World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

World Development Sustainability

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wds

Analyzing three pillars of sustainable development goals at sub-national

scales within the USA
Rupal D. Mangukiya a,∗, Dann M. Sklarew b
a
Assistant Professor, Environmental Studies Program, Social Science Division, Cottey College, Nevada, MO, USA
b
Professor, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, College of Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: America is a paradox: one of the world’s economically leading countries, lagging in sustainable development
Sustainable development (SD). Drawing on many studies, the problems caused by imbalances between the environment and economy often
SDGs result in resource drains at the local level, leaving the state and local government officials to devise solutions
Sub-national
to address such imbalances. While there are a few UN studies available analyzing this phenomenon at the state
USA
scale, no studies have observed SDGs across 3,142 localities (counties or county-equivalents) within the USA.
Three pillars
Spatial The study categorized these SDGs into three pillars of SD: Social, Economic, and Environmental, to analyze the
balance and imbalance between the pillars of SD across all states and localities within the USA. An indicator-based
approach was used to measure SDGs for the years 2010 and 2015. Results confirmed the uniform distribution
of overall SDG Index distribution across states, but some localities performed poorly, mainly in the Southern
Region. Rank-wise, top scorers upheld balanced scores across three pillars and bottom ranks showed imbalances.
Overall, the social pillar was less predominant, but the economic and environmental pillars predominated in the
northern and southern parts of the nation, respectively. The outcome of the study can help collaborate and build
networks, targeting clustered areas through collective actions and planning local strategies for the outliers and
other localities. While localization is the key, balancing between three pillars is essential to make progress on
the path of SD. Therefore, the present study can be used as a framework to prioritize SDG actions at sub-national
scales.

1. Introduction The annual SDG progress reports suggest that every wealthy coun-
try faces challenges to meet SDGs related to sustainable consumption,
The United Nations (UN) has adopted Sustainable Development (SD) environment, and biodiversity [54–56,58]. In particular, indicators of
as a guiding principle to achieve economic, environmental, and social progress for SDG 12 (Sustainable Consumption and Production), 13 (Cli-
development. SD aspires “to meet the needs of the present without com- mate Action), 14 (Life below Water), and 15 (Life on Land) suggest
promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and that OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development)
an equitable sharing of the environmental costs and benefits of economic countries are far from reaching these goals and that many are stagnating
development between and within countries.” [32]. or retreating [52,53,55,56–59].
The United Nations Millennium Declaration [73] committed world The top 20 national slots – ranked by the overall SDG Index scores,
leaders to combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmen- were secured by rich OCED countries. However, the USA – the world’s
tal degradation, and discrimination against women. The UN Millen- seventh-highest per capita GDP (nominal) and the eighth-highest per
nium Development Goals (MDGs) were adopted to fulfill these com- capita GDP (PPP) as of 2022 [26], scored 74.6 percent on the SDG Index,
mitments with targets set to be achieved by 2015, but the progress ranking 41st among all 163 participating countries [53]. Moreover, the
was limited and uneven across countries [67,70,80]. In 2015, partici- USA. Whereas Scandinavian countries (Finland, Denmark, and Sweden)
pating nations adopted the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) won the honor of the top three ranks in progress, as measured by the
to continue the momentum generated through MDGs and guide the SDG Index, with scores between 86.51 - 85.19, while ranked 21st, 12th,
global SD framework further. Global 17 SDGs were implemented as and 17th by per capita GDP (PPP) [26].
a part of the 2030 Agenda with a 15-year plan to achieve these The USA has one of the most powerful economies globally, at the
goals [71]. forefront of technological advances, especially in computers, pharma-

∗
Corresponding author at: 143 Alumnae Hall, 1000 W. Austin Blvd, Nevada, MO 64772.
E-mail addresses: rmangukiya@cottey.edu (R.D. Mangukiya), dsklarew@gmu.edu (D.M. Sklarew).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wds.2023.100058
Received 19 December 2022; Received in revised form 20 February 2023; Accepted 1 April 2023
2772-655X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 1. Sustainable Development Goals Index Dashboard for the USA [53].

ceuticals, medical, aerospace, and military equipment [26]. Also, the in areas such as pollution control, but active state and local governments
financial sector appears resilient, with low leverage and limited funding have tailored those regulations to broaden the scope of their activities.
risk [69]. However, the USA scored “red,” meaning 25% achievement, Finally, in terms of addressing political change, Americans rate local
indicating seriously far from the 100% achievement for 6 out of 17 of government more favorably than federal and state governments (Pew
the SDGs [53]. Research Center, 2009, 2015).
Fig. 1.1 Most of the SDGs focus heavily on poverty, extending suste- Lynch et al. suggested that localization is key when comparing re-
nance, and access to basic services and infrastructure (SDGs 1–9), but sults from the city, state, and global SDG indices, or looking at cities
the USA did not score green (75–100% achievement of the targets) for in the USA of similar sizes or geographies (2019). Localization is the
any of the SDGs. The economic goals not only include the GDP increase, process of considering sub-national contexts in the achievement of the
but other goals such as distribution of wealth, innovation, and infras- 2030 Agenda. Localization relates both to how local and regional gov-
tructure are also essential to move towards SD. The USA scored over ernments can support the achievement of the SDGs through action from
the 50% mark for SDG9 but lagged on SDG8 and SDG10 [53]. the bottom up and to how the SDGs can provide a framework for local
While national and international studies on SD are important, the development policy [20].
“rubber hits the road” at the local level. Problems caused by imbalances The SDSN report in 2019 included 105 cities, up from 100 cities in
between the environment and the economy often result in resource previous reports. The latest report included 100 of the 101 most pop-
drains at the local level, leaving the state and local government officials ulous Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs); San Juan, Puerto Rico, al-
to devise solutions to address such imbalances [35,60]. While national though the 32nd largest MSA, was not included in this or previous re-
governments have adopted SDGs, sub-national governments are the key ports due to insufficient data coverage. Thus, SDGs across all localities
to achieving them. In a federal system, the state governments enjoy ex- within the USA are needed to identify and prioritize lagging SDGs at a
tensive authority. Each state has its written constitution. Also, under local scale.
the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, all powers not granted In the context of the SDGs, there is a risk of countries prioritizing
to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. certain goals, thereby creating trade-offs and threatening policy coher-
Each state establishes local governments to assist it in conducting ence [6,34,41,45,63]. To address these issues, studies have conceptual-
its constitutional powers. Local governments often provide local ser- ized prioritization in the context of the SDGs as the strategic ordering of
vices and are responsible for law enforcement and keeping vital records. the goals according to their relative perceived importance [19]. A gov-
Cities throughout the world are learning from each other as they inte- ernment may for example choose to prioritize economic goals that are
grate the SDGs into existing planning processes, address data and com- already in line with national strategic plans over environmental goals.
munication gaps created by administrations, and provide leadership in The SDGs are the most intriguing global initiative on the path of
understanding and addressing local needs toward long-term, large-scale SD (Biermann, Kanie, and Kim, 2017). The SDGs promote a sophisti-
change [35]. cated and innovative message: the combination of SD aspects into a
The state and local governments often have a greater impact on peo- three pillars approach to human well‐being combining the environment
ple’s lives than the federal government. State governments have a wide (environmental sustainability), economy (economic development), and
array of functions, encompassing conservation, highway, and motor ve- society (social inclusion) [71]. The three-pillars model of SD employs
hicle supervision, public safety, corrections, professional licensing, reg- three interconnected “pillars” [7], “dimensions” [40], “aspects” (Tan-
ulations of agriculture, intrastate business, industry, certain aspects of guay et al. 2010), etc. encompassing economic, social, and environmen-
education, public health, and welfare. Moreover, the state government tal (or ecological) factors or goals. As per the three-pillars model, SD
is flexible enough to address local circumstances. For example, the fed- requires all three pillars to work together in harmony.
eral government has established minimum requirements and standards Many studies have employed the three pillars of SD: to express SDGs
through sustainability communicators [2,12,78] to develop a vision for
education on SD [15,78] and in case studies that organize SDGs as con-
1
Original dashboard [58] was rearranged to represent SDGs under three pil- cept maps or framework for modeling SD strategies [12,49]. The SDG
lars of SD.

2
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 2. Methodological framework.

