131

Evaluating Interlinkages between Human Well-being andPlanetary Well-being in Proposals for the
Sustainable Development Goals
Norichika KANIE1,4*, Aya NAITO2, Mari KOSAKA1, Yuko MOTOKI2,
Masahiko IGUCHI3 and Kazuhiko TAKEMOTO4
Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University, Japan
5322 Endo, Fujisawa-shi, Kanagawa 252-0882, Japan
2
Environment and Energy Division 1, Mizuho Information & Research Institute, Inc., Japan3
Department of International Relations, Kyoto Sangyo University, Japan
4
United Nations University, Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, Japan*e-mail:kanie@sfc.keio.ac.jp
1

Abstract
Sustainable development requires environmental, social and economic dimensions to be addressed
simultaneously and in an integrated manner. This paper evaluates the degree of balance between these three
dimensions in ten major proposals for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The proposals
were chosen for detailed review and evaluated in terms of coverage and interlinkages between goals, using amethodology that evaluated the frequency of keyword use associated with each issue area. Our analysis
found that none of the proposals was completely comprehensive, that they tended to emphasize issues related
to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), rather than planetary well-being and other issues, and that
the Open Working Group outcome was comparatively well balanced. In addition, the inter-governmental
proposals tended to cover a broader range of issues than research-led ones. This is because discussions in aninternational setting bring together views from multiple governments, which can ultimately lead to wider
coverage of the issues, although this does not guarantee that they will be addressed in an integrated manner.
As the SDGs are expected to be formulated at the national level, the challenge is to fully integrate the three
dimensions of sustainable development so as to devise actions on the SDGs appropriately in order to achieve
the transformation toward sustainability.
Key words: human well-being, interlinkages, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), planetary well-being,
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. Background and Purposes
In 2000, the United Nations (UN) launched theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs) to shape avision for addressing poverty in its many dimensions.
Since then, efforts have resulted in the following MDG
achievements: the population in extreme poverty has
dropped to 14 percent; the primary school net enrolment
rate has reached 91 percent; developing countries as awhole have achieved the goal to eliminate genderdisparity in primary, secondary and tertiary education;
the rate of child mortality reduction has tripled globally;
the maternal mortality ratio has declined by 45 percent
worldwide; HIV infections have dropped by 40 percent
by 2003; 91 percent of the global population has accessto improved drinking water; and finally, the amount of
Global Environmental Research
19/2015: 131–145
printed in Japan

official development assistance has increased by 66
percent between 2000 to 2014 (UN, 2015). Despite theseachievements, crucial and universal challenges lie in
dealing with fundamental changes in the Earth system in
the Anthropocene era, a term now commonly used inreference to the current epoch in which humans have asignificant global impact on the Earth’s ecosystems.
Hence, the challenge for the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), which is one of the critical componentsof the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that
follows on the work of the MDGs, is to respondeffectively to the sustainability challenges that take into
account issues of human well-being while at the sametime securing the Earth’s life-support system (Young etal., 2014).
The United Nations’ concept of sustainable development©2015 AIRIES

132

N. KANIE et al.

has evolved in the past 25 years. The three-pillars
concept of sustainable development was prominent at
the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)
in 2002, but a growing amount of evidence has shownthat a lack or vulnerability of one pillar (economic,
social or environmental sustainability) can threaten
overall sustainability. With the growing recognition oftransformations under way in the Earth system sciences,
there arose a need for a new perspective on the sustainable
management of human-environment relations.
Given those demands, Griggs et al. (2013) presented
a reformed definition of sustainable development andargued that the three pillars are, in fact, nested. They
argued that economic activities serve society, social
sustainability relies on the Earth’s life-support system,and these aspects are integrated as an organic system.
Therefore, economic activities are also conditioned by
the natural limits of the Earth’s system as a precondition
for development. They defined sustainable developmentin the Anthropocene as, “Development that meets theneeds of the present while safeguarding Earth’s lifesupport system, on which the welfare of current andfuture generations depends.”
The need for such a new paradigm for sustainable
development in the SDG era is also reflected indeliberations on the SDGs, and above all, in the outcomeof Rio+20 which was held twenty years after the Earth
Summit in 1992. While acknowledging the need tomainstream sustainable development, “The Future We
Want” (the outcome document of Rio+20) also
acknowledged the need for “integrating economic, socialand environmental aspects and recognizing theirinterlinkages, so as to achieve sustainable development in
all its dimensions” (UNGA, 2012). Throughout the
document, the importance of integration of the threepillars and their interlinkages are emphasized, and it was

likewise stressed in the inter-governmental deliberations
on SDGs. The nexus between food, water and energy
and possible trade-offs in the current policy mix are
repeatedly mentioned, as well as possible trade-offs orsynergies between energy and climate change.
Interlinkages and integration are crucial for the SDGs toaddress their ultimate goal. Furthermore, “Transforming
our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”
adopted by the UN General Assembly on 25 September
2015, indeed confirms the importance of integrating
three dimensions in a balanced manner (UNGA, 2015).
Discussions on the SDGs are attracting attention
globally, but studies have yet to be conducted to evaluate
the coverage of the proposals objectively and quantitatively.
In this context, the present study aims to develop tools toevaluate the level of coverage of ten selected proposals
published by internationally acknowledged organizations.
The evaluation is conducted from the perspective of
overall coverage and interlinkages among goals, and theresults are presented visually in radar charts. Based on
the results, the overall features of the proposals areanalyzed and discussed by examining the extent towhich each goal incorporates interlinkages among fields.

