighest priority has been given to “good education” and“better healthcare” and the lowest to “action on climatechange” and “phone and Internet access.” Although new
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has been
finally introduced, research initiatives for understanding
concerns and interests among the general public havebeen limited to the MY World 2015 survey.

3. Research Design
The present study used a questionnaire survey(n=1,855) to ask the general public in Japan about theirindividual concerns and interests among 25 MDGs/
SDGs-related issues. The survey was conducted over theInternet in February 2014. Specific attributes of eachindividual (gender, education level, income, marital
status, number of children, living conditions and level ofhappiness) were examined to understand how individual
attributes or circumstances were associated with thelevel of concern and interest in a specific MDG/SDG
goal or issue.
The goals and issues used in the questionnaire survey
were selected from 1) the MDGs, 2) reports of the OpenWorking Group established for preparing proposals for
SDGs, 3) the report of the High-Level Panel submitted
to the UN Secretary-General in the process ofdeveloping of the post-2015 MDGs, 4) the Sustainable
Development Solutions Network (SDSN) Report on the
post-2015 agenda, and 5) topics included in the Better
Life Index Survey by the OECD. In particular, thesurvey adopts some of the goals and issues addressed in
the Better Life Index Survey in order to incorporate
concerns among citizens in developed countries.
The next section of this paper presents the public
perception of the goals and issues within three separate

157

Analysis of Citizens’ Priorities over Sustainable Development Goals in Japan

categories including 1) poverty, 2) health and 3) theenvironment. The questionnaire asked individuals about
their first, second and third priority among the issues byposing the question, “What are the most importantenvironmental (or poverty or health) issues for you? Listin sequence the three most important issues.” While thispaper addresses the goals and issues within the three
separate categories—poverty, health and environmental
issues— the survey itself addressed other goals andissues related to, for example, education and food.
In addition to the goals and issues in the three
separate categories, Section 5 of this paper presents theresults of a survey eliciting issues with high priorities
across the different categories. The results of the survey
are correlated with specific attributes of individuals togain a better understanding of the priorities of issues
among different individuals.

malnutrition and obesity), eliminating poverty is ahigher priority in developing countries.
The survey undertaken in the present study represents
the situation in Japan as a developed country and theresults confirm that poverty is not a high priority among
respondents in Japan. In the survey the respondents wereasked what the most important poverty issues were forthem. Seven multiple choice options were provided:“eliminating starvation,” “providing nutritional foods
necessary for growth and keeping healthy,” “greatly
improving the lives of people living in slums,” “ensuring
good employment,” “ensuring income above a certain
level,” “providing necessary social security” and“minimizing the harm caused by disasters or conflicts.”
As shown in Fig. 1, “providing nutritional foods
necessary for growth and keeping healthy” placed fifthand “eliminating starvation,” sixth. The total percentagesof respondents selecting “providing nutritional foods
necessary for growth and keeping healthy” and“eliminating starvation” as their 1st to 3rd choices were33.5% and 28.5%, respectively.
The main concerns among poverty-related issues
were “providing necessary social security” (58.2% ),“ensuring income above a certain level” (57.1% ) and“ensuring good employment” (52.6% ). These results
indicate that what is recognized as poverty and what is
considered to be connected to poverty may differ among
different countries. This supports the argument that thetargets and goals should be localized to match uniquesituations in each country or society.

4. Results
4.1 Poverty
The first goal of the MDGs, “to eradicate extreme
hunger and poverty,” expresses the spirit of the MDGs,
recognizing the negative influences of hunger andpoverty on development and economic activity. This
spirit continues to be observed in the discussions toestablish SDGs. At present, the first and the second
goals of the SDGs are to eradicate poverty in all its
forms, ending hunger everywhere on the planet, and toachieve food security and improved nutrition. It is
presumed that while serious poverty issues do exist as asocial problem among developed countries (for example,

Question: What are the most important poverty issues for you? List in sequence the threemost important issues.
1st place
2nd place0%

Nothing in particular of the above
Minimizing the harm (destruction and deaths) caused bydisasters or conflicts

20%
5.7%

8.2%

10.2%

15.7%

Ensuring income above a certain level

22.2%

1.4% 3% 4.8%

Providing nutritional foods necessary for growth andkeeping healthy

7.2%

12.7%

20.3%

18%

19.6%

Greatly improving the lives of people living in slums

60%

12.3%

26.6%

Ensuring good employment

Eliminating starvation

40%

13.5%

11.1%

Providing necessary social security

3rd place

16.7%

12.8%

13.5%

8.9%

6.9%

Fig.1 Distribution of public concerns over poverty-related issues (n=1,855).