Index reports [54–56,58] provide an overview of the world’s SDG net national scope and unavailability of such data at sub-national scales.
implementation progress to date2 but did not consider using the three SDG17 mainly focuses on global partnerships and has been considered
pillars concept of SD. Therefore, the present study will further categorize an institutional goal [51]. Some of the SDGs could be placed under
localized SDGs under three pillars of SD. Tackling the complex web of multiple pillars, for example –SDG7 could be placed under the social
challenges facing American states and localities require that their gov- pillar for access to and affordability of energy, but the clean energy
ernment leaders take a holistic approach, considering social, economic, aspect could also be considered under the environmental pillar. Thus,
and environmental pillars concurrently while setting ambitious long- the SDGs were categorized using the Rockström and Sukhdev [51] ap-
term goals that provide a roadmap for the future. [5]. proach3 and Sachs, et al., [54] as well as using the main objectives of
The present study intended to analyze the SD within the USA at a each goal (Table 1).
sub-national scale: across all states and localities (counties and county As portrayed in Fig. 2, selected indicators data were processed to
equivalents). The SD was estimated using 51 indicators representing the calculate individual SDG goal-level indices and then aggregated into So-
first 16 SDGs categorized under three pillars of SD. This study aimed to cial (SOCI), Environmental (ENVI), and Economic (ECONI) pillar-level
identify areas where the three pillars of SD are pursued simultaneously indices. The three pillar-level indices were aggregated into the overall
to assess whether the harmonious pursuit of the three pillars of SD is the SDG Index (SDGI).
key to progress. Detailed information on the indicator selection criteria,
a list of indicators with data sources, and SDGs categorization under 2.2.1. Selection of indicator data
three pillars of SD are provided in the following methodology section. Existing literature and published data available in the environmen-
tal, economic, and social dimensions of SD were integrated to estimate
2. Methodology SDGs. The economic (ECONI), social (SOCI), and environmental (ENVI)
indices were derived from 51 indicators representing 16 SDGs at the
2.1. Study area and period locality and state scales. The following selection criteria were used to
screen prospects for the selected indicators; each must:
The present study focuses on SD progress in terms of UN SDGs at
i Represent an issue that is important or contributes to one of the 16
two sub-national scales within the USA: 1. across 50 states and Wash-
examined sustainable development goals.
ington DC; 2. Across 3142 localities (counties and county-equivalents).
ii Be meaningful and understandable to a general audience, even if the
The present study evaluated SDGs for baseline years 2010 and 2015.
methodology behind the indicator is complicated.
iii Be quantifiable.
2.2. Methodological framework
iv Be based on available data.
v Be scalable to regional, state, and local levels, where appropriate for
The present study used the three pillars framework of SD to cate-
the issue under consideration
gorize the first 16 SDGs into three pillars: Social, Economic, and Envi-
ronmental (Fig. 2). SDG17 was not included due to its distinctly inter- Further, indicators were selected based on the best available measure
to represent the specific SDG, and where possible, indicators were se-
2
Since the indicators, data, and methodology have been revised for the SDG
3
2018 Index [54], the rankings and scores are not comparable with the 2017 and According to the cake model of SDGs [51], SDG 6 was categorized under
2016 editions. Therefore, a change in a country’s ranking does not necessarily environment, but it has been considered under social dimension based on its
signify a change in its SDG performance. objective which is to provide safe drinking water and sanitation to all.

3
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Table 1
Description of 17 SDGs [54].

Goals Name Objective

SDG1 No Poverty Eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere

SDG2 Zero Hunger End hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
SDG3 Good Health and Wellbeing Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
SDG4 Quality Education Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
SDG5 Gender Equality Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
SDG6 Clean Water and Sanitation Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
SDG7 Affordable and Clean Energy Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all
SDG8 Decent Work and Economic Growth Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and
decent work for all
SDG9 Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation
SDG10 Reduced Inequality Reduce income inequality within and among countries
SDG11 Sustainable Cities and Communities Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable
SDG12 Responsible Consumption and Production Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
SDG13 Climate Action Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts by regulating emissions and promoting
developments in renewable energy
SDG14 Life below Water Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development
SDG15 Life on Land Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests,
combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
SDG16 Promote Justice, Peaceful and Inclusive Societies Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all,
and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels
SDG17 Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable
Development development

lected from the published lists of indicators in Sachs et al., [55–58] and applied for the year 2015 (2010–2015). Also, where 3-year and 5-year
Agenda 21 [14]. Data sources of indicators selected are provided in the datasets were available, the "5-year" average dataset was preferred.
appendix – used for the indices Table 1.
2.2.3. Construction of the indices
2.2.2. Data Indices were estimated particularly on the methodology used by
Indicator data were collected for the baseline years, 2010 and 2015. Sachs et al., in the SDG Index and Dashboards (2017), and the method-
It was difficult to collect all the data from the same period due to cer- ology proposed by Swaminathan [68].
tain data unavailability and as most of the indicator data were from the i Outliers
5-year and 3-year surveys. Survey data provided a multi-year average
value for the indicator. Therefore, the indicator data for the year 2010 The arithmetic aggregation method is sensitive to extreme values;
were collected using the conditions listed in Table 2, and it was the same the estimated SDGs could also be seriously affected by extreme values

Fig. 3. The overall SDG Index (SDGI) by states, USA.

4
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 4. The SDG Index clusters across states, USA.

Fig. 5. Percentage of localities by their SDGI

score in the years 2010 and 2015, USA.

Table 2
Conditions for the data timelines.

If the data for indicator “x” is Then USE

available for

2005 to 2010 (not including 3-year or Data for the year 2010
5-year survey data)
3-year OR 5-year survey data The average value over 3 or 5 years:
2008–10 or 2006–10
3-year AND 5-year survey data The average value over 5 years: 2006–10
and 2011–2015
2006 and 2010 Data for the year 2010
For only one year from the Available data
2006–2010 period
Fig. 6. Localities ranked by the overall SDGI scores, 2010. Example: Only 2007 data is available.

5
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Top and boom ranked localies in the year 2015 equation had been adapted from the methodology used by Swaminathan
100 and Saleth, described below in detail [61].
90
80 Let X’ijky denote the value of the ith variable, the jth goal of the kth
70
60
50
location in yth year, and X’ is the normalized value after rescaling:
40
30 Eq. (1): Rescaling for positive variables
20 ( )
10
0 𝑋𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑦 − Lower bound 𝑋𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑦
𝑋 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑦 =
′
( ) ( ) × 100 (1)

Ashley,AR
Chautauqua,NY

Summit,CO
Oglala Lakota,SD

Quitman,GA

Madison,MS

Kusilvak,AK
Union,SC
Marn,FL

Chaffee,CO
Upper bound 𝑋𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑦 − Lower bound 𝑋𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑦
Eq. (2): Rescaling for negative variables
( )
Upper bound 𝑋𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑦 − 𝑋𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑦
Top 5 Bottom 5 𝑋 ′ 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑦 = ( ) ( ) × 100 (2)
Social Index Economic Index Environmental Index
Upper bound 𝑋𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑦 − Lower bound 𝑋𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑦
In Eq. (1) and [Eq. (2)], “Lower bound Xijky” denotes the worst value
Fig. 7. Localities ranked by the overall SDGI scores, 2015. of the ith variable, the jth goal of the total number of observations –
combining the data for both years at state and local scales. Likewise,
“Upper bound Xijky” denotes the best value.
or outlier indicators. This situation worsens as highly correlated indica- Eq. (1) was applied to variables having positive implications toward
tors (or SDGs) are combined because that way double counting is intro- SDGs and Eq. (2) was applied to variables having negative implications.
duced into the index [21,42]. Moreover, the choice of upper and lower The numerators in both equations measured the extent by which the kth
bounds with which to rescale the data is a sensitive one and can intro- area did better in the ith variable representing the jth goal as compared to
duce unintended effects into datasets due to extreme values and outliers the area(s) showing the worst performance. The denominator is the total
[54]. To account for these considerations, the study used science-based range, i.e., the difference between the maximum and minimum values of
thresholds, but the Interquartile Range (IQR) to remove outliers where a given variable across the states or localities. The denominator served
needed. as a scale or measuring stick by which the performance of each location
No extreme values needed to be addressed at the state scale, but was evaluated for a given variable. Where possible, upper, and lower
outliers were removed using the Interquartile Range (IQR) at the county bounds were derived from technically feasible maxima or thresholds
scale to eliminate the confounding effect of extreme values, which can that must be met to achieve sustainable development and to leave no
skew the results of a composite index. An outlier was defined as any one behind. For example, the upper boundary for the female education
point of data that lies over 1.5 IQRs (Interquartile range) below the first rate is set at 100%. For some variables, no absolute upper bounds or
quartile (Q1) or above the third quartile (Q3) in a data set. lower bounds could be identified as it might be practically impossible to
achieve certain absolute limits, for example, zero infant mortality rate.
i Rescaling and addressing extreme values
In such cases, the best performer at the local scale was considered as an
upper threshold. The threshold values used for rescaling are provided
Each variable was rescaled between 0 – 100 to make the data compa-
in the appendix – used for the indices Table 1.
rable across indicators where 0 means the worst and 100 indicates the
best performance among all states/localities. The associated rescaling i Aggregate the indicators within and across SDGs

Fig. 8. The overall SDG Index (SDGI) across localities, USA.