2. Methodology
Various proposals for SDGs have been made by not
only through the UN process, but also from academia
and non-governmental organizations over the past
several years. In this paper, we chose ten internationallywell-acknowledged proposals for SDGs that were
published by UN-related intergovernmental institutions
and research institutes during 2012 to 2014, in order toevaluate the interlinkages between goals within each
proposal.
Each proposal was evaluated by counting the keywords

Table 1 List of proposals evaluated.
No.
(#)

Author

Year

Title

Government

2012

Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable
Development Goals
A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty andTransform Economies through Sustainable Development
Proposal on Sustainable Development Goals

2013

An Action Agenda for Sustainable Development

Griggs et al.
Centre for International Governance
Innovation (CIGI)
Overseas Development Institute(ODI)
Karver et al.
Global Agenda Council on
Benchmarking Progress (GAC)

2013
2012

Sustainable Development Goals for People and Planet
Post-2015 Development Agenda: Goals, Targets
and Indicators
Options for including Disaster Resilience in
Post-2015 Development Goals
MDGs 2.0: What Goals, Targets, and Timeframes?
Getting to Zero: Finishing the Job the MDGs Started

Asian Development Bank (ADB)

2013

Research(institution to mobilize
knowledge)
ResearchResearch(think tank)Research(think tank)ResearchResearch(GAC was establishedby the World Economic
Forum)
Research(regional organization)

1

Open Working Group (OWG)

2014

2

High Level Panel of Eminent Persons(HLP)
United Nations Conference on
Sustainable Development (UNCSD)
Sustainable Development Solutions
Network (SDSN)

2013

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

2012
2012
2012

A ZEN Approach to Post-2015: Addressing the Range
of Perspectives across Asia and the PacificCategory

Government
Government

133

Evaluating Interlinkages between Human Well-being and Planetary Well-being in Proposals

contained in each goal. The keywords selected and usedin this study were words frequently used in proposals for
SDGs, associated with certain fields. To this end, theauthors developed two types of tools for the evaluation:“score sheets” and “radar charts.” The structures anddetails of these tools are explained in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.

depicts the structure of the score sheet we developed toevaluate proposals. The process of scoring is explainedhere.

2.1 Outline of Proposals Evaluated in This Study
Table 1 outlines the ten proposals evaluated in thisstudy. These proposals were published by panels andworking groups established through UN processes
related to the SDGs, or by internationally wellacknowledged research institutions working on SDG
issues. The former are categorized as “government-led”
proposals through UN processes, and the latter as“research-led” proposals. The first three were developedin the context of international discussions (#1 and #3) orby panels established by the UN Secretary-General, withmembers who are political leaders from about 30 countries(#2). Proposals #4 to #9 are from internationally wellacknowledged researchers and research institutes. As
their titles indicate, some of the proposals have a special
focus. For example, #7 emphasizes disaster risk, and #9
focuses on issues related to the MDGs. Proposal # 10
was made by a regional development bank as a working
paper, so it is categorized as a research-led proposal inthis study.

2.2.1 The 14 Fields
In Box 1 of Fig. 1, the colored cells along thehorizontal axis comprise 14 fields. The fields are listed
in Table 2. They were determined by rearranging the 19
Focus Areas given in Working Document for 5 – 9 May
Sessions of Open Working Group (OWG, 2014a) into 14.
The fields combined in this study were closely related
and frequently shared the same keywords; thus they
were merged in order to eliminate overlap: “poverty
eradication” with “sustainable agriculture, food security
and nutrition,” “gender equality and women’s
empowerment” with “promoting equality,” “economic
growth” with “industrialization” and “employment anddecent work for all,” and “sustainable cities and humansettlements” with “promoting sustainable consumption
and production.” The 14 fields were then divided into
three groups: fields closely related to issues abouthuman well-being and derived from the MDGs (named“MDG-related issues”); issues related to human wellbeing but not recognized when the MDGs were
formulated (“post-MDG issues”); and fields closely
related to issues of planetary well-being (“planetarywell-being issues”).

2.2 The Score Sheets
Figure 1 Structure of the score sheet (for each proposal)

2.2.2 Suggested Goals and Targets of Each Proposal
In terms of the vertical axis in Box 1 of Fig. 1, thePoverty Education Equality
and Food

Health14 Fields

Sanitation MOI

Economic InfrastGrowth ructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

BOX 1
Target A1
Target A2
Target B1Target B2Target B3

Goal
A
Goal
B

2
2
0
1
0

0
0
0
0
1

score

Total Score

Goal
B Maximum possible total
score

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
2
0

1
1
1
1
0

0
1
1
0
1

0
0
0
0
0

1
2
1
0
0

0
0
2
2
1

0
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
0

0
1
0
0
0

1

The sum of scores for each target is totalled, by goal

BOX 2
Total Score
Goal
A Maximum possible total

0
1
0
0
2

4

0

1

0

0

2

1

0

3

0

0

0

0

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

1

2

0

2

2

2

0

1

5

1

0

1

0

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

Total score converted to 3-point maximum

Total scores (from max. possible total score for each target) in Box 2 are converted to 3-point max. as follows:Zero:
0 points<0% to <33%: 1 point
33% to <67%: 2 points≤67%:
3 points

BOX 3
Goal A
Goal B

3
1

0
1

0
0

0
2

2
2

1
2

0
0

3
1

0
3

0
1

0
0

0
1

1
0

1

0

1

1

Max. score for each goal selected from BOX 3, by field

BOX 4
Overall

1
2

3

1

2

0

2

2

2

0

3

Fig. 1 Structure of the score sheet (for each proposal).