12.5%

16.3%

158

M. SUZUKI et al.

rate of expecting mothers,” 17th (2.2%), and “preventing
the spread of HIV and AIDS and ensuring a chance for
medical treatment,” 15th (3.6%). Instead, the majority of
respondents prioritized “reducing psychological stress”(58.2% ) and “exercising appropriately” (49.5% ). The
results may be representative of characteristics oflifestyles in a developed country such as Japan that leadto a lack of exercise and frequent stress.
Some MDG-related issues are of concern in Japan
although they lack high priority. For example, in the caseof poverty issues, choices such as “providing nutritional
foods necessary for growth and keeping healthy” and“eliminating starvation” received high levels of support

4.2 HealthCompared to the MDGs health related goals,
including to “reduce child mortality” (Goal 4), “improvematernal health” (Goal 5) and “combat HIV/ AIDS,
malaria and other diseases” (Goal 6), the number ofsuggested options in our survey was relatively large (20options for multiple selections). According to the resultsof the survey (Fig. 2), Concern among Japanese citizens
toward the health issues addressed by the MDGs was
extremely low. The results show that “reducing the
mortality rate of children under five years of age” wasranked 14th out of 20 (5.0%), “reducing the mortality

Question: What are the most important health issues for you? List in sequence the threemost important issues.
1st place
2nd place0%

Nothing in particular of the above20%

3.7% 5.2%

Exercising approprietly

17.6%

26.7%

Avoiding long working hours

5.3%

7%

7.1%

Reducing obesity rates

6%

7.1%

5.3%

Reducing cigarette smoking rates

40%

12.6%
17.5%

3% 3% 3.3%
1.9%

Lengthening the avarege life-span or maintaining it longer

2.1%

2.7%

Popularizing immunization programs to prevent
infectious diseases

1.6%

2.4%
2.3%

Spreading knowledge about behaviors that impact health(diet, exercise, excessive intake of tobacco or alcohol, etc.)

4%

5.6%

6.7%

Ensuring access to primary health care
(initial health examination for diagnosing of diseases)

3.7% 4.7% 5.1%

Encouraging voluntary family planning(controlling the number of children) through education

0.6%
0.2%
0.9%

Ensuring food with high nutritional value 1.9% 3.6% 3.8%
Reducing toxic substances atlevels harmful to humans

5.1%

7.1%

8.8%

Ensuring basic medicines 1.1% 2.7% 3.9%
Ensuring safe drinking water and the minimum
necessary sanitation
Reducing tuberculosis and malarial fever
Ensuring a chance for providing of
reproductive health insurance

11.3%

9.2%

7.8%

0.3%
0.5%
0.6%
1%
0.6% 1.5%

1.1%
Preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS
and ensuring chances for treatment 1.1% 1.4%
1.1%

Reducing the mortality rate of expecting mothers 0.7% 0.4%
Reducing the mortality rate of children under 5 years of age

60%

10.2%

19.4%

Reducing psychological stress

3rd place

1.5%
1.8% 1.7%

Fig.2 Distribution of public concern over health-related issues (n=1,855).

13.9%

159

Analysis of Citizens’ Priorities over Sustainable Development Goals in Japan

from respondents. In the case of health issues, “ensuring
safe drinking water and minimum necessary sanitation”
and “reducing toxic substances that are at harmful levels”
received some attention among citizens in Japan.

ranked second (43.5%). “Forest degradation” (24.2%),“water pollution” (23.5%) and “ozone layer depletion”(22.0%) followed. It is interesting that while the effectsof air pollution and global warming may be consideredrelatively insignificant in Japan compared to in developing
countries, both issues are of high concern to the Japanesepublic. In fact, these two issues elicited wider concern
than issues directly linked to people’s everyday life suchas noise pollution, waste, soil contamination, land
subsidence, the heat island phenomenon and violation of
the right to sunlight.