6
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 9. The SDGI clustering across localities, USA.

Fig. 10. The difference in the SDGI scores from 2010 to 2015, localities, USA.

Having rescaled all variables, the indices for various goals were cal- ite indices are the geometric mean and Leontief production function
culated as arithmetic means of all the indicators under the same goal. [21,23].
The arithmetic mean aggregation method has been widely applied in The arithmetic average assumes equal weighting for all indicators
the calculation of composite indices as compared to the other meth- corresponding to each SDG, and equal weighting for all computed SDGs
ods for its ease of application and communication [27,31,53,62], Other in the construction of the index, which justifies as a reflection of the com-
functional forms usually used for aggregation in calculating compos- mitment by policymakers to treat all SDGs as equally important [21,53].

7
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 11. Mapping three pillars of SD by localities, USA.

Fig. 12. Predominance of sustainability pillars by localities, USA.

The geometric mean follows the economic concept of “limited sub- [21], the Leontief production function over-weights the worst-case ele-
stitutability” [42], which states that being strong on one goal does not ments. Such a pessimistic approach has the disadvantage of focusing on
fully substitute for being weak on another. Progress on one goal cannot a single attribute, thus discarding the remaining elements of sustainable
offset the lack of progress on another, which translates into the necessity development.
of countries to progress toward every goal [36,54]. Despite the geomet- Thus, the limitations of traditional aggregation methods are related
ric mean being mostly preferred by academics, recent evidence suggests to the weighting process of indicators and goals. The arithmetic mean
that differences in results are negligible [54]. As per Guijarro & Poyatos, assumes equal weighting. The geometric and Leontief aggregation meth-

8
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 13. The Economic index (ECONI) clustering across states, USA.

ods over-weight the worst performer indicators and goals, which, can Table 3
cause some places to remain as the worst SDG performers regardless of Moran’s Index for SDGI values across states, USA.
how well they perform in other indicators [21]. Input Feature Moran’s Index z-score p-value
Eq. (3): SDG “Goal” indices
State SDGi (51indicators) _2010 0.119 4.04 0.000054
∑𝐼 𝑗
𝑋 ′ 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑦 State SDGi (51indicators) _2015 0.145 4.83 0.000001
𝑌𝑗𝑘𝑦 = 𝑖=1 (3)
𝐼𝑗
Where, i = indicators representing goal j (1, 2, 3,.……, Ij ); Three color bands ranging from yellow to orange and red denote an
j = sustainable development goals (J = 16); increasing distance from SDG achievement. The red band is the lower
k = state or locality (1, 2, 3, …, 51 states and 3142 localities); bound meaning the farthest from the best threshold for achieving SDG.
y = years (2010 and 2015) The upper and lower bounds are the same as for the SDG Index. When all
Then, the social, environmental, and economic indices and overall states scored in the yellow range, sub-divisions within that yellow range
SDG Index for each region were calculated as weighted arithmetic means were used to visualize the variations across states (example: Fig. 3).
of the goal indices.
Eq. (4): The overall SDGI/Social/Environmental/Economic In- 2.4. Distribution of indices across states and localities
dex
∑𝐽 The overall distribution of the indices across the states and localities
𝑗=1 𝑊𝑗𝑘𝑦 𝑌𝑗𝑘𝑦
SDGI∕Social∕Environmental∕Economic index = (4) was studied using spatial autocorrelation. When a clustered pattern ap-
𝐽 peared, Anselin Local Moran’s I was performed to identify the areas that
The Wjk in Equation [4] denotes the weight assigned to the are similar or different to their neighborhood.
jth Goal in the Kth region and has the property that: Wik
+…………………… + Wjk = 1, which means that a system of equal 3. Results
weights was assumed. As a normative assumption, equal weights were
assigned to every SDG to reflect policymakers’ commitment to treating 3.1. The overall SDG index (SDGI)
all SDGs equally and as an “integrated and indivisible” set of goals [71].
This approach also allows for the later addition of new variables for an All states scored in the range of 54–73 on the overall SDGI, mean-
SDG without affecting the relative weight of each SDG in the overall ing states were at the 50–75 (yellow) mark towards the possible upper
score. thresholds (green: 75–100) to achieve all 16 SDGs (Fig. 3). However,
the spatial distribution of SDGI values across states was clustered, given
2.3. Comparing indices across states and localities the z-scores 4.04 and 4.83 (Table 3), there is a less than 0.1% likelihood
that this clustered pattern could be the result of random chance.
To compare indices scores across states and localities, the SDGI As per Fig. 4, low-low (LL) values are clustered in the Southern re-
scores and sub-indices values were presented using four color ranges: gion meaning a state with a low SDGI score is surrounded by neighbor-
0–25 (red), 25–50 (orange), 50–75 (yellow), and 75–100 (green). The ing states with similar low SDGI values. Likewise, high-high (HH) values
green band is bounded by the maximum that can be achieved for each are clustered in the Northeastern region for both years 2010 and 2015
variable (i.e. the upper bound) and the threshold for achieving the SDG. (Fig. 4).

9
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 14. Economic SDGs (SDG 8, 9, and 10) by states, USA.

10
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 15. Economic SDGs (SDG 8, 9, and 10) by localities, USA 2010.

At the local scale, 78% and 79% of all 3142 localities scored between Table 4
50 – 75 on SDGI for the years 2010 and 2015, respectively (Fig. 5). While Moran’s Index for SDGI values across localities, USA.
none of the localities scored in red (below 25), 22% and 20% of the Input Feature Moran’s Index z-score p-value
localities scored between 25 – 50 (orange) for the years 2010 and 2015,
Localities SDGI_2010 0.18 106.43 0
respectively. Only one locality (Kalawao, HI) in 2010 and 11 localities
Localities SDGI_2015 0.06 36.32 0
in 2015 scored between 75 – 100, meaning close to achieving the goal,
with first rank out of 3142 localities (Fig. 6). While top 5 and bottom 5
ranking localities did not reveal enough information about distribution low (LL) clusters were observed mainly in the Southern region of the
of these 3142 localities, but it highlights that southern localities are also country. However, high-low (HL) outliers in Southern regions, and
in the top 5 ranks (Figs. 6 and 7). low-high (LH) outliers in the remaining regions, were also noticeable.
Most of these 22% and 20% orange localities mentioned in Fig. 5 are (Fig. 9).
geographically in the Midwestern (47%) and Southern (41%) regions Although temporal trends cannot be considered dependable as some
(Fig. 8). Also, almost every locality in the northeast region scored in the of the underlying indicators were missing for either year, it was worth
yellow range for both years. noticing that the percentages of localities with SDGI scores in the range
Corresponding to states, the SDGI distribution across localities was of green and yellow increased by 0.32% and 5.23%, respectively, from
clustered (Table 4). A few local high-high (HH) clusters were observed the years 2010 to 2015 (Fig. 5). A total of 350 (51%) localities out of
in the Northeastern, Midwestern, and Western regions. Conversely, low- 682 (22% of a total of 3142 localities) observed an increase in the SDGI

11
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 16. Economic SDGs (SDG 8, 9, and 10) by localities, USA 2015.

scores from orange to yellow in the year 2015, the majority (194) local- (ENVI), Economic index (ECONI), and Social index (SOCI) identified the
ities were recorded in the Southern states (Fig. 8). The SDGI score for states and localities pursuing all three pillars of SD concurrently.
12% (304) of localities out of 2457 (78% of the total 3142 localities) In the year 2010, the top thirty states (except for HI, CO, OR, IL, and
decreased from yellow in 2010 to the orange range in the year 2015. CA) by SDGI ranks, simultaneously scored in the yellow range for all
The majority (213) of these 304 localities are also in the Southern states three sub-indices, possibly presenting the three-pillars model approach
(Fig. 8). Only one locality (Kalawao, HI) scored in green in the year 2010 to achieve SD (Table 5). In the case of exceptions, the environmental
and then maintained the score in the same range in 2015. Additionally, index was scored in green, relatively higher than the economic and so-
10 localities in the Western region show an increase from the yellow to cial pillars of SD. It was quite different for the year 2015, except for
green range in the year 2015. The remaining localities displayed either a Nebraska, where all three sub-indices were scored in the yellow range.
slight positive change or were able to maintain the same status in 2015. The remaining states in the top 30 ranks recorded a higher score for the
The difference map (Fig. 10) portrayed the relative improvement and a environmental index compared to social and economic aspects in the
decrease in the SDGI scores in 5 years. year 2015. The bottom (ranks 31–51) states scored green or yellow on
ENVI (except for WY) and yellow on SOCI (except AK) in both years
3.2. Sub-indices based on the three pillars of SD 2010 and 2015. However, 12 and 7 states lagged on ECONI with scores
in the orange range for the years 2010 and 2015, respectively (Table 5).
While overall SDGI scores provide the SD status for every state Few states in the bottom ranks, such as DE, NC, ND, MT, TX, NV,
and locality within the USA, sub-indices such as Environmental index and OK, also simultaneously scored in the yellow range for all three

12
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Table 5
List of states by SDGi ranks, and sub-indices using 48 indicators.

