•  
  •  
 

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version)

Keywords

Big Earth Data, sustainable development goals (SDGs), synergy

Document Type

Strategy & Practice

Abstract

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an important guide for different countries and regions to achieve sustainable economic, social, and environmental developments. They include 17 goals and 169 specific targets. The interactions among the goals can be manifested as synergy or trade-off; that is, implementing one or more goals may positively or negatively affect other goals. At present, important progress has been made in the monitoring and evaluation of individual goals. However, our understanding of the synergies and trade-offs among multiple SDGs is still limited. Firstly, this paper describes the current progress in the synergy and trade-offs of SDGs from three aspects:comprehensive analyses of all the SDGs, thematic analyses of few relevant SDGs, and the relationship of the specific indicators under certain SDG. Secondly, in view of the data bottleneck in the current studies, combined with the latest progress of the Big Earth Data, this paper showcases the typical scenarios of the Big Earth Data supporting studies of the synergy and trade-off of SDGs. Thirdly, the Big Earth Data's potential and future research prospects on the synergies and trade-offs of SDGs are proposed. This study shows that SDG synergy and trade-off analyses have experienced three stages:a semiquantitative evaluation based on expert knowledge, correlation analyses based on statistical data, and quantitative analyses based on the Big Earth Data. Different data sources from different countries could lead to varying results, and the Big Earth Data plays a vital role in promoting data consistency and transparency between countries. Therefore, it provides crucial support for the understanding of synergies and trade-offs of SDGs. The purpose of this study is to summarize the latest progress of synergy and trade-off studies of SDGs, which has received less attention in SDG-related research, and to support decision making for realizing the economic, environmental, and social goals together.

First page

950

Last Page

962

Language

Chinese

Publisher

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences

Original Submission Date

2021-08-09

References

1 联合国粮食及农业组织. 2020年粮食及农业相关可持续发展目标指标进展. 罗马: 联合国粮农组织, 2020.

2 United Nations-Water. Summary Progress Update 2021: SDG6 — Water and sanitation for all. Geneva: UN, 2021.

3 Sachs J, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C, et al. SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2018. New York: Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), 2018.

4 Sachs J, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C, et al. The Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19. Sustainable Development Report 2020. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

5 United Nations Environment Programme. Measuring Progress: Environment and the SDGs. Nairobi: UNEP, 2021: 1-174.

6 Pedercini M, Arquitt S, Collste D, et al. Harvesting synergy from sustainable development goal interactions. PNAS, 2019, 116(46): 23021-23028.

7 Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M. Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature, 2016, 534: 320-322.

8 Nilsson M, Chisholm E, Griggs D, et al. Mapping interactions between the sustainable development goals: Lessons learned and ways forward. Sustainability Science, 2018, 13(6): 1489- 1503.

9 Weitz N, Carlsen H, Nilsson M, et al. Towards systemic and contextual priority setting for implementing the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability Science, 2018, 13(2): 531-548.

10 Fu B J, Wang S, Zhang J Z, et al. Unravelling the complexity in achieving the 17 Sustainable-Development Goals. National Science Review, 2019, 6(3): 386-388.

11 Pradhan P, Costa L, Rybski D, et al. A systematic study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future, 2017, 5(11): 1169-1179.

12 Warchold A, Pradhan P, Kropp J P. Variations in sustainable development goal interactions: Population, regional, and income disaggregation. Sustainable Development, 2021, 29(2): 285-299.

13 de Miguel Ramos C, Laurenti R. Synergies and trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals: The case of Spain. Sustainability, 2020, 12(24): 10506.

14 Vijay V, Armsworth P R. Pervasive cropland in protected areas highlight trade-offs between conservation and food security. PNAS, 2021, 118(4): e2010121118.

15 Mochizuki J, Magnuszewski P, Pajak M, et al. Simulation games as a catalyst for social learning: The case of the water-food-energy nexus game. Global Environmental Change, 2021, 66: 102204.

16 Zhang J H, Xia S Q, Ye S G, et al. Experimental investigation on the noise reduction of an axial piston pump using free-layer damping material treatment. Applied Acoustics, 2018, 139: 1-7.

17 Zhu J, Kang S H, Zhao W W, et al. A bibliometric analysis of food–energy–water nexus: Progress and prospects. Land, 2020, 9(12): 504.