4.3 Environment
The survey results indicate that there may be sharp
differences in the types of concerns about environmental
issues between developing and developed countries.
According to the results (Fig. 3), among 20 choices, “airpollution” ranked first (44.5% ) and “global warming”

Question: What are the most important environmental issues for you? List in sequence thethree most important issues.
1st place
2nd place0%

Nothing in particular of the above

20%
4.6%

6.1%

Violations of the right to sunlight 1.1% 1.6%
The heat island phenomenon

8.6%

1.2%

4.9%

Land subsidence(due to increased extraction of underground water)

40%

6.1%

0.9%

5.3%

0.3%
0.8%

Soil contamination 1.5% 2.9% 4%
Waste problems

5.4%

7.1%

9.4%

Noise pollution 3.1% 2.3% 2.7%
Effective use of resources, e.g. recycling

6.1%

Desertification 1.1%
Water pollution
Aerosols (particulate substances)in the atmosphere
Forest degradation
Increased use of river water
Potassium circulation problems

4.4%

2.3%

5.9%

2.4%

6.9%

8.4%

8.2%

8.6%

9.3%

6.7%

3.2% 2.5% 2.5%
6.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.8%
0.1%

0.4%
0.2%

Nitrogen circulation problems

0.5%
0.3%
0.3%

Oceanic acidification

0.9%
1.3%
0.9%

Depletion of the ozone layer

6.5%

8.7%

Chemical contamination

6.4%

7.1%

Air pollution

16.9%

6.7%
16.1%

11.5%

Loss of biodiversity 1.3% 2.8% 1.7%
Global warming

22.8%

11.1%

Fig.3 Distribution of public concern over environmental issues (n=1,855).

9.6%

3rd place

160

M. SUZUKI et al.

The results suggest that there are two broad types ofissues. One type of issue is associated with direct impacts
on one’s own life such as social security (in the healthcategory) and waste problems and soil contamination (inthe environmental area). The second type of issues islinked to perceived risks over a mid- to long-term spansuch as global warming in the environmental area. Resultsfrom the MY World 2015 survey show that “action on
climate change” is of lowest concern among respondents.
By contrast, the results of the present survey in Japandemonstrate that mid-to long-term issues such as global
warming are of high concern.

5. Understanding Issues with Higher Priorities
across Different MDG/SDG-related Categories
In order to understand issues with higher priorities
across different categories, this section addresses resultsof three additional analyses. Section 5.1 highlights
issues that require improvement in individuals’ present
life in Japan. Section 5.2 examines the connections
between respondents’ choices of issues and their specificindividual attributes to get a better understanding of thepriorities of issues among different individuals. While
Section 5.1 focuses on the sense of what is missing fromthe respondents’ present lives, Section 5.3 looks into the
future perspectives among individuals on different
MDG/SDG-related issues.

5.1 Issues that Require Improvement in Life
To understand what issues individuals feel unsatisfied
about in their current life and in what areas they feel theyneed improvement in life, the survey asked respondents,“What issues in your life require improvement? List in
sequence the five most important problems.” For thisquestion, respondents had 25 answer options. Table 1
shows the results.
Among those related to financial aspects and family
budgeting were “promoting good jobs” (33.3% ) and“continuing economic growth” (27.1% ). Some of thehighest rated aspects were “promoting the introductionof sustainable energy” (29.5% ), followed by “using
limited resources effectively” (26.9% ), “reducing air
pollution” (25.1%) and “reducing greenhouse gases toprevent global warming” (24.2%), demonstrating higher
levels of concern toward environmental issues. Social
resilience issues were also reflected in the respondents’answers. Issues related to personal safety and security,
such as “constructing a society that protects people fromdisasters” (28.0% ) and “constructing a society where
people can live safely with minimal crime and violence”(27.0%) were of high concern.
On the other hand, their level of concern about issues
included among the existing MDGs was not high.
“Eliminating extreme poverty” was ranked 12th (12.2%),“enabling everyone to get primary health care,” 15th
(11.5%); “ensuring access to safe drinking water,” 17th
(9.2%); and “preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS andreducing it,” 24th (4.6%). These results show that it isTable 1 Distribution of public concern over issues that need solving
in current life (n=1,855).
Number of replies
N
Percentage