13
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 17. The Economic index (ECONI) clustering across localities, USA.

sub-indices in 2010. Nevada’s outstanding performance was evident as of localities increased from 39% to 44% in the year 2015. The individ-
it moved from the rank of 42nd to 14th in the year 2015. Amongst ual sub-indices were studied further to provide more insights in terms
the bottom-ranking states, ND, MT, TX, and OK maintained balanced of the spatial distribution of these indices and to identify and prioritize
scores across the three sub-indices, while making the progress in terms of localities by SD dimensions and by SDGs when needed.
overall SDGI in the year 2015. Also, the bottom-ranked states such as IN,
KY, AR, and WV appeared to be pursuing all three pillars concurrently
3.2.1. Economic index (ECONI)
in the year 2015.
Lower ECONI scores (25 – 50) are clustered in the Southern part of
In Fig. 11, localities presented with SDGI scores, recorded all three
the country for both years (Fig. 13). This could be the result of lower
sub-indices (ECONI, ENVI, and SOCI) in the same color range, meaning
scores of underlying SDGs 8, 9, and 10 in the year 2010 (Fig. 14- A,
possibly presenting the three-pillars concept of SD. The remaining, gray-
C, and E). Likewise, SDGs 8 and 10 could be held accountable for the
colored localities presented the imbalance between the three pillars of
lower ECONI in southern states in the year 2015 (Fig. 14- B, D, and F).
SD. About 50% of the localities in the Northeastern and Midwestern
High-value clustering in the Northeastern and in between the Western
regions, 40% of the Western localities, and about 30% of the Southern
(MT) and Midwestern (ND, SD) regions was consistent for both years
localities scored parallelly high in all three pillars of SD.
(Fig. 13).
Fig. 12 shows the predominance of the SD pillars by localities while
Likewise, the underlying SDGs 8, 9, and 10 were scored lower in the
indicating the need for prioritizing the other two sub-indices to work in
Southern localities in the year 2010 (Fig. 15), but only SDGs 8 and 10
unison and progress towards SD. In terms of the predominance of SD
are accountable for the lower values in the southern region in the year
pillars across localities (Fig. 12), lighter shades (33.5–42) mean nearly
2015 (Fig. 16).
balanced pillar indices, meaning no significant predominance and the
Overall, the ECONI distribution across localities upheld a weak clus-
darker color shows increasing predominance. Accordingly. the North-
tering of low values in the Southern region and high values clustering
eastern localities are showing lower strengths of predominance, the eco-
in the Midwestern region for both years 2010 and 2015 (Fig. 17). Lo-
nomic pillar is predominating in the northern part and the environmen-
calities in the Northeastern and Western regions also scored relatively
tal pillar is predominating in the southern part of the country. Most
higher, but no significant clustering is observed, except for states such
Southern localities (44%) observed higher scores for ENVI as compared
as Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah.
to the other two in the year 2010. In 2015, about 27% and 21% of
Southern localities recorded a higher score in the environmental and
economic dimensions, respectively. Whereas 30% of Midwestern local- 3.2.2. Environmental index (ENVI)
ities represented high economic status as compared to the social and Although there was no statistically significant clustering observed in
environmental dimensions of SD for both years. The economic dimen- the distribution of ENVI across states, states such, as HI, CO, OR, IL, CA,
sion was also relatively high among the three dimensions of SD in the FL, TN, AZ, GA, AL, and SC scored in the green range in 2015 (Table 5).
northeastern (18%) and Western (20%) localities for both years. The Also, WY was consistently laggard on ENVI by scoring in orange for both
least share of localities in each region represented the higher score for years (Table 5).
social dimension compared to economic and environmental dimensions. In the year 2010, almost every state recorded the SDG12 index in
While there was no significant clustering was observed in terms of lo- the yellow range, except for MO and ME (scored in orange); WY (red);
calities presenting balanced scores of sub-indices, the overall percentage and NY, NJ, and MA (scored in green) from the Northeastern region

14
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 18. Environmental SDGs (12, 13, 14, and 15) by states, USA 2010.

(Fig. 18- A). Similarly, SDG14 scores4 were in the yellow range for a reason for using this facility scale data was that county scale emissions
majority of the states, but TX, OK, MD, and DE in the Southern; NV in are not being recorded, and for comparison purposes, the same list of
the Western; MN and OH in the Midwestern; and PA, NY, NJ, MA, and indicators was maintained at both scales. For SDG155 indicators (Birds,
NH in the Northeastern region, scored in orange (Fig. 18- C). Only two Mammals, Amphibians, and Trees richness) in 2010, green scores are
states, NV and GA scored in the green range on SDG14 for the year 2010. observed in the Southern and Western parts of the country (Fig. 18- D).
As per SDG13 (Figs. 18- B and 19- B), there was no difference be- Also, the lowest performance (25–50) was observed in the states such
tween 2010 and 2015, in terms of spatial distribution as almost every as North- Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (Fig. 18-
state scored in green except for, WY, LA, ND, and WV. Nevertheless, the D). SDG15 (indicator-protected area for biodiversity) for the year 2015,
underlying indicators are GHG and CO2 emissions reported by facilities was recorded in the green range for most (35) states (Fig. 19- C).
and summarized by states to estimate the emissions for each state. The While there was no significant clustering was observed, the majority
drawback of these indicators includes that more extensive are likely to of the lower ENVI scores were observed in the Midwestern and Western
emit more GHGs, and probably provide the services to a larger popu- regions in the year 2010 (Fig. 20- A). Based on distinct environmental
lation, but they were normalized with location state population. The

5
Data for five out of six indicators relevant to SDG15 were not available in
4
The SDG14 data were not available for the year 2015, hence it was excluded the year 2015, and the only available SDG 15 indicator data for 2015 was not
from the ENVI evaluation for the year 2015. available for the year 2010.

15
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 19. Environmental SDGs (12, 13, and 15) by states, USA 2015.

indicators available for the year 2015, most of the lower scores (0–50) Likewise, 38% and 31% of the localities in the Southern region
were observed in Midwestern and Southern states (Fig. 20- B). recorded SOCI in the orange range for the years 2010 and 2015, re-
Underlying SDGs at the local scale revealed the poor performance (0 spectively (Fig. 24). Furthermore, Fig. 25 confirmed the state-wise low-
– 50) of localities in terms of SDG12 in the Western (48%) and Midwest- low clustering in the Southern region, and high values clustering in the
ern (34%) regions in the year 2010 (Fig. 21- A). Outstandingly, most Northeast region mainly.
localities recorded in green and yellow on SDG 12 in the year 2015, A weak clustering was observed at the local scale (Fig. 26), with a
but 30% of localities in the Western region still presented scores below few high-values (HH) clusters in the Northeast and Midwest regions. A
50. (Fig. 22- A). Likewise, poor performance on SDG 14 was observed few low-values (LL) clusters were also observed in the Southern region
for most localities in the Western (61%) and Midwestern (54%) regions (Fig. 26).
(Fig. 21- C). Also, SDG15 was recorded in red or orange for most locali- The social SDGs at the local scale are presented priority-wise in Figs.
ties for both years (Figs. 21- D and 22- C), except for the Western region 27–29. Approximately 60 – 70% of localities out of the total 3142, con-
in 2015 (Fig. 22- C). sistently scored below 50 for SDGs – SDG2, SDG4, and SDG5 in both
years (Fig. 27). Also, over 35% of localities scored in either red or orange
on SDG1 and SDG3 for both years and were located mostly in Southern
3.2.3. Social index (SOCI)
states. (Fig. 28).
Though all the states scored in the same range (yellow) for both
Most of the localities consistently scored in the yellow range for
years, it appeared like there is a parallel line somewhat in the middle
SDG11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) in both years, and ap-
of the country, dividing it into two parts (Fig. 23). Though this divide
proximately 10% of the localities, majorly in the Southern region,
does not start at the Mason-Dixon line which is a boundary between
lagged on SDG11 with scores under 50 (Fig. 29). While most lo-
Pennsylvania and Maryland at 39° 43′ N, it is similarly dividing the
calities scored in green for SDG6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) for
country into Southern states with poor performance and the Upper part
both years, SDG6 can be prioritized at the local level, to improve
as Northern states with high scores.