3

134

N. KANIE et al.

goals from a proposal are listed in the left column andthe targets that belong to each goal in the right column.
The scores are calculated by counting keywords
contained under each goal. The keywords used in thisstudy were words that were frequently used in SDG
proposals and were associated with one (or more)
field(s) out of the 14. The goals and targets in any
proposal were associated with certain fields, so we broke
down each target into words and then allocated them tothe 14 fields. The numbers in Box 1 of Fig. 1 are thescores of each target in each goal. If the target contained
one keyword that belonged to “Poverty and Food,” thetarget obtains a score of 1 in the cell at the intersectionof the target (horizontal) and “Poverty and Food”(vertical). Likewise, if it contains two or more keywordsof that field, the target obtains a score of 2 in that cell.
The numbers in Box 1 of Fig. 1 are summed up by
field (vertical) and goal (horizontal) and appear in Box 2of Fig. 1. In Box 3 of Fig. 1, the scores are recalculated
to give a 3-point maximum, rather than the simple sumof scores. These converted scores, by goal, are then used
to create “sub-radar charts” for each proposal.
The total scores (from the maximum possible total
score for each target) in each respective cell in Box 2 areconverted into a 3-point maximum as follows:

Zero: 0 points
Above zero and less than 33%: 1 point
33% to less than 67%: 2 points
67% or more: 3 points
Finally, the maximum numbers of the converted
scores, by field, are selected as overall scores for each
proposal (Box 4 of Fig. 1). These scores are used to
draw an “integrated radar chart” for each proposal. The
structure of the charts is explained in Section 2.3

2.3 Radar Charts
The evaluation results (scores obtained through theprocess described in Section 2.2) are presented visuallyin radar charts. The color scheme is the same as in thescore sheets, and the values represented by the vertices
come from the horizontal rows in score sheets (Fig. 1),
with the abbreviated field names shown (Table 2). The
structure of a radar chart is shown in Fig. 2.
Integrated radar charts are created to help visualize agiven proposal’s overall coverage of fields. The overall
scores of a proposal determine the shape of the polygon
in its integrated radar chart (process described in Section
2.2.1). A list of integrated radar charts of all the
proposals is given in Section 3. Meanwhile, sub-radar
charts indicate the coverage of fields, by goal, and help

Table 2 List of 14 fields used for evaluation.
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Field (abbreviated version in parentheses)

Group Name

Poverty eradication and food security (Poverty and Food)
Education (Education)
Equality (Equality)
Health (Health)
Sanitation and water (Sanitation)
Means of implementation including global partnership (MOI)
Economic growth, industrialization and employment (Economic Growth)
Infrastructure (Infrastructure)
Peace and non-violent societies (Peace)
Climate change and resilient societies (Climate)
Energy (Energy)
Ecosystem and biodiversity (Ecosystems)
Water resources (Water)
Sustainable consumption and production (SCP)

OUTER CIRCLE:(See Figure 1 and Section 2.1.2)

Post-MDG issues

Planetary well-being issues

Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3
Water

Fields in the outer circle correspondto columns on the score sheet by Ecosystem
color:
Pink : MDG-related issues
Orange : Post-MDG issues
Green : Planetary well-being issues

MDG-related issues

Energy210Equality
HealthSanitation

ClimateMOIINNER CIRCLE:
Plot points range from 0 to 3,
based on percent of maximum
possible score.
◆ Zero :0 points◆ <0 to <33% : 1 point◆ 33% to <67% : 2 points◆ ≤67% :3 points

Peace
Economic Growth (see Figure 1 and Section 2.1.2)
Infrastructure

Fig. 2 Structure of a radar chart.
(Same structure used for integrated and sub-radar charts.)

Evaluating Interlinkages between Human Well-being and Planetary Well-being in Proposals

visualize interlinkages among the fields in each goal.
The shape of the charts is the same as those of theintegrated radar charts. Each proposal has as many subradar charts as its number of goals. Lists of sub-radar
charts, by goal and by proposal, are given in the
Appendix. This tool does not consider negative linkages(e.g., trade-offs between bio-energy and food), however.