Percentage
of cases

Q37a
Promoting good jobs

618

7.8%

33.3%

Promoting the introduction of sustainableenergy (e.g., renewable energy)

547

6.9%

29.5%

Constructing a society that protects people
from disaster

519

6.6%

28.0%

Continuing economic growth

502

6.4%

27.1%

Constructing a society where people canlive safely with minimum crime andviolence

501

6.4%

27.0%

Using limited resources effectively

499

6.3%

26.9%

Reducing air pollution

466

5.9%

25.1%

Reducing greenhouse gases to prevent
increases in globing warming rate

448

5.7%

24.2%

Reducing graft and corruption of public
officials

414

5.3%

22.3%

Reducing the emissions of toxic
substances

361

4.6%

19.5%

Practicing sustainable farming and fishing

263

3.3%

14.2%

Eliminating extreme poverty

227

2.9%

12.2%

Eliminating gender discrimination andbuilding a society with equality

222

2.8%

12.0%

Eliminating discrimination by gender,
religion, nationality and social status

219

2.8%

11.8%

Enabling everyone to get primary health
care

214

2.7%

11.5%

Increasing agricultural productivity in asustainable manner

185

2.3%

10.0%

Ensuring access to safe drinking water

171

2.2%

9.2%

Promoting infrastructure improvements(e.g., roads, telecommunications)

166

2.1%

8.9%

Providing access to foods that are safe andhave a high nutritional value

160

2.0%

8.6%

Ensuring good sanitary conditions at
home, school and work

147

1.9%

7.9%

Promoting aid to poor countries

145

1.8%

7.8%

Conserving biodiversity

137

1.7%

7.4%

Enabling all children to receive primaryeducation

86

1.1%

4.6%

Preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS
and reducing their incidence

85

1.1%

4.6%

Reducing child mortality rates

80

1.0%

4.3%

Nothing in particular of the above

497

6.3%

26.8%

Total

7879

100.0%

424.7%

important to incorporate issues central to developed
countries in the process of rearranging the existing MDGs
into the SDGs. At the same time, the essential task is how
to associate the issues affecting developing countries withthe concerns of people in developed countries.

5.2 Connections with Specific Attributes of IndividualsWith the purpose of understanding the correlation
between choices of issues and specific personal

161

Analysis of Citizens’ Priorities over Sustainable Development Goals in Japan

attributes, this study conducted a logistic regression
analysis for the ten top-ranked issues to the question“What are issues in your life that require improvement?”
The results are summarized in Table 2.
The results indicate that the model shows nostatistical significance for the four following options:disaster prevention measures, economic growth, crime
reduction and corruption. In other words, these four
issues were of concern to all respondents regardless of
individual attributes. Therefore, these issues can be
widely recognized as fundamental to society’s effective
operation or as social capital in a broad sense, rather
than issues reflecting the views of individuals based on
certain specific attributes.
In contrast, statistical significance was demonstrated
for the connection of concerns about air pollution to

respondents’ lives in large cities and that of concerns
about the use of resources, global warming and toxic
substances to the respondents’ level of happiness (concerns
about toxic substances also appear related to the age andsex of the respondents). This indicates that these issues areof particularly high concern to respondents with certain
specific attributes. For example, promotion of employment
was found to be important to people with lower incomes
and lower levels of happiness. This therefore demonstrates
that employment is particularly important to individuals
who may face poverty in their lives.
The results also suggest that among people who arein favor of introducing renewable energy, many arehighly educated and relatively older. This can beinterpreted as being connected with one’s knowledge
and position in society. Moreover, another important

Table 2 Individual attributes associated with the choices of issues: results of a logistic regression analysis.

B

Introducing
renewableenergyB

Measuresagainstdisasters
B‒ .031.143 **.104 *

Promotinggood jobs

Age

B

B

B

B

B

B

Reducing
toxic
substancesB‒ .010

.030

.042

.006

.088

.056

.126 *.091.091‒ .081‒ .237‒ .174.029‒ .463 **.420 ***

.134

.121

.030

.137

‒ .046.215

Economic
growthCrime
control

Effective useof resourcesAir
pollution

Globalwarming

Reducing
corruption

Male

.038

.050

‒ .297 *Junior college/University.090.390 **.221‒ .228 **.073‒ .026‒ .076‒ .130.003‒ .015.073‒ .151‒ .019.220‒ .263.124.030‒ .317‒ .134‒ .153‒ .126‒ .145.180