16
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 20. The Environmental index (ENVI) by localities, USA, 2010, and 2015.

the scores for around 6% of localities that are in the yellow range best-performing city, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Southern region) as
(Fig. 29C-D). the worst. The geography of discontent is a symptom of an underlying
The social SDGs 7 and 16 are presented state-wise for the years 2010 policy failure. A focus on aggregate performance at the national level
and 2015 in Fig. 30. Local-scale data for SDGs 7 and 16 are lacking has obscured that struggling regions require distinct solutions. Only if
over 50% of the localities, available locality data presented scores in policymakers address this fundamental issue will they be able to deal
either the green or yellow range for both years. Per Fig. 30 (A, B), most with the cause behind the geography of discontent [46].
states scored high on SDG16, but states in the yellow range were also Many countries have taken steps to address geographical inequal-
noticeable in the Southern and Western regions. Also, almost every state ities. For example, Namibia is committed to ensuring both urban and
(except WY, ND, VT, and WV) states consistently scored in green for rural electrification, including through solar and wind systems [22].
SDG7 (Fig. 30). WY lagged on SDG7 with scores below 50 in both years. Colombia focuses on malnutrition in the regions most affected to en-
Others such as ND, WV scored in the yellow range for the years 2010 sure people from these areas are not left behind [8]. Egypt started an
and 2015, and VT scored in orange in 2015. initiative to improve living conditions in their poorest villages. Mada-
gascar demonstrates regional action especially by strengthening efforts
4. Discussion to combat food insecurity in the south of the country [72].
Spatial and location-specific coalitions that bring together compa-
4.1. The overall SDGI and three pillars of SD nies, investors, governments, civil society, and citizens to agree on
shared priorities and develop common plans for action offer high poten-
The overall SDGI scores observed at the state scale for both years tial to achieve scale and systemic impact [43]. The SDGs at sub-national
2010 and 2015, probably haven’t changed much considering the USA scales provide a unique opportunity to rethink drastically the design and
scored (72.7 – 74.6) in the yellow range for the Overall SDGI for the implementation of public policies, in a shared responsibility across lev-
years 2016–2022 [53–59]. From the national to state scale, all states els of government and stakeholders to foster greater accountability, eq-
scored in the yellow range looked perfect in terms of uniform progress uity, inclusion, and cohesion now and in the future. This will contribute
across all states. However, there is quite a bit of variation across all US to addressing some of the root causes of the geography of discontent in
Census regions, the entire Southern region performed poorly, none of a place-based manner. For example, in Southern Denmark, the SDGs are
the Southern states were ranked in the top 20 and high performers were used to shape regional policy dialog. The overall concept of well-being
clustered in the Northeastern region. Moreover, UN studies reported a and quality of life, the specific regional goals, and as well as the action of
similar geographic clustering in the index scores, with American states the region are linked to specific SDGs and are designed to contribute to
in the Northeastern and Pacific Northwest near the top of the index and their achievement. In particular, the Southern Denmark region has pri-
states in the three southern regions performing poorly, despite using oritized 11 SDGs that are most relevant for its work: SDG 3 on health,
different indicators [36,54]. SDG 4 on education, SDG 5 on gender, SDG 6 on water, SDG 7 on clean
Corresponding to states, a few of the low-performing localities are energy, SDG 9 on industry and infrastructure, SDG 10 on inequalities,
clustered in the Southern region, and high-performing localities are in SDG 11 on sustainable cities and communities, SDG 12 on sustainable
the Northeastern region. Nevertheless, most of the localities did not consumption, SDG 13 on climate and SDG 14 on life below water [47].
present a significant clustering. Subsequently, Sachs et al. [58] recorded However, this prioritization comes with the risk of unbalanced atten-
San Francisco Oakland-Hayward, California (Western region) as the tion being given to the SDGs. Excessive and prejudicial goal prioritiza-

17
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 21. Environmental SDGs (12, 13, 14, and 15) by localities, USA 2010.

tion goes against the intent of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop- Though, it was not the same in 2015 as most states scored higher on the
ment and could pose a significant threat to the integrity and coherence environmental dimension. Contrary, poor-performing Southern states,
of the supposedly “integrated and indivisible” SDGs [19]. with Wyoming (the bottom-most state) in the Western region, presented
To be fair, prioritization is not entirely avoidable especially to ad- an uneven SD performance across three pillars. States showing imbal-
dress geographic inequalities as mentioned earlier in the discussion. ance across of three pillars of SD, recorded higher scores for the envi-
Some researchers argue that certain goals are, or should be recognized ronmental pillar, in the Western region (AZ and NM), Northeastern re-
as, more important than others [11,24]. To identify the prioritization gion (VT), and the Southern (LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC) regions. Whereas
and associated risks, Forestier & Kim, [19] grouped the SDGs accord- Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska portrayed higher scores for the
ing to the three pillars of sustainable development as defined by Waage economic pillar. Sachs et al. [54] also noted that the Northeastern and
et al., [79], the results confirmed the conventional understanding that Pacific Northwest regions with the best overall SDG are also doing the
as a country develops, it transitions from selective prioritizing socioe- best across social, environmental, and economically grouped SDGs, the
conomic objectives towards a more balanced consideration of all three environmental dimension was leading across all states.
pillars of sustainable development. Comparably, the present study ob- When drilled down to the local scale, not all the high-performing
served that most of the high-performing states in the Northeastern, Mid- localities presented a three pillars approach to SD, there is a significant
western, and Western regions, also upheld a balance between three variation across localities. However, the overall pattern is sustained as
(economic, social, and environmental) pillars of SD for the year 2010. over 40% of localities in the Northeastern, Midwestern, and Western lo-

18
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 22. Environmental SDGs (12, 13, and 15) by localities, USA 2015.

calities presented the balance scores across sub-indices. In the Southern 4.2. Economic, environmental, and social SDGs across states and localities
region, most localities (about 70%) did not show the balance across the
three pillars of SD. This suggests that to achieve all SDGs, balancing be- Social and economic pillars are distributed concurrently across states
tween or harmoniously pursuing these three pillars of SD is essential. and localities, with minimal variation between the distribution patterns
The economic pillar predominated in most parts of the Midwestern re- of these two pillar indices. The southern states have performed poorly
gion, with about 20% of the localities in the Northeastern, and Southern in the economic dimension mainly due to underperformance related to
states such as Texas. Whereas most of the Southern localities represented specific underlying SDGs. The per capita income (one of the indicators
environmental predominance in both years. under SDG8), did increase between the years 2010 and 2015, but the
Although temporal variation is a bit ambiguous in the present study unemployment rate (SDG8 indicator) was high in most parts (MS, SC,
due to the unavailability of the underlying data, it was worth noticing AL, FL, GA, DC, TN, KY, LA, AR, and WV) of Southern region. This indi-
that the best five localities in the year 2015, were scored lower in the cated the growing inequality with a growing economy, which was again
year 2010, with balanced scores of sub-indices for two out of 5 localities evident with SDG10 distribution across states and localities. The entire
in 2010. Conversely, the worst five localities in the year 2015 are at the Southern region was recorded with high-income inequality as compared
bottom due to a decrease in the SDGI scores with an increased imbal- to other states. This is a reminder of the famous Mason-Dixon line be-
ance between sub-indices in the year 2015 as compared to 2010. This tween Pennsylvania and Maryland, during the Civil Wars. The original
potentially indicates that success towards sustainable development is intention of this line was to simply put a constitutional boundary, which
achieved when three dimensions of SD are pursued concurrently. There- ultimately becomes a divide of the country into parts, bottom Southern
fore, balancing between the three pillars of SD should be considered states, and upper Northern states. Initially, it was limited to Southern
crucial and incorporated into a decision-making process to prioritize slaves and Northern free land divisions, later it became a cultural bound-
actions towards SDGs at the sub-national scales. ary, and the shadow of this divide still exists even after centuries. How-

19
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 23. The Social index (SOCI) by states, USA.

Fig. 24. The Social index (SOCI) by localities, USA.

ever, it is worth noting that the employment-to-population ratio under Corresponding to the economic dimension in Southern states, high
SDG8 rated well (scores above 50) across all states, including South- ECONI values in the Northeastern region resulted from SDGs 8, 9, and
ern states. Also, these economic distribution patterns can help to prior- 10, with SDG10 being the major concern as it portrayed the lowest
itize the SD pillars, underlying SDGs, and even economic indicators if scores of the region (representing high-income inequality) in the states
needed. such as MA, RI, NJ, and NY. Also, SDG9 recorded higher scores in com-

20
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 25. The Social index clustering across states, USA.