18 Melo F P L, Parry L, Brancalion P H S, et al. Adding forests to the water–energy–food nexus. Nature Sustainability, 2021, 4(2): 85-92.

19 Liu J G, Hull V, Godfray H C J, et al. Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 2018, 1(9): 466-476.

20 Fuso Nerini F, Tomei J, To L S, et al. Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Energy, 2018, 3(1): 10-15.

21 Fader M, Cranmer C, Lawford R, et al. Toward an understanding of synergies and trade-offs between water, energy, and food SDG targets. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2018, 6: 112.

22 Salah A H, Hassan G E, Fath H, et al. Analytical investigation of different operational scenarios of a novel greenhouse combined with solar stills. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2017, 122: 297-310.

23 Kılkış Ş, Kılkış B. Integrated circular economy and educationmodel to address aspects of an energy-water-food nexus in a dairy facility and local contexts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 167: 1084-1098.

24 Hinz R, Sulser T B, Huefner R, et al. Agricultural development and land use change in India: A scenario analysis of trade-offs between UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Earth’s Future, 2020, 8(2): e2019EF001287.

25 Kapur A. Links between maternal health and NCDs. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2015, 29(1): 32-42.

26 Messina J P, Peter B G, Snapp S S. Re-evaluating the Malawian Farm Input Subsidy Programme. Nature Plants, 2017, 3: 17013.

27 Stokstad E. Sustainable goals from U.N. under fire. Science, 2015, 347: 702-703.

28 Anderson K, Ryan B, Sonntag W, et al. Earth observation in service of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geo-Spatial Information Science, 2017, 20(2): 77-96.

29 Group on Earth Observations. Earth Observation in support of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geneva: GEO, 2017.

30 European Space Agency. Satellite earth observations in support of the Sustainable Development Goals. Paris: ESA, 2018.

31 Griffiths P, Nendel C, Hostert P. Intra-annual reflectance composites from Sentinel-2 and Landsat for national-scale crop and land cover mapping. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2019, 220: 135-151.

32 Chastain R, Housman I, Goldstein J, et al. Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM+ top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2019, 221: 274-285.

33 Shang R, Zhu Z. Harmonizing Landsat 8 and Sentinel-2: A time-series-based reflectance adjustment approach. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2019, 235: 111439.

34 Dong J W, Metternicht G, Hostert P, et al. Remote sensing and geospatial technologies in support of a normative land system science: Status and prospects. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2019, 38: 44-52.

35 Mulligan M, van Soesbergen A, Hole D G, et al. Mapping nature’s contribution to SDG 6 and implications for other SDGs at policy relevant scales. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2020, 239: 111671.

36 Weise K, Höfer R, Franke J, et al. Wetland extent tools for SDG 6.6.1 reporting from the Satellite-based Wetland Observation Service (SWOS). Remote Sensing of Environ- ment, 2020, 247: 111892.

37 Kavvada A, Metternicht G, Kerblat F, et al. Towards delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals using Earth observations. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2020, 247: 111930.

38 Mondal P, McDermid S S, Qadir A. A reporting framework for Sustainable Development Goal 15: Multi-scale monitoring of forest degradation using MODIS, Landsat and Sentinel data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2020, 237: 111592.

39 Prince S D. Challenges for remote sensing of the Sustainable Development Goal SDG 15.3.1 productivity indicator. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2019, 234: 111428.

40 Shen M, Duan H T, Cao Z G, et al. Sentinel-3 OLCI observations of water clarity in large lakes in Eastern Chi- na: Implications for SDG 6.3.2 evaluation. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2020, 247: 111950.

41 Tziolas N, Tsakiridis N, Ogen Y, et al. An integrated methodology using open soil spectral libraries and Earth Ob- servation data for soil organic carbon estimations in support of soil-related SDGs. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2020, 244: 111793.

42 Whitcraft A K, Becker-Reshef I, Justice C O, et al. No pixel left behind: Toward integrating Earth Observations for agricul- ture into the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals framework. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2019, 235: 111470.

43 中国科学院地球大数据科学工程. 地球大数据支撑可持续发展目标报告(2020). (2020-09-15). https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/ziliao_674904/zt_674979/dnzt_674981/qtzt/2030kcxfzyc_686343/P020200927634068540177.pdf.