IncomeSingle (not married)
Living with children

.048

.008

.150

.107

‒ .062.101.110‒ .015‒ .251.169

Living in big cities‒ .060‒ .036

.094

.030

.180

‒ .089.275 *.162‒ .137.104

Level of happiness‒ .111 ***.000‒ .019‒ .027‒ .023.522‒ 1.768 ***‒ 1.320 ***‒ .968 **‒ .791 *Constant
R2χ2 (df=8).068 *‒ 1.604.051.062 *‒ .031‒ 1.523 ***‒ 2.095 ***‒ .634.071 *‒ 2.468

.038

.035

.012

.013

.010

.014

.017

.018

.011

.024

44.620 ***40.542 ***13.40814.87711.32915.891 *18.423 *19.971 *12.19324.588 **

1617

1617

1617

1617

1617

1617

1617

1617

1617

1617

N

*** p<.0001, ** p<.001, * p<.005

45%
40%
35%
30%
25%

Promoting good jobs

20%

Economic growth15%

Air pollution

10%

Global warming

5%

Reducing toxic substances0%(n=554)(n=647)(n=654)

0～5

6～7

8～10

Low level of happiness

Middle level ofhappiness

High level of happinessFig.4 Influence of the level of happiness on concerns over problems that need solving in current life (n=1,855).

162

M. SUZUKI et al.

Table 3 Distribution of public concern about important issues infuture life (n=1,855).
Number of replies
N
Percentage

Percentage
of cases

Q36a
Constructing a society where people canlive safely with minimum crime and violence

797

9.0%

43.0%

Using limited resources effectively

595

6.7%

32.1%

Constructing a society that protects people
from disaster

571

6.4%

30.8%

Promoting the introduction of sustainableenergy (e.g., renewable energy)

529

6.0%

28.5%

Promoting good jobs

521

5.9%

28.1%

Continuing economic growth

516

5.8%

27.8%

Reducing air pollution

516

5.8%

27.8%

Ensuring access to safe drinking water

496

5.6%

26.7%

Reducing greenhouse gases to prevent
increases in globing warming rate

440

5.0%

23.7%

Enabling everyone to get primary health
care

363

4.1%

19.6%

Ensuring good sanitary conditions at
home, school and work

353

4.0%

19.0%

Reducing the emissions of toxic substances

344

3.9%

18.5%

Reducing graft and corruption of public
officials

328

3.7%

17.7%

Practicing sustainable farming and fishing

299

3.4%

16.1%

Providing access to foods that are safe andhave a high nutritional value

292

3.3%

15.7%

Eliminating extreme poverty

267

3.0%

14.4%

Increasing agricultural productivity in asustainable manner

243

2.7%

13.1%

Enabling all children to receive primaryeducation

227

2.6%

12.2%

Eliminating discrimination by gender,
religion, nationality and social status

225

2.5%

12.1%

Eliminating gender discrimination andbuilding a society with equality

202

2.3%

10.9%

Promoting infrastructure improvements(e.g., roads, telecommunications)

139

1.6%

7.5%

Reducing child mortality rates

126

1.4%

6.8%

Conserving biodiversity

117

1.3%

6.3%

Preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS
and reducing their incidence

93

1.0%

5.0%

Promoting aid to poor countries

91

1.0%

4.9%

Nothing in particular of the above

182

2.1%

9.8%

Total

8872

100.0%

478.3%

finding was that with the exception of the introductionof renewable energy, all three environmental issues
demonstrated a positive relationship to the respondent’s
level of happiness. Figure 4 illustrates how the level ofconcern about the five issues (three environmental
issues, economic growth and promotion of employment)changed according to level of happiness.
As mentioned above, economic growth is a basis forsocial activity. It is recognized as important regardlessof the level of happiness of the respondent. On the other
hand, the opposite trend is seen between employment
promotion and environmental issues with respect to thelevel of happiness: respondents with lower levels ofhappiness favoured promoting employment while thosewith higher levels of happiness were more concernedwith measures for preventing environmental problems.