Fig. 26. The Social index (SOCI) clustering across localities, USA.

parison to SDG8 and SDG10 for most of the Northeastern states, indicat- Good Health and well-being (SDG3), contributed to the lower perfor-
ing that SDG8 should be the next priority. Likewise, economic perfor- mance of the states and localities and need to be prioritized, respec-
mance at the local scale can help prioritize local actions based on SDGs tively over other social SDGs such as sustainable cities and communi-
and underlying indicators. ties (SDG11) and clean water and sanitation (SDG6). Most of the South-
In the social pillar, SDGs such as Quality Education (SDG4), Zero ern states and localities performed poorly in terms of the social index
Hunger (SDG2), Gender Inequality (SDG5), No Poverty (SDG1), and (SOCI). This suggests that a certain minimum economic status is a pre-

21
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 27. Social SDGs (2, 4, and 5) by localities, USA.

22
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 28. Social SDGs (1 and 3) by localities, USA.

requisite to getting access to all social needs. Sachs et al. also recorded The present study recorded SDG6 mostly in green across states and
that, poverty hinders progress toward other development targets and localities using indicators such as the percentage of occupied households
prevents access to services for those who need them most (2018). For with complete plumbing facilities, the percentage population served
example, considering access, at best there are 51 affordable and avail- with public water supply, and the percentage population that has ac-
able rental units per 100 low-income renters (Alabama), indicating that cess to water supply (public/private). Contrary, Sachs et al. [54] ob-
for low-income families across the US, there is little to no choice about served extreme differences in access to safe drinking water within the
where to live [54]. Another example is the prevalence of food insecurity, US. Accordingly, in Minnesota, the best performer in avoiding water vi-
which is also affected by income and employment, as well as state-level olations, 1.3% of communities were served by a community water sys-
characteristics such as average wages, cost of housing, unemployment, tem with a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violation. In contrast, over
and State-level policies that affect access to unemployment insurance, 61% of communities in Delaware had violations, and those are only the
the State Earned Income Tax Credit, and nutrition assistance programs violations that are reported [54].
[4]. As per the State and U.S. estimates for the 3 years of 2019–21, the The green SDGs such as SDG7 (Affordable and clean energy), SDG13
prevalence of food insecurity was higher (i.e., statistically significantly (climate action), and SDG16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institution)
higher) than the national average in 9 States (AL, AR, KY, LA, MS, OK, were recorded mostly in green for all states, but over 60% of data were
SC, TX, and WV) and lower than the national average in the District of missing at the local scale. However, the results of a similar study show
Columbia and 14 States (CA, IA, MA, MD, MN, ND, NH, NJ, PA, RI, SD, that low-income households are extremely energy burdened in all 50
VA, VT, and WA) [10]. states [16]. Spending 11% of income on energy is considered a high

23
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 29. Social SDGs (6 and 11) by localities, USA 2010 and 2015.

burden [16]; in every state except Hawaii, households below 50% of However, the underlying goal indices for SDG12 and SDG13 for both
the poverty line are spending upwards of 20% of their income on en- years 2010 and 2015 did not show much of a change. Hence, not show-
ergy – with Hawaii performing only marginally better at 19% [54]. ing any significant changes in 5 years could also be interpreted as there
Contrary to economic and social dimensions, the environmental di- was no progress towards the SDGs, which can be argued by considering
mension did not represent significant clustering at the state scale with the timeline of the new 17 SDGs started in the year 2015 with targets
almost every state scoring in the yellow range, leaving ND (orange) and to be achieved by 2030 and/or the inconsistent period of the data used
WY (red) behind. Also, almost every state scored relatively higher on underneath.
the environmental dimension in the year 2015, with a distinct set of Considering the spatial distribution of environmental index scores
indicators. The difference between the years 2010 and 2015 in terms across localities in the year 2015, lower scores of ENVI resulted from
of ENVI, cannot be interpreted as a change in the environmental di- lower values of SDG15 (Life on land –% protected area). But lower val-
mension during 5years period, as SDG15 for the year, 2010 used mainly ues in the year 2010 were represented by SDG 14, and higher values
biodiversity indicators whereas SDG15 for the year 2015 used protected
area indicators. Also, SDG14 data was not available for the year 2015.6
port of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP). However, oceans at the
sub-national level in the US presents difficulties and oceans are managed at the
6
In the year 2010, SDG 14 was represented by fish richness, stream habi- interstate, national, and international scales. However, efforts could and should
tat condition index, and coastal habitat condition index in the year 2010, data be made to better understand state-level impacts on the oceans to include Goal
products from the 2010 national assessment of fish habitat, conducted in sup- 14 in future editions of the index [54].

24
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Fig. 30. Social SDGs (SDG 7 and 16) by states, USA 2010 and 2015.

in the southern region were due to underlying biodiversity indicators across the three pillars of SD, appeared to be interconnected. For ex-
(SDG15) and climate change indicators (SDG13). However, SDG13 was ample, the economic SDGs (8, 9, and 10) were observed lowest in the
represented by total GHG emissions and CO2 emissions equivalent to Southern region, SDGs 1 to 5 from the social dimension also performed
CO2 metric tons, by facilities, which was converted into per-capita emis- poorly in this region. Contrary, SDG12 was recorded higher in the south-
sions, and every state scored in green leaving WY, ND, WV, and LA be- ern region. Also, SDG14 and SDG15 represented the same possibility of
hind in the year 2015. Historically the US has been one of the largest a negative or decoupling with economic and social goals in the year
annual per capita and total emitters in the world [1]. This dispropor- 2010. Just as poor outcomes in one SDG can hinder the achievement
tionate contribution to global emissions impacts international efforts to of others, progress on one goal can create benefits and opportunities in
mitigate and adapt to climate change and hampers the achievement of other aspects of development [33].
SDG13 (Climate Action). According to Sachs et al. [54], the US per- The SDGs are integrated and interdisciplinary development agendas
forms poorly on Goal 13, with significant variation between states, and and the results of the index in their study strengthen the claim that
the worst performer, Wyoming, has emissions thirteen times higher than no SDG can be achieved alone – solutions and progress must be pur-
New York, the best performer. sued in cross-cutting ways which acknowledge that outcomes are in-
Overall, sub-indices across both scales seemed to express a possibil- herently connected across environmental, social, and economic devel-
ity of a positive association between social and economic dimensions opment [3,54]. However, these interactions need to be studied further
but had a bit confusing, as in negative or decoupling, association with to confirm the association between the three pillars of SD as well as
the environmental dimension. Likewise, overlaying the SDGs within and between the 17 SDGs.

25
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

The indicator-based approach is imperative for monitoring and as- Analyzing the first 16 SDGs using the three pillars framework of SD
sessing sustainable development, as it provides a basis on which to demonstrated that most high SDGI scorer states and localities showed
judge whether sustainable development is being achieved, to analyze a balance between the three pillars (economic, social, and environ-
the problems, and to understand their complexity while providing a mental) of SD. Additionally, findings indicated a possibility of a pos-
reference for policymaking [37]. However, these indices are sensitive itive association between economic and social dimensions as distribu-
to the selection of indicators [50,81]. To observe and compare SDGs tion patterns across states and localities varied parallel to each other.
from local, state, and national scales, a consolidated list of indicators Conversely, the environmental dimension is associated negatively with
representing targets set under 17 SDGs, should also be recorded and the other two dimensions, though it was not consistent spatially. The
tracked at sub-national scales. In collaboration with the US Office of interactions between the three pillars of SD require further theoret-
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: ically and empirically compelling research to confirm the associa-
the US Department of State, Office of International Organizations; the tions and causality between the three dimensions of SD. Further, in-
US General Services Administration; and the US Office of Science and dices can be evaluated and monitored to study and track these pat-
Technology Policy, the USA has already started working on provid- terns more accurately, using the same list of indicators that are be-
ing information on the U.S. National Statistics for the U.N. Sustain- ing tracked at the national scale, to make it more consistent across the
able Development Goals. Subsequently, states and localities also should scales.
take reporting initiatives following the same framework as the national While localization is the key to moving forward toward sustainable
scale. development, balancing between the three pillars (economic, social, and
environmental) of SD is essential to make progress on the path of SD.
5. Conclusion Therefore, the present study can be used as a framework to replicate
country-specific domestic analysis and prioritize local actions.
The present study provided the consolidated list of local indicators
and SDGI measures across all states and localities (3142 counties and Declaration of Competing Interest
county-equivalent) to identify the local needs and prioritize the pil-
lars and SDGs accordingly. The present study also supports the need The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
for localization in planning and prioritizing the SDGs and highlighted interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the need for identifying and monitoring the same set of SDG indica- the work reported in this paper.
tors as created for national SDGI at sub-national scales. While the na-
tional performance provided the standing of the USA among 167 par- Acknowledgments
ticipating countries in this global collective action [58], the underlying
state-scale analysis helped highlight the clusters of relatively well and We are grateful to the advising committee members and anonymous
poor-performing states. Though all states were recorded in the yellow referees.
(50–75) range for overall performance, underlying localities revealed an This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agen-
uneven distribution, emphasizing the need for locality-specific actions cies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
to resolve issues at a local level. Also, states can incorporate local scale
customization in the planning and decision-making process to make sure Appendix
that planned actions are precisely targeting the area(s) in need, whether
it is a state’s collaborative action with other states facing a similar issue Table A1.
or a state-specific action.

