Existing gaps in understanding Sustainable Development Goals interactions: Insights from a systematic review

IF 12.2 1区 社会学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Environmental Impact Assessment Review Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-02 DOI:10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108274
Utkarsh Ashok Khot , Anne Warchold , Prajal Pradhan
{"title":"Existing gaps in understanding Sustainable Development Goals interactions: Insights from a systematic review","authors":"Utkarsh Ashok Khot ,&nbsp;Anne Warchold ,&nbsp;Prajal Pradhan","doi":"10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Most countries remain off track to fulfil the 2030 Agenda's 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets. One key challenge to achieving the 2030 Agenda lies in trade-offs arising from cherry-picking goals or targets at the expense of others. Overlooking these SDG interactions, i.e., synergies and trade-offs, risks creating conflicting policies that undermine the interconnected nature of sustainable development. Hence, there is a need to comprehensively understand how the interactions are being addressed in the growing body of literature. This study provides a systematic review of 272 articles selected from an initial search of 1818. The review reveals that interactions between targets within individual goals and occurring across different geographic boundaries are understudied. The fragmented representation of geographic scales in existing studies highlights another gap, emphasizing the need to understand local SDG interactions. Further, SDG interaction studies infrequently focus on low-income countries, revealing a geographic bias. Notably, an imbalance persists in SDG coverage, with SDGs requiring complex social, institutional, or political engagement (e.g., SDGs 5, 10, 16, and 17) remaining underrepresented in the literature. Most interaction studies focus on goal level rather than more granular target or indicator level analysis. By observing the trends and co-occurrence of methods used for interaction analysis, this study highlights the dominance of qualitative text-based and stakeholder-inclusive methods and a need to develop new approaches to analyze the interactions underlying causal mechanisms. By identifying key gaps and trends, this review can be leveraged to advance the research landscape, guiding the prioritization of SDGs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":309,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","volume":"118 ","pages":"Article 108274"},"PeriodicalIF":12.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925525004718","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Most countries remain off track to fulfil the 2030 Agenda's 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets. One key challenge to achieving the 2030 Agenda lies in trade-offs arising from cherry-picking goals or targets at the expense of others. Overlooking these SDG interactions, i.e., synergies and trade-offs, risks creating conflicting policies that undermine the interconnected nature of sustainable development. Hence, there is a need to comprehensively understand how the interactions are being addressed in the growing body of literature. This study provides a systematic review of 272 articles selected from an initial search of 1818. The review reveals that interactions between targets within individual goals and occurring across different geographic boundaries are understudied. The fragmented representation of geographic scales in existing studies highlights another gap, emphasizing the need to understand local SDG interactions. Further, SDG interaction studies infrequently focus on low-income countries, revealing a geographic bias. Notably, an imbalance persists in SDG coverage, with SDGs requiring complex social, institutional, or political engagement (e.g., SDGs 5, 10, 16, and 17) remaining underrepresented in the literature. Most interaction studies focus on goal level rather than more granular target or indicator level analysis. By observing the trends and co-occurrence of methods used for interaction analysis, this study highlights the dominance of qualitative text-based and stakeholder-inclusive methods and a need to develop new approaches to analyze the interactions underlying causal mechanisms. By identifying key gaps and trends, this review can be leveraged to advance the research landscape, guiding the prioritization of SDGs.

Abstract Image

理解可持续发展目标相互作用的现有差距:来自系统审查的见解
大多数国家在实现《2030年议程》17个可持续发展目标和169个具体目标方面仍未步入正轨。实现《2030年议程》的一项关键挑战在于,在牺牲其他目标或具体目标的情况下,需要权衡取舍。忽视这些可持续发展目标之间的相互作用,即协同效应和权衡,可能会产生相互冲突的政策,从而破坏可持续发展的相互关联性质。因此,有必要全面了解在越来越多的文献中如何处理这种相互作用。本研究从1818年的初始检索中选择了272篇文章,对其进行了系统回顾。回顾表明,个体目标内目标之间的相互作用以及发生在不同地理边界上的相互作用尚未得到充分研究。现有研究中地理尺度的碎片化表现凸显了另一个差距,强调需要了解当地可持续发展目标的相互作用。此外,可持续发展目标相互作用研究很少关注低收入国家,显示出地域偏见。值得注意的是,可持续发展目标的覆盖范围仍然存在不平衡,可持续发展目标需要复杂的社会、机构或政治参与(例如,可持续发展目标5、10、16和17),在文献中仍未得到充分代表。大多数相互作用研究侧重于目标水平,而不是更细粒度的目标或指标水平分析。通过观察相互作用分析方法的趋势和共现性,本研究强调了基于文本的定性方法和利益相关者包容方法的主导地位,以及开发新方法来分析相互作用潜在因果机制的必要性。通过确定关键差距和趋势,可以利用该审查来推进研究格局,指导可持续发展目标的优先顺序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
10.10%
发文量
200
审稿时长
33 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Impact Assessment Review is an interdisciplinary journal that serves a global audience of practitioners, policymakers, and academics involved in assessing the environmental impact of policies, projects, processes, and products. The journal focuses on innovative theory and practice in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Papers are expected to present innovative ideas, be topical, and coherent. The journal emphasizes concepts, methods, techniques, approaches, and systems related to EIA theory and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书