5.3 Important Issues for the Future
The analysis in Section 5.1 was based on responses
to the question, “What issues in your current life need
improvement? ” The survey also asked respondents,“What will be the most important issues for you in yourfuture life?” In the former question, the emphasis wasplaced on the sense of something missing from therespondent’s present life. The latter question related to
the respondent’s future perspective. Table 3 lists theresults.
As shown in Table 3, “constructing a society where
people can live safely with minimum crime andviolence” was ranked first (43.0% ). Overall, issues
related to safety and security ranked highly. In addition,“ensuring access to safe drinking water” (26.7% ) and“enabling everyone to get primary health care” (19.6%)
also ranked highly, while these choices were not ofmuch concern when the question was asked about the
respondent’s present life. Issues of relatively highconcern to developing countries indicate that responses
may reflect not only the person’s current condition but
also prospects for the future. Answer choices may also
reflect the person’s normative values as to the futurestate of society and the direction of its development for
the future.

6. Concluding Remarks
The results of the study indicate that issues rated ofhigh concern by Japanese citizens differ greatly fromthose originally perceived and addressed under the
MDGs. The results of this study suggest a need for
additional processes and mechanisms to integrate local
needs and interests beyond the one-size-fits-all approach.
As mentioned in paragraph 55 of “Transforming ourworld: the Agenda for Sustainable Development”
resolution, local and regional goal setting may berequired for meeting specific local conditions, while
introduction of monitoring efforts to ensure consistency
between global and local goals may also be needed in
the new period.
The results of this study indicate two areas for further
research. The first area is to understand why the issuesof higher priority among Japanese citizen differ sostrongly from the issues originally addressed under the
MDGs. As discussed in this paper, the reasons may belinked to the economic, social and cultural backgroundof the country. The second area is to design local
policies and institutions that match the unique local
needs for a sustainable development agenda in Japan,
some of which are addressed in this paper. With respect
to this, the universal goals agreed to at the UN levelmust be translated into local targets that match the needsof local citizens in Japan.

Analysis of Citizens’ Priorities over Sustainable Development Goals in JapanNote
All the authors have contributed equally to this paper.
The research was conducted with financial support fromthe Global Environmental Research Fund of Ministry of
the Environment Japan (S-11).

References
Aryeetey, E., D. Esty, E. Feulner, T. Geiger, D. Kaufmann, A.R.
Kraemer, M. Suzman et al. (2012) Getting to Zero: Finishing
the Job the MDGs Started. Retrieved from<http://johnmcarthur.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Gettingto-Zero-Final-Draft-PDF.pdf>
Attaran, A. (2005) An immeasurable crisis? A criticism of themillennium development goals and why they cannot bemeasured. PLoS Medicine, 2(10): 955 – 961.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020318
Brito, L. (2012) Science for sustainable development. Science,
336: 1396 – 1398.
Elliott, D. (2005) Employment, Income and the MDGs − Critical
Linkages and Guiding Actions. Briefing Paper, 1 – 8.
Evans, A. and D. Steven (2012) Sustainable Development Goals −a useful outcome from Rio + 20 ? New York: Center on
International Cooperation.
Fukuda-Parr, S. and J.P. Greenstein (2010) How should MDG
implementation be measured: faster progress or meetingtargets? (No. No 63). SSRN Electronic Journal, 1 – 24.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.2211599
Fukuda-Parr, S., A.E. Yamin and J. Greenstein (2014) The powerof numbers: A critical review of millennium development goaltargets for human development and human rights. Journal of
Human Development and Capabilities, 15(2-3): 105 – 117.
doi:10.1080/19452829.2013.864622
Gauri, V. (2012) MDGs That Nudge. The Millennium Development
Goals, Popular Mobilization, and the Post-2015 Development
Framework. Policy Research Working Paper 6282. The WorldBank Development Research Group Human Development andPublic Services Team November 2012. (No. No 6282), 1 – 20.
<http://www.saarcstat.org/sites/default/files/knowledgebase/Downloads_from_International_sites/Developmental_Indicators/
Post%20Develpment%20framework.pdf>
Glaser, G. (2012) Base sustainable development goals on science.
Nature, 67: 35.
Gore, C. (2004) MDGs and PRSPs: Are poor countries enmeshedin a global-local double bind? Global Social Policy, 4(3):277 – 283.
doi:10.1177/146801810400400302
Gough, I. and J.A. McGregor (2004) Global social policy forum:
Human well-being: communicating between the universal andthe local: Guest editors’ introduction. Global Social Policy,
4(3): 275 – 276.
doi:10.1177/1468018104047483
Grown, C. (2005) Answering the skeptics: achieving genderequality and the Millennium Development Goals 1. Development,
48(3): 82 – 86.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100170
Handoussa, H. (2009) Lessons from the MDGs in Africa. Journal
Compilation. African Development Bank, 213 – 223.
Heeks, R. (2005) ICTs and the MDGs: On the wrong track?
Information and Development, 3(3).
Higgins, K. (2013) Reflecting on the MDGs and Making Sense of
the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Research Report. The
North-South Institute, 1 – 40.
<http://www.nsi-ins.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2013-Post2015. pdf>
Horner, C.C. (2012) An assessment of the June 2012 Rio+20 UN