26
 R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew
Table A1
List of indicators and the data sources and the thresholds used for the indices.
SDG Name Indicators Locality State Source Best Worst
(value = 100) (value = 0)
T1 (2006–2010) T2 (2011–2015) T1 (2006–2010) T2 (2011–2015)

Goal 1 No Poverty 1.1 Population living below the 2010 2015 2010 2015 [[65],[66]] 0 32
national poverty line (%)
Goal 2 Zero Hunger 2.1 Households with food NA 2015 NA 2014 [38] 4.1 22.7
insecurity (%)
2.2 Population with low access 2010 2015 2010 2015 [77] 0 55.93
to grocery stores (%)
2.3 Forest area (%) 2006 2011 2006 2011 [25] Multi-Resolution Land 93.5 0.1
2.4 Agriculture area (%) 2006 2011 2006 2011 Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) 93.3 0.1
Goal 3 Good health and 3.1 Average annual neonatal 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 (Centers for Disease Control and 1.52 7.18
wellbeing (<28 days of age) mortality Prevention [[9], n.d.]
rate per 1000 live births
over 5 years
3.2 Total fertility rate per 1000 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 1163.6 2942.1
women
3.3 Population without health 2010 2015 2010 2015 U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area 0 33.3
insurance (%) Health Insurance Estimates [64]
3.4 Low Birth Weight Babies 2010 2015 2010 2015 (Centers for Disease Control and 2.6 10.4
(less than 2500 grams) (%) Prevention [[9], n.d.]
3.5 Average annual perinatal 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 2.84 9.86
mortality per 1000 live
births over 5 years
3.6 Adult population obese Body 2008 2013 2010 2015 20.1 42
Mass Index (BMI) ≥ 30 (%)
Goal 4 Quality education 4.1 Age 25 and older not 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): DP02 0.7 36.5
27

completing high school (%

high school dropouts)
4.2 Population (age 25 and 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): DP02 0.35 31.25
over) with higher (Master,
professional, doctorate)
education (%)
Goal 5 Gender equality 5.1 Gender wage gap (%) 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): DP03 4.38 45.55
5.2 Female population (age 25 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): B15002 31.01 0.48
and over) with higher
education (%)
5.3 Female employees in local 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): S2409 77.1 30.8
government (%)
5.4 Female employees in state 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 88.4 21.7
government (%)
5.5 Female employees in federal 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 87.9 1.8
government (%)
5.6 Female labor force 2010 2015 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): S2301 90.9 48.6

World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

participation rate (%)
Goal 6 Clean water and 6.1 Households with complete 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): S2504 100 0
sanitation plumbing facilities (%)
6.2 Total population served with 2010 2015 2010 2015 The U.S. Geological Survey 100 10.18
public water supply (%) [[13],[39]]
6.3 Total population served with 2010 2015 2010 2015 100 0
water (public
supplied + self-supplied) (%)
Goal 7 Affordable and clean 7.1 Per capita GHG emission 2010 2015 2010 2015 The United States Environmental 0 349
energy from electricity generation Protection Agency [74]
(MT CO2 ), as reported by
facilities
(continued on next page)
 R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew
Table A1 (continued)
Indicators Locality State Source Best Worst
SDG Name
(value = 100) (value = 0)
T1 (2006–2010) T2 (2011–2015) T1 (2006–2010) T2 (2011–2015)

Goal 8 Decent work and 8.1 Per capita income in the past 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): B19301 47,675 5426.5
economic growth 12 months (dollars)
8.2 Average Annual 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): S2301 0.2 16
Unemployment rate
(population 16 years and
over) (%)
8.3 Employment to population 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 77.6 10.62
ratio (%)
Goal 9 Industry, innovation, 9.1 Occupied housing unit with 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): S2504 100 90.8
and infrastructure telephone service (%)
Goal 10 Reduced inequality 10.1 Gini Index of Income 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): B19083 0.34 0.54
Inequality (0–1)
Goal 11 Sustainable cities and 11.1 Occupied housing units with 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): S2504 100 92.2
communities complete kitchen facilities
(%)
11.2 Annual average ambient 2010 2014 2010 2014 (Centers for Disease Control and 3.7 15.3
concentrations of PM2.5 Prevention [[9], n.d.]
(μg/m3)
11.3 Average one-way 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): DP03 7 39
commuting time (minutes)
11.4 Households with more 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): S2501 0.1 10.48
people than rooms (%)
11.5 The population has access to 2010 2015 2010 2015 Centers for Disease Control and 96 1
parks/recreational spaces Prevention (CDC)
(%)
Goal 12 Responsible 12.1 Annual gross withdrawals of 2010 2011 2010 2011 [76] 0 105
consumption and crude oil (numbers of
28

protection barrels)
12.2 Annual gross withdrawals of 2010 2011 2010 2011 0 1675.43
natural gas (1000 cubic feet)
12.3 Per capita total water 2010 2015 2010 2015 The U.S. Geological Survey 0.074 7763.07
withdrawal [[13],[39]]
(ground + surface) (gal/day)
12.4 The working population uses 2006–10 2011–15 2006–10 2011–15 U.S. Census Bureau (ACS): DP03 37.58 0.01
public transport to work (%)
12.5 Per capita domestic water 2010 2015 2010 2015 The U.S. Geological Survey 26.06 245.3
use (gal/day) [[13],[39]]
Goal 13 Climate Action 13.1 Per capita, GHG emission 2010 2015 2010 2015 The United States Environmental 0 107.7
reported by facilities (MT Protection Agency [74]
CO2 )
13.2 Per capita, CO2 emission 2010 2015 2010 2015 0 107
reported by facilities (MT
CO2 )

World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

Goal 14 Life below Water 14.1 Fish richness 2010 NA 2010 NA [[28–30],[48]] 238 9
14.2 Stream Habitat Condition 2010 NA 2010 NA (NFHAP, n.d.-a; [44]) 4.69 0.04
Index (HCI) scores
14.3 Coastal Habitat Condition 2010 NA 2010 NA 0.95 0.02
Index Scores
Goal 15 Life on Land 15.1 Birds richness 2010 NA 2010 NA [[28–30],[48]] 249 126
15.2 Mammals richness 2010 NA 2010 NA 88 36
15.3 Amphibians richness 2010 NA 2010 NA 46 3
15.4 Reptiles richness 2010 NA 2010 NA 69 1
15.5 Trees richness 2010 NA 2010 NA 138 2
15.6 Protected areas for NA 2016 NA 2016 (U.S. Geological Survey [75], 86.96 0
biodiversity (GAP 1 and 2) 2016)
(%)
Goal 16 Promote justice, 16.1 The total annual number of 2010 2015 2010 2015 [[17],[18]] 1 162
peaceful and inclusive violent crimes reported (per
societies 1000 individuals)
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