44 郭华东. 建立国际地球大数据科学中心. 环境与生活,2019, (10): 82.

45 Bryan B A, Gao L, Ye Y Q, et al. China’s response to a national land-system sustainability emergency. Nature, 2018, 559: 193-204.

46 Zheng H, Wang L J, Peng W J, et al. Realizing the values of natural capital for inclusive, sustainable development: Informing China’s new ecological development strategy. PNAS, 2019, 116(17): 8623-8628.

47 傅伯杰. 联合国可持续发展目标与地理科学的历史任务. 科技导报, 2020, 38(13): 19-24.

48 van Zanten J A, van Tulder R. Improving companies’ impacts on sustainable development: A nexus approach to the SDGS. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2021, doi: 10.1002/ bse.2835.

49 Giuliani G, Mazzetti P, Santoro M, et al. Knowledge generation using satellite earth observations to support sustainable devel- opment goals (SDG): A use case on Land degradation. Interna- tional Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinforma- tion, 2020, 88: 102068.

50 Wu B F, Gommes R, Zhang M, et al. Global crop monitoring: A satellite-based hierarchical approach. Remote Sensing, 2015, 7(4): 3907-3933.

51 Hansen M C, Potapov P V, Moore R, et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 2013, 342: 850-853.

52 Qin Y W, Xiao X M, Dong J W, et al. Improved estimates of forest cover and loss in the Brazilian Amazon in 2000–2017. Nature Sustainability, 2019, 2(8): 764-772.

53 Wang X X, Xiao X M, Zou Z H, et al. Gainers and losers of surface and terrestrial water resources in China during 1989– 2016. Nature Communications, 2020, 11: 3471.

54 Zou Z H, Xiao X M, Dong J W, et al. Divergent trends of open-surface water body area in the contiguous United States from 1984 to 2016. PNAS, 2018, 115(15): 3810-3815.

55 Pekel J F, Cottam A, Gorelick N, et al. High-resolution map- ping of global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature, 2016, 540: 418-422.

56 Zeng Z Z, Estes L, Ziegler A D, et al. Highland cropland expansion and forest loss in Southeast Asia in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience, 2018, 11(8): 556-562.

57 Liu X P, Huang Y H, Xu X C, et al. High-spatiotemporal- resolution mapping of global urban change from 1985 to 2015. Nature Sustainability, 2020, 3(7): 564-570.

58 Maxwell S L, Evans T, Watson J E M, et al. Degradation and forgone removals increase the carbon impact of intact forest loss by 626. Science Advances, 2019, 5(10): eaax2546.

59 Roopsind A, Sohngen B, Brandt J. Evidence that a national REDD+ program reduces tree cover loss and carbon emissions in a high forest cover, low deforestation country. PNAS, 2019, 116(49): 24492-24499.

60 Stocker B D, Zscheischler J, Keenan T F, et al. Drought impacts on terrestrial primary production underestimated by satellite monitoring. Nature Geoscience, 2019, 12(4): 264-270.

61 Jung M, Rowhani P, Scharlemann J P W. Impacts of past abrupt land change on local biodiversity globally. Nature Communications, 2019, 10(1): 5474.

62 Dethier E N, Sartain S L, Lutz D A. Heightened levels and seasonal inversion of riverine suspended sediment in a tropical biodiversity hot spot due to artisanal gold mining. PNAS, 2019, 116(48): 23936-23941.

63 Weiss D J, Nelson A, Gibson H S, et al. A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in accessibility in 2015. Nature, 2018, 553: 333-336.

64 MacDonald A J, Mordecai E A. Amazon deforestation drives malaria transmission, and malaria burden reduces forest clearing. PNAS, 2019, 116(44): 22212-22218.

65 Wu X, Braun D, Schwartz J, et al. Evaluating the impact of long-term exposure to fine particulate matter on mortality among the elderly. Science Advances, 2020, 6(29): eaba5692.

66 Jean N, Burke M, Xie M, et al. Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict poverty. Science, 2016, 353: 790-794.

67 Watmough G R, Marcinko C L J, Sullivan C, et al. Socioecologically informed use of remote sensing data to predict rural household poverty. PNAS, 2019, 116(4): 1213- 1218.

Share

COinS