163

conference on sustainable development. Engage, 13(1): 59 – 63.
Hulme, D. and S. Fukuda-Parr (2009) International Norm
Dynamics and “the End of Poverty”: Understanding theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs). BWPI Working Paper
No. 96, (Manchester: BWPI, University of Manchester) (No.
No 96), 1 – 39.
<http://www.bwpi.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/publications/working_papers/bwpi-wp-9609.pdf>
Jeremic, V. and J.D. Sachs (2014) The United Nations in the Ageof Sustainable Development. The Economic and Social Review,45(2): 161 – 188.
Kanie, N., N. Abe, M. Iguchi, J. Yang, N. Kabiri, Y. Kitamura, Y.
Hayakawa et al. (2014) Integration and diffusion in Sustainable
Development Goals: learning from the past, looking into the
future. Sustainability, 6(4): 1761 – 1775.
doi:10.3390/su6041761
Kates, R. et al. (2001) Sustainability science, Science, 292 (5517):
641 – 64.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1115521109
Kates R. (2011) What kind of a science is sustainability science?,
PNAS, 108 (49): 19449 – 19450.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1116097108
Langford, M. (2010) A poverty of rights: six ways to fix the
MDGs. IDS Bulletin, 41(1): 83 – 91.
doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436. 2010.00108.x
Lingan, J., J. Cornforth and R. Pollard (2012) Sustainable
Development Goals: Building The Foundations For An Inclusive
Process. Report by Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Futurefor BOND-DEG., 1 – 13.
<http://www.stakeholderforum.org/index.php/our-publications-sp1224407103/reports-in-our-publications/568-sustainable-developmentgoals-building-the-foundations-fo-an-inclusive-process>
Manning, R., S.C. Harland and L. Haddad (2013) Whose goals
count? Lessons for setting the next development goals. IDS
Bulletin, 44(5-6): 1 – 9.
doi:10.1111/1759-5436.12049
Melamed, C. and G. Bergh (2014) Sustainable Development Goals
and Targets: Options for Differentiating between Countries,
London. Overseas Development Institute Report, 1 – 10.
<http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publicationsopinion-files/9047.pdf>
Miranda, J.J. and V. Patel (2005) Achieving the Millennium
Development Goals: does mental health play a role? PLoS
Medicine, 2(10): 962 – 965.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020291
Nayyar, D. (2011) The MDGs beyond 2015. Research Papers 38.
South Centre. (No. No 38), 1 – 25.
<http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/deepak_nayyar_Aug.pdf>
Nhema, A.G. (2010) An MDG-plus Agenda for Africa. IDS
Bulletin, 41(1): 127 – 128.
doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2010.00114.x
Sachs, J.D. (2012) From millennium development goals to
Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet, 379: 2206 – 2211.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60685-0
Schneider, F. and S. Rist (2014) Envisioning sustainable water
futures in a transdisciplinary learning process: combining
normative, explorative, and participatory scenario approaches,
Sustainability Science, 9: 463 – 481.
Slay, B., E. Danilova-Cross and T. Altangerel (2013) Reflection
on the MDGs, and the post-2015 Agenda, from Europe andCentral Asia. Working Paper No. 7. UNDP. (No. No 7), New
York, 1 – 15.
<http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/
GMC% 20Working% 20Papers/ WP7_ Europe& CentralAsia_
web.pdf>
Toulmin, C. and B. Gueye (2003) How will West African countries
meet the MDGs? In : D. Satterthwaite ed., The Millennium
Development Goals and Local Processes. Hitting the Target orMissing the Point? IIED, 107 – 134.