References [25] C. Homer, J. Dewitz, L. Yang, S. Jin, P. Danielson, J. Coulston, N. Herold, J. Wick-
ham, K. Megown, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the
[1] Hannah Ritchie, Max Roser and Pablo Rosado (2020) - "CO2 and Green- Conterminous United States – representing a decade of land cover change in-
house Gas Emissions". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: formation, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 10 (2015) https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions. si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=309950.
[2] F.M. Alexandrescu, L. Pizzol, A. Zabeo, E. Rizzo, E. Giubilato, A. Critto, [26] IMFReport For Selected Country Groups and Subjects (PPP Valuation of Country
Identifying sustainability communicators in urban regeneration: integrating GDP), International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, 2022
individual and relational attributes, J. Clean. Prod. 173 (2018) 278–291, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2022/October/weo-
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.076. report?c=111,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2022&ey=2027&ssm=
[3] R. Bali Swain, S. Ranganathan, Modeling interlinkages between sustainable 0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1.
development goals using network analysis, World Dev. 138 (2021) 105136, [27] UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2016. Human Develop-
doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105136. ment Report 2016: Human Development for Everyone. New York. https://hdr.
[4] J. Bartfeld, F. Men, Food insecurity among households with children: the role of undp.org/content/human-development-report-2016.
the state economic and policy context, Soc. Serv. Rev. 91 (4) (2017) 691–732, [28] C.N. Jenkins, K.S.V. Houtan, S.L. Pimm, J.O. Sexton, Reply to Brown et al.: species
doi:10.1086/695328. and places are the priorities for conservation, not economic efficiency, Proc. Natl
[5] Shepherd, J. Brunt, The Intergenerational Transmission of Poverty: An Overview, Acad. Sci. 112 (32) (2015) E4343–E4343, doi:10.1073/pnas.1511375112.
Chronic Poverty, Palgrave Macmillan, UK, 2013. [29] C.N. Jenkins, S.L. Pimm, L.N. Joppa, Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate di-
[6] K.J. Bowen, N.A. Cradock-Henry, F. Koch, J. Patterson, T. Häyhä, J. Vogt, F. Barbi, versity and conservation, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 110 (28) (2013) E2602–E2610,
Implementing the “sustainable development goals”: towards addressing three key doi:10.1073/pnas.1302251110.
governance challenges—collective action, trade-offs, and accountability, Curr. Opin. [30] C.N. Jenkins, K.S. Van Houtan, Global and regional priorities for marine biodiversity
Environ. Sustain. 26–27 (2017) 90–96, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.002. protection, Biol. Conserv. 204 (2016) 333–339, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.005.
[7] R.H.W. Boyer, N.D. Peterson, P. Arora, K. Caldwell, Five approaches to social sus- [31] G. Kararach, G. Nhamo, M. Mubila, S. Nhamo, C. Nhemachena, S. Babu, Reflections
tainability and an integrated way forward, Sustainability 8 (9) (2016) Article 9, on the Green Growth Index for developing countries: a focus of selected African
doi:10.3390/su8090878. countries, Develop. Policy Rev. 36 (S1) (2018) O432–O454, doi:10.1111/dpr.12265.
[8] P.A. Castro Prieto, K.M. Trujillo Ramírez, S. Moreno, J.S. Holguín, [32] B.R. Keeble, The Brundtland report: ‘Our common future’, Med. War 4 (1) (1987)
D.M. Pineda, S. Tomasi, A. Ramirez Varela, Reduction of chronic malnutri- 17–25, doi:10.1080/07488008808408783.
tion for infants in Bogotá, Colombia, BMC Public Health 21 (1) (2021) 690, [33] C. Kroll, A. Warchold, P. Pradhan, sustainable development goals (SDGs): are we
doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10620-3. successful in turning trade-offs into synergies? Palgr. Commun. 5 (1) (2019) Article
[9] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Environmental 1, doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0335-5.
Public Health Tracking Network. (n.d.) Web. Accessed: 04/21/2018. [34] D. Lusseau, F. Mancini, Income-based variation in sustainable develop-
http://www.cdc.gov/ephtracking. ment goal interaction networks, Nat. Sustainab. 2 (3) (2019) Article 3,
[10] Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian A. Gregory, Anita doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0231-4.
Singh, September 2022. Household Food Security in the United States in [35] A. Lynch, A. LoPresti, C. Fox, The 2019 US Cities Sustainable Development Report,
2021, ERR-309, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), 2019 https://www.sdgindex.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=104655. org/reports/2019-us-cities-sustainable-development-report/.
[11] Costanza, Fioramonti, L., & Kubiszewski, I. (2016). The UN Sustainable Development [36] A. Lynch, J. Sachs, The United States Sustainable Development Report 2021, SDSN,
Goals and the dynamics of well-being. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), New York, 2021 https://www.sustainabledevelopment.report.
59–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1231. [37] S. Mair, A. Jones, J. Ward, I. Christie, A. Druckman, F. Lyon, A Critical Review of the
[12] J.M. Diaz-Sarachaga, D. Jato-Espino, D. Castro-Fresno, Is the sustainable develop- Role of Indicators in Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, in: W. Leal
ment goals (SDG) index an adequate framework to measure the progress of the 2030 Filho (Ed.), Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. World Sustainability
Agenda? Sustain. Develop. 26 (6) (2018) 663–671, doi:10.1002/sd.1735. Series, Springer, Cham, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_3.
[13] C.A. Dieter, K.S. Linsey, R.R. Caldwell, M.A. Harris, T.I. Ivahnenko, J.K. Lovelace, [38] MAP THE MEAL GAP 2017 Highlights of Findings For Overall and Child Food
M.A. Maupin, N.L. Barber, Estimated use of water in the United States county-level Insecurity A Report on County and Congressional District Food Insecurity and
data for 2015, U.S. Geolog. Surv. Circul. 1441 (2018) 63, doi:10.5066/F7TB15V5. County Food Cost in the United States in 2015. https://www.feedingamerica.
[14] J. DiSano, Indicators of Sustainable development: Guidelines and Methodologies, org/research/map-the-meal-gap/overall-executive-summary?_ga=2.141707442.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, 2002. 1667955376.1680664789-446436324.1680664789.
[15] Dlouha, M. Pospisilova, Education for Sustainable Development Goals in public de- [39] M.A. Maupin, J.F. Kenny, S.S. Hutson, J.K. Lovelace, N.L. Barber, K.S. Linsey, Es-
bate: The importance of participatory research in reflecting and supporting the con- timated use of water in the United States in 2010, US Geolog. Surv. Circul. 1405
sultation process in developing a vision for Czech education, Journal of Cleaner (2014) 56 https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/.
Production 172 (2018) 4314–4327 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.145. [40] K. Mori, A. Christodoulou, Review of sustainability indices and indicators: towards
[16] A. Drehobl, L. Ross, Lifting the High Energy Burden in America’s Largest Cities: a new city sustainability index (CSI), Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 32 (1) (2012)
How Energy Efficiency Can Improve Low Income and Underserved Communities, 2016 94–106, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.06.001.
https://trid.trb.org/view/1417907. [41] J.D. Moyer, D.K. Bohl, Alternative pathways to human development: assessing trade-
[17] FBICrime in the United States By State by City—Table 4 (Uniform Crime offs and synergies in achieving the sustainable development goals, Futures 105
Reporting (UCR) Program), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 2010 (2019) 199–210, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.10.007.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime- [42] M. Nardo, M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, A. Hoffmann, E. Giovan-
report-januaryjune-2015/tables/table-4/table-4-state-pieces/table_4_january_to_ nini, Handbook On Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User
june_2015_offenses_reported_to_law_enforcement_by_state_alabama_through_ Guide, OECD publishing, 2008 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/
california.xls. handle/JRC47008.
[18] FBICrime in the United States By State by City—Table 4 (Uniform Crime [43] Nelson, J. (2017). Partnerships for sustainable development: collective action by busi-
Reporting (UCR) Program), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 2015 nesses, governments, and civil society to achieve scale and transform markets. Busi-
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime- ness and Sustainable Development Commission Contributing Paper. https://www.
report-januaryjune-2015/tables/table-4/table-4-state-pieces/table_4_january_to_ hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/cri/research/reports/report73.
june_2015_offenses_reported_to_law_enforcement_by_state_alabama_through_ [44] National Fish Habitat Board, 2010. Through a Fish’s Eye: The Status of Fish Habi-
california.xls. tats in the United States 2010. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Wash-
[19] O. Forestier, R.E. Kim, Cherry-picking the Sustainable Development Goals: goal pri- ington D.C. 68 pp. Retrieved April 22, 2018, from https://www.sciencebase.gov/
oritization by national governments and implications for global governance, Sustain. catalog/item/5e31c23de4b0a79317d76bf3.
Develop. 28 (5) (2020) 1269–1278, doi:10.1002/sd.2082. [45] M. Nilsson, D. Griggs, M. Visbeck, C. Ringler, D. McCollum, Introduction: a
[20] Global Taskforce ofLocal and Regional Governments; UN-Habitat; UNPD. Roadmap framework for understanding sustainable development goal interactions, A Guide
for Localizing the SDGs: Implementation and Monitoring at Sub-National to SDG Interaction from Science to Implementation, International Council for
Level; Global Taskforce of Local and Regional, Governments; UN-Habitat; Science, Paris, 2017 https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SDGs-
UNPD, Washington, DC, USA, 2016 https://www.global-taskforce.org/sites/ interactions-framework.pdf.
default/files/2017-06/bfe783_434174b8f26840149c1ed37d8febba6e.pdf. [46] OECDOECD Regional Outlook 2019: Leveraging Megatrends For Cities and
[21] F. Guijarro, J.A. Poyatos, Designing a sustainable development goal index through a Rural Areas, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019
goal programming model: the case of EU-28 countries, Sustainability 10 (9) (2018) https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/oecd-
Article 9, doi:10.3390/su10093167. regional-outlook-2019_9789264312838-en.
[22] I. Hoeck, E. Steurer, Ö. Dolunay, H. Ileka, Challenges for off-grid electrifi- [47] OECDA Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals in Southern Den-
cation in rural areas. Assessment of the situation in Namibia using the ex- mark, OECD, Denmark, 2