(MOI). Some interlinkages are strong, such as poverty
alleviation, food security and sustainable agriculture,
and water and sanitation.
Proposal # 2, by HLP (2013), scored 3 in several
development-related fields (pink and orange). Figure 3
reveals that this proposal has an emphasis on the righthalf of the chart (education, equality, health, sanitation,and economic growth), while the left half shows aweakness in planetary well-being issues, with no fields
scoring 3. From the perspective of interlinkages, goals
such as catalyzing long-term financing have stronger
interlinkages, while goals such as ensuring healthy lives
and good governance are weak. There are no linkages to
MOI for the goals on poverty alleviation, gender equality,
healthy lives, food security, water and sanitation, andenergy.
Proposal # 3, by UNCSD (2012), scored 3 in five
fields (equality, MOI, peace, energy, and ecosystems),
suggesting that this proposal is relatively well-balanced
compared to the others. The coverage of post-MDG
issues, however, is relatively low, while interlinkages are
relatively small and weak.

3. Results
Using the methodology explained in Section 2, theten proposals were evaluated from the perspective of
overall coverage and interlinkages among their goals.
Figure 3 shows the integrated scores for each proposal,
while the Appendix shows the radar chart for each
proposal’s interlinkages.
Proposal #1, by OWG (2014b), obtained the highest
possible score (3) in almost all fields, with lower scores
only in infrastructure, peace, and sustainable consumption
and production (SCP) (2). From the perspective ofinterlinkages, all the goals of this proposal are linked to thefields of economic growth and means of implementation#1 OWG (2014b)
Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3
Water

2
1
0

Ecosystem
EnergyEquality
HealthSanitation

ClimateMOI#2 HLP(2013)
Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3

Water

Energy#4 SDSN (2013)

2
1
0

EnergyEquality
HealthSanitation

ClimateMOI#7 ODI (2012)#5 Griggs et al. (2013)

Water
Ecosystem
EnergyEquality
HealthSanitation

Climate

Water

2
1
0

Ecosystem
EnergyEquality
HealthSanitation
MOI

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

Water
Ecosystem

Poverty and Food
Education
SCP
3

Water
Ecosystem
Energy210Equality
HealthSanitation

MOI

2
1
0

Equality
HealthSanitation

EnergyMOI

ClimateEconomic Growth
Peace
Infrastructure#6 CIGI (2012)
Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3
Water

2
1
0

Ecosystem

Equality
HealthEnergySanitation

ClimatePeace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

ClimateMOI

Poverty and Food
Education
SCP
3

Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3#8 Karver et al. (2012)

Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3
2
1
0

MOI

ClimatePeace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

Health#3 UNCSD (2012)

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3
Water

Equality

Sanitation

ClimatePeace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

Ecosystem2
1
0

Ecosystem

MOI

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure#9 GAC (2012)
Poverty and Food
Education
SCP
3

Water
Ecosystem2
1
0Equality
HealthSanitation

EnergyClimatePeace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

MOI

Economic Growth
Peace
Infrastructure#10 ADB (2013)
Poverty and Food
Education
SCP
3
Water

Ecosystem
Energy210Equality
HealthSanitation

ClimateMOI

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure135

MDG-related issues
Post-MDG issues
Planetary well-being issues

Fig. 3 Integrated radar charts of the ten proposals.

136

N. KANIE et al.

Proposal # 4, by SDSN (2013), covers all fields
relatively well and scores the maximum of 3 in poverty
and food and MOI among MDG-related issues andpost-MDG issues (pink and orange fields), as well asclimate change and ecosystem among planetary wellbeing issues (green). The proposal has broad interlinkages,
with all goals making a link to poverty and food,equality, MOI, economic growth, and peace.
The chart for proposal # 5, by Griggs et al. (2013),
reveals an emphasis on planetary well-being issues, over
the other two groups of issues, in contrast to the preceding
proposals. A score of 3 is achieved only in sanitation,
among MDG-related issues, and no fields score 3 amongpost-MDG issues, while climate, ecosystems and waterscore 3 in planetary well-being issues. Some interlinkages
are broad and strong, such as the goal related to energy.
Proposal #6, by CIGI (2012), scored relatively highin post-MDG issues, unlike other proposals. Although it
did not score 3 in any fields, the relatively high score of
2 was achieved in economic growth and peace (i.e., twoout of three post-MDG issues). Each goal in this
proposal has broad and weak interlinkages.

Proposal #7, by ODI (2012), has a special focus on
disaster risk, and covers a wider range of MDG-related
issues than the other two groups. Most planetary wellbeing issues fields are barely covered, while only
“climate” scores 3, which is a distinguishing feature ofthis proposal, as disaster risks are closely linked withextreme weather events incurred by changes in climate.
Proposal #8, by Karver et al. (2012), shows a relatively
wider coverage of fields, including equality, health, MOI,
economic growth, peace, climate, ecosystem, water, andSCP. Moreover, this proposal covers more fields in theplanetary well-being issues group than the other two，
unlike other proposals. Interlinkages are broad and strong
on goals related to protecting the environment and issues
related to Africa.
Proposal #9, by GAC (2012), focuses on finishing
the work of the MDGs, and covers more MDG-related
issues than the other two groups, while planetary wellbeing issues are barely covered. The chart shows a small
polygon, meaning that this proposal covers a narrower
range of fields. Interlinkages are small in range andrelatively weak. All goals except gender equality, however,OWG (2014b) "Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals"
Sub-Radar Chart
Integrated Radar Chart

Goal1: End poverty in all its
forms everywhere

Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3
Water

2
1
0

Ecosystem

Equality
HealthSanitation

EnergyMOI

ClimatePoverty and Food

Poverty and Food
SCP
Water
Ecosystem

32
1
0

Education
Equality
HealthEnergySanitation

Climate

MOI

Peace

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

OWG (2014b) covers more
fields with the maximal
mark of 3 than SDSN
(2013)

Goal2: End hunger, achieve
food security and improved
nutrition and promotesustainable agriculture
SCP
Water

Ecosystem

32
1
0

Education
Equality
HealthEnergySanitation

ClimateEconomic Growth

MOI

Peace

Infrastructure

Economic Growth

Infrastructure

In the sub-radar charts, there are no obvious
differences between OWG (2014b) and SDSN
(2013), but in SDSN (2014), slightly more
fields that are not the main focus of these goals
scored 1 or 2.

SDSN (2013) “An Action Agenda for Sustainable Development”
Sub-Radar Chart
Integrated Radar Chart

Goal1: End extreme poverty
including hunger

Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3
Water
Ecosystem2
1
0Equality
HealthSanitation

EnergyClimate

MOI

Economic Growth
Peace
Infrastructure

Goal6: Improve agriculture
systems and raise rural
prosperity

Poverty and Food
SCP
Water
Ecosystem

32
10

Poverty and Food
Equality
HealthEnergySanitation

Climate

MOI

Peace

SCP

Education

Economic Growth

Infrastructure

Water
Ecosystem

32
1
0

Education
Equality
HealthEnergySanitation

Climate

MOI

Peace

Economic Growth

Infrastructure

Fig. 4 Comparison between radar charts of OWG (2014b) and SDSN (2013).

Evaluating Interlinkages between Human Well-being and Planetary Well-being in Proposals

137

link to MOI.
Proposal #10, by the ADB (2013), scored 2 in poverty
and food, MOI, and economic growth, but did not score
3 in any fields. Thus, this proposal can be regarded ashaving low coverage, and could perhaps be improved byincreasing its scope. Meanwhile, its interlinkages arebroad but not strong.

improved with more interlinkages among fields in eachgoal. Even if a proposal covers many fields well in its
integrated radar chart, more comprehensiveness could beachieved in each goal by introducing more interlinkages
among fields.

4. Discussion

This study evaluated ten major proposals relating to
the SDGs in terms of overall coverage and interlinkages
among related fields and presented the findings visuallyin the form of radar charts.
We developed score sheets and radar charts as tools toevaluate the overall coverage and interlinkages among 14
crucial fields. We then used the tools to analyze the ten
proposals, published by UN-related intergovernmental
institutions and research institutes during 2012 to 2014.
Integrated radar charts were used to present theevaluations of the proposals visually, revealing that they
cover more fields of MDG-related issues than postMDG issues and planetary well-being issues. Also,
government-led proposals tend to cover a wider range offields than research-led proposals. This might be because
discussions in international settings need to incorporate
views from various governments, perhaps ultimately
leading to a wider coverage of issues.
Sub-radar charts for goals in each proposal were used
to present visually the level of interlinkages among
fields for each goal. Most of the ten proposals could be
improved by covering more fields. Both government-led
and research-led proposals had a similar level ofinterlinkages.
This study can contribute to efforts to evaluate thecoverage of and interlinkages among goals suggested inproposals relating to the SDGs. It is hoped that theapproaches developed here can assist policymakers
when analyzing proposals, help identify gaps andenhance the comprehensiveness of proposals. It is
expected that proposals relating to the SDGs will be
formulated at national, regional, and sectoral levels in
future processes, so these tools could be used for further
analysis of the level of integration of proposals. Work on
the SDGs should encompass more fields and embrace
more interlinkages among fields in each goal in order tomaximize synergies and avoid trade-offs and to tackle
the more complex and challenging problems that present
and future generations will face.

4.1 Overall Features of the Proposals Studied
This study found that the ten proposals reviewed
cover MDG-related issues slightly more than the othertwo groups. Post-MDG issues are covered the least. Some
proposals (such as UNCSD (2012)) cover planetarywell-being issues well, although the differences between
proposals in coverage of fields are generally not large.
The results of this study reveal some of the points
missing in each of the proposals, and suggest that they
could be made more effective by referring to more
fields. In this regard, OWG (2014b) stands out among
the ten proposals by achieving the highest score (3) inthe greatest number of fields.
Government-led proposals tend to cover a wider rangeof fields than research-led proposals. One explanation
for this might be that in the context of international
discussions, there is a greater need to incorporate theviews of various governments, which may lead to a wider
coverage of issues, and results that are more complex
and less simple. In contrast, research-led proposals often
have a specific area of interest (e.g., disaster risk andfinalizing MDG issues), or may tend to seek simplicity.
To interpret our findings, it is important to rememberthat this study does not evaluate the depth of analysis or
target of a goal, but only the coverage of the key issues,by reviewing the proposals for their use of keywords.
4.2 Interlinkages of Suggested Goals in Each Proposal
Based on this study, we regard the wider coverage offields in one goal as something that is favorable, because
wider coverage means the proposal is cognizant of theimportance of interlinkages among fields. Our charts bygoal make this coverage more visual.
Interlinkages among fields in each goal can be observed
from sub-radar charts for each proposal. Both governmentled and research-led proposals have similar levels ofinterlinkages (e.g., goals related to energy and water).
The radar charts for OWG (2014b) and SDSN (2013)
are compared in Fig. 4, for poverty and agriculture
issues. As mentioned in Section 4.1, the radar chart for
OWG (2014b) suggests that it is more comprehensive
than the other proposals. When it comes to the sub-radar
charts, however, there are no obvious differences
between OWG (2014b) and SDSN (2013). In fact, thelatter achieves a score of 1 or 2 in slightly more fields
that are not the main focus of the goal. This suggeststhat SDSN (2013) refers to a wider variety of fields ineach goal and embraces better “interlinkages.”
The message here is that the proposals could be

5. Conclusions

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Environment
Research and Technology Development Fund (S-11) of
the Ministry of the Environment, Japan.

References
Brooks, D.H., J. Joshi, W.J. McArthur et al. (2013) A ZEN
Approach to Post-2015: Addressing the Range of Perspectives
Across Asia and the Pacific, Economics Working Papers 327,

138

N. KANIE et al.

Asian Development Bank.
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) (2012)
Post-2015 Development Agenda: Goals, Targets and Indicators.
Global Agenda Council (GAC) on Benchmarking Progress (2012)
Getting to Zero: Finishing the Job the MDGs Started.
Griggs, D., M. Stafford-Smith, O. Gaffney et al. (2013) Sustainable
development goals for people and planet, Nature, 495: 305 – 307.
High Level Panel of Eminent Persons (HLP) (2013) A New Global
Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies
through Sustainable Development.
Karver, J., C. Kenny and A. Summer (2012) MDGs 2.0: What Goals,
Targets, and Timeframe? Working Paper 297, Center for Global
Development.
Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (2012) Options for Including
Disaster Resilience in Post-2015 Development Goals, ODI
Background Notes, Overseas Development Institute.
Open Working Group (OWG) (2014a) Working Document for
5 – 9 May Sessions of Open Working Group.
Open Working Group (OWG) (2014b) Open Working Group

Norichika KANIE
Norichika KANIE is a professor at the Graduate
School of Media and Governance, Keio
University. He is also a senior research fellow at
the United Nations University Institute for the
Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS).
Before joining Keio, he worked at the Graduate
School of Decision Science and Technology,
Tokyo Institute of Technology; and the Department of Policy Studies, theUniversity of Kitakyushu. His research focuses on global environmental
governance and sustainability. He is leading a research project on
Sustainable Development Goals (S-11, FY2013-FY2015) funded by the
Ministry of Environment, Japan (Environment Research and Technology
Development Fund). Among other positions, he serves as a scientificsteering group member of the Earth Systems Governance project (coreproject of Future Earth), and co-chair of the Working Party on Climate,
Investment and Development (WPCID) at OECD. From August 2009 to
July 2010 he was a Marie Curie Incoming International Fellow of theEuropean Commission and visiting professor at Sciences Po, Paris. He
received his Ph.D. in Media and Governance from Keio University.

Aya NAITO
Aya NAITO has been a consultant at Mizuho
Information & Research Institute, Inc., in Japan
since April 2013. Her specialty is economic
instruments on climate change issues, especiallyenvironmental taxes in Japan and EU countries.
She is also interested in the future provision of
global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
and how they will be assimilated under the national circumstances in eachcountry in light of the importance of interlinkages among various fields
that the SDGs span. She completed her B.A. in International Relations at
Tsukuba University, Japan, and received her M.Sc. in Climate Change andInternational Development at the University of East Anglia (UEA), the UK.

Mari KOSAKA
Mari KOSAKA is a project assistant professor at
the Graduate School of Media and Governance,
Keio University. Her research interests include
climate change, science and policy interface,and SDG issues. She worked previously as an
associate programme officer at the secretariat of
the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, where she supported work on assessing the adequacy of
the two-degree global goal for climate change (the 2013-2015 review).
She received her Master’s in Environmental Management and Ph.D. in
Global Environmental Studies from Kyoto University.

Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals.
Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) (2013) An
Action Agenda for Sustainable Development.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD)(2012) Proposal on Sustainable Development Goals.
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2012) The Future We
Want. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July
2012: 66/288.
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2015) Transforming
our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Resolution adopted by the general Assembly on 25 September
2015: A/RES/70/1.
United Nations (UN) (2015) The Millennium Development Goals
Report 2015. New York: United Nations.
Young, O.R., A. Underdal, N. Kanie et al. (2014) Earth System
Challenges and a Multi-layer Approach for the Sustainable
Development Goals. POST2015/UNU-IAS Policy Brief #1, 1 – 4.

Yuko MOTOKI
Yuko MOTOKI has been a chief consultant at
Mizuho Information & Research Institute, Inc.,in Japan since April 2008. Her expertise is inenergy modelling (integrated assessment models)and economic instruments for climate change
mitigation, specifically environmental taxes inJapan. She is also interested in green-technology
financing schemes. She received her B.A. in Policy Management and her
Master’s and Ph.D. in Media and Governance from Keio University, Japan.

Masahiko IGUCHI
Masahiko IGUCHI is an assistant professor at the
Department of International Relations, Kyoto
Sangyo University, Japan. Prior to his current
position, he worked as a research associate at
the United Nations University Institute for the
Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU- IAS)
in Tokyo. Iguchi holds a Bachelor’s in Politics
and International Relations from the University of Essex, a Master’s inInternational Relations from the London School of Economics andPolitical Science, and a Ph.D. from Tokyo Institute of Technology.

Kazuhiko TAKEMOTO
Dr. TAKEMOTO was appointed director of theUnited Nations University Institute for the
Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU- IAS)in January 2014. Prior to joining UNU, he was
fully involved in developing policies to realize
sustainable societies through formulation ofnational strategies on global environmental
issues such as climate change, biodiversity and transboundary air
pollution as the Vice-Minister for Global Environmental Affairs in the
Government of Japan. He served CBD/COP10 as its alternate president(2010), CSD-18 as its co-chair (2010) and OECD/EPOC as its vice chair(2004-07). He has been a council member of the International Institutefor Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) since 2011. He holds a Ph.D. fromthe University of Tokyo and a Master’s of International Public Policy
from the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns
Hopkins University.

(Received 29 June 2015, Accepted 20 November 2015)

2
1
0

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitationc
HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyosystem32
10

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and FoodStrengthen the means of
implementation and revitalize
the global partnership forsustainable development

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food
SCP

Poverty and Food
Water

Make cities and humansettlements inclusive, safe,
resilient and sustainable

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

Achieve gender equality andempower all women and girls

Reduce inequality within andamong countries

Protect, restore and promote sustainable
Promote peaceful and inclusive societies
use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably
for sustainable development, provide
manage forests, combat desertification,access to justice for all and build
and halt and reverse land degradation
effective, accountable and inclusiveand halt biodiversity loss

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyosystem

Water

3
2
1
0

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

Ensure inclusive and equitable
quality education and promote
lifelong learning opportunities for all

Figure A1. Integrated Radar Chart and Sub-Radar Charts of OWG (2014b)

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Poverty and Food

3
2
1
0

Conserve and sustainably
use the oceans, seas andmarine resources forsustainable development

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Take urgent action to combat
climate change and its
impacts

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Ensure sustainableconsumption and production

3
2
1
0

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

SCP

Infrastructure

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthWater

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Equality

Education

Poverty and Food

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food

SCP

Poverty and Food

Water

Poverty and Food

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Build resilient infrastructure,promote inclusive andsustainable industrializationand foster innovation

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Promote sustained, inclusive andsustainable economic growth,
full and productive employment
and decent work for all

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Ensure access to affordable,
reliable, sustainable andmodern energy for all

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Ensure availability andsustainable management ofwater and sanitation for all

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Ensure healthy lives and promote
well-being for all at all ages

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

End hunger, achieve food security
and improved nutrition andpromote sustainable agriculture

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Infrastructure

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3

Integrated Radar Chart

OWG (2014b) “Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals"
Sub-Radar Charts

Appendix: List of Charts, by Proposals and by Goals (Figures A1–A10)

Evaluating Interlinkages between Human Well-being and Planetary Well-being in Proposals
139

2
1
0

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Economic Growth

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food

SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Create a global enabling
environment and catalyse
long-term finance

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Education

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Economic Growth

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Education

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCPManage natural resource
assets sustainably

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Create jobs, sustainable
livelihoods, and equitable growth

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Infrastructure

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Sub-Radar Charts
Provide quality education andlifelong learning

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Empower girls and womenand achieve gender equality

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

Ensure good governance andeffective institutions

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Ensure healthy lives

Figure A2. Integrated Radar Chart and Sub-Radar Charts of HLP (2013)

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food

SCP

Secure sustainable energy

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food

SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

End poverty

Achieve universal access towater and sanitation

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food
Education
SCP
3

Integrated Radar Chart

HLP (2013) "A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development"

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

Ensure stable and peacefulsocieties

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Ensure food security andgood nutrition

140
N. KANIE et al.

2
1
0

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

SCP

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Promote the development of sustainable
cities and human settlements

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Promote energy access andefficiency

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

Scale up access to primary
health care

Sub-Radar Charts

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Promote water access andcross sectoral efficiency

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

End armed conflict, promote
peace and ensure sustainable
post-conflict development

Figure A3. Integrated Radar Chart and Sub-Radar Charts of UNCSD (2012)

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Poverty and Food

3
2
1
0

Forests and biodiversity

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Promote sustainable food-systems

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

SCP

Poverty and Food

Water

Poverty and Food

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Recognizing the role of young
people in the sustainable
development governance

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

3
2
1
0

Poverty and FoodSCP

The implementation on a global convention
on principle 10: "Environmental issues
are best handled with participation of allconcerned citizens"

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Eco-partnerships fortechnology development,
innovation, and sustainability

3
2
1
0

Promote the decent work
agenda and poverty eradication

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

Promote gender equality andparticipation

Infrastructure

Economic Growth
Peace
Infrastructure

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food
Education
SCP
3

Integrated Radar Chart

UNCSD (2012) "Proposal on Sustainable Development Goals"

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Ensure the health, protection
and preservation of oceans,seas and marine ecosystems

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

Improve disaster risk preparedness
with a particular focus on youth

Evaluating Interlinkages between Human Well-being and Planetary Well-being in Proposals
141

2
1
0

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

2
1
0

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food

SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Governance for sustainable societies

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3

Integrated Radar Chart

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

3
2
1
0

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Sustainable food security

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Sustainable water security

Sub-Radar Charts

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Universal clean energy

Figure A5. Integrated Radar Chart and Sub-Radar Charts of Griggs et al. (2013)

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

32
10

Poverty and Food

SCP

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Transform governance forsustainable development

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Secure ecosystem services and biodiversity,and ensure good managementof water and other natural resources

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Infrastructure

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Achieve gender equality, social
inclusion, and human rights for all

Griggs et al. (2013) "Sustainable Development Goals for People and Planet"

Thriving lives and livelihoods

Water

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Sub-Radar Charts
Ensure effective learning for all children
and youth for life and livelihood

Figure A4. Integrated Radar Chart and Sub-Radar Charts of SDSN (2013)

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food

SCP

Poverty and Food

Water

Curb human-induced climate change
and ensure sustainable energy

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Empower inclusive,productive, and resilient cities

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Improve agriculture systems
and raise rural prosperity

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food

SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

End extreme poverty including hunger

Achieve development within
planetary boundaries

Infrastructure

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food
Education
SCP
3

Integrated Radar Chart

SDSN (2013) "An Action Agenda for Sustainable Development"

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Healthy and productive ecosystems

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Achieve health and wellbeingat all ages

142
N. KANIE et al.

2
1
0

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality3210

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

2
1
0

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

SCP

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

To reduce risk and build
resilience to disasters for all(Alternative)

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Disaster resilient nations

Sub-Radar Charts

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Disaster resilient communities

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

SCP

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Resilience to shocks and stresses

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Poverty and Food
Water

Figure A7. Integrated Radar Chart and Sub-Radar Charts of ODI (2012)

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food

Water

Universal numeracy and literacy

Poverty and Food

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

32
10

Poverty and Food

SCP

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

ODI (2012) "Options for including disaster resilience in post-2015 development goals"

To reduce risk and build resilience
to disasters for all(Version 1, UN System Task Team)

Water

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

3
2
1
0

Global governance and equitable
rules for realizing human potential

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food
SCP

Sustainable management of thebiosphere, enabling people and theplanet to thrive together

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Security for ensuring freedom
from violence

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

Good health for the best possible
physical, mental and social well-being

Figure A6. Integrated Radar Chart and Sub-Radar Charts of CIGI (2012)

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Eliminate absolute poverty

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3

Integrated Radar Chart

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

SCP

Poverty and Food

Water

Poverty and Food

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Empowering people to realize
their civil and political rights

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Quality infrastructure for access toenergy, transportation andcommunication

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Resilient communities and nations
for reduced disaster impact fromnatural and technological hazards

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Gender equality enabling men andwomen to participate and benefit
equally in society

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Sub-Radar Charts
Appropriate education and skills forfull participation in society

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Sufficient food and water for
active living

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

SCP

Poverty and Food

Inclusive economic growth for dignified
livelihoods and adequate standards of living

Infrastructure

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food
Education
SCP
3

Integrated Radar Chart

CIGI (2012) "Post-2015 Development Agenda: Goals, Targets and Indicators"

Evaluating Interlinkages between Human Well-being and Planetary Well-being in Proposals
143

2
1
0

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

2
1
0

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

SCP

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

SCP

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Sub-Radar Charts

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food

Goal of basic health for all

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Human rights, democracy and good
governance

SCP

3
2
1
0

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food

Goal of education for all

Figure A9. Integrated Radar Chart and Sub-Radar Charts of GAC (2012)

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Goal of global partnershipand good governance

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Goal of clean and sustainable
environment for all

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food

Zero goal for hunger

Zero goal for infrastructure

Water

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Protecting our common environment

GAC (2012) "Getting to Zero: Finishing the Job the MDGs Started"

Infrastructure

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

SCP

Poverty and Food

Zero goal for income poverty

Water

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Development and poverty eradication

Sub-Radar Charts

Figure A8. Integrated Radar Chart and Sub-Radar Charts of Karver et al. (2012)

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food

SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Peace, security and disarmament

Infrastructure

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3

Integrated Radar Chart

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food

SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Meeting the special needs of Africa

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3

Integrated Radar Chart

Karver et al. (2012) "MDGs 2.0: What Goals, Targets, and Timeframe?"

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Goal of gender equality

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Protecting the vulnerable

144
N. KANIE et al.

2
1
0

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Peace
Economic Growth
Infrastructure

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Poverty and Food
SCP
Education
3

Integrated Radar Chart

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Economic Growth

MOI

Sanitation

HealthEquality

Education

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food
SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

N "environmental priorities"

Sub-Radar Charts

Figure A10. Integrated Radar Chart and Sub-Radar Charts of ADB (2013)

Infrastructure

3
2
1
0

Poverty and Food

SCP

Peace

ClimateEnergyEcosystem

Water

Z "zero extreme poverty"

E "each country’s unique targets
above the minimum Z standard"

ADB (2013) "A ZEN Approach to Post-2015: Addressing the Range of Perspectives across Asia and the Pacific"

Evaluating Interlinkages between Human Well-being and Planetary Well-being in Proposals
145