164

M. SUZUKI et al.

< https: / / www.unngls.org/ orf/ MDG-booklet% 20-% 20The% 20
MDG%20and%20local%20processes.pdf>
Vandemoortele, J. (2005) Ambition is golden: meeting the MDGs.
Development, 48(1): 5 – 11.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100100
Vandemoortele, J. (2012) Advancing the UN Development Agenda
Post-2015 : Some Practical Suggestions. Report prepared for
the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 1 – 22.
< http: / / www.un.org/ en/ development/ desa/ policy/ untaskteam_undf/desa_ post2015paper_ jv.pdf>
Wiek, A., L. Withycombe and C.L. Redman (2011) Key competencies
in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program
development. Sustainability Science, 6: 203 – 218.

Masachika SUZUKI
Dr. Masachika SUZUKI is an associate professor
at the Graduate School of Global Environmental
Studies at Sophia University. Prior to this, he wasan associate professor at Kansai University andan assistant professor and associate dean at theGraduate School of International Management,International University of Japan. His areas ofresearch include 1) corporate environmental and energy strategies,2) technology transfer and innovation in clean energy, 3) effectiveness of
economic policy instruments and 4) environmental and social indicatorsfor sustainable development. His previous positions include senior analyst
at Mitsubishi Securities in Tokyo and Innovest Strategic Value Advisors
in New York as well as consultant positions at the UN headquarters in
New York and the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change) in Bonn. He has a Ph.D. from Erasmus University
Rotterdam in the Netherlands and M.A.s from both Columbia University
in the US and Keio University in Japan.

Kazuhiro IKEDA
Kazuhiro IKEDA is an associate professor in the
Faculty of Integrated Arts and Social Sciences at
Japan Women’s University. His main researchinterest is in sociological theory, building on
global environmental issues. His work takes a
special view of the functions and relations
between political decision- making processes,
diverse feasible policy options, and the attitudes of civil societies. He is
also studying theories of intergenerational environmental justice undercircumstances of reflexive ecological modernization.

Takayoshi KUSAGO
Takayoshi KUSAGO is a professor in the Facultyof Sociology at Kansai University, Osaka. He
received his M.A. in Development Economics
from Stanford University and his Ph.D. indevelopment studies from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. He worked for the WorldBank as an economist and for the United
Nations Development Programme as a senior policy advisor on poverty
reduction for Asia and the Pacific island states. He has published research
papers on sustainable community development and societal well-being inacademic journals including World Development and Social Indicators
Research. He co- authored a Japanese book, GNH (Gross National
Happiness) in 2011.

Keishiro HARA
Keishiro HARA is an associate professor at theCenter for Environmental Innovation Design for
Sustainability at Osaka University. He specializes
in sustainability science and environmental
management, both in a local and global context.
Specifically, he has worked on various topics,
including water resources management, waste
management, urban environmental management and methodologies
related to sustainability science. Most recently, he has been involved in a
new research project “Future Design” whose basic concept is to design adesirable future through participatory deliberation processes between
present generations and virtual future generations. He received his Ph.D.
in Environmental Studies from the University of Tokyo.

Michinori UWASU
Michinori UWASU is an associate professor ofEnvironmental Economics at Osaka University.
He received his Ph.D. in Applied Economics witha focus on Environmental and Development
Economics in 2008. His research interests
include quantitative sustainability assessment,rural development and food security in Asia,and collective decision making processes in behavioral economics.

Olga TYUNINA
Olga TYUNINA obtained her M.A. degree in
Global Environmental Studies at Sophia
University in Tokyo, Japan. Originally from
Russia and residing in Japan, for her M.A. degree
Olga TYUNINA engaged in comparative researchof environmental social movements and theirinfluence on the shaping of environmental
policy in both countries. Currently as a Ph.D. student at the University ofTokyo Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, Graduate Program in
Sustainability Science, she is involved in various projects in the emerging
field of sustainability. Her current research focuses on agriculture in
Japan, analyzing it through the lens of sustainable development.

(Received 26 May 2015, Accepted 6 November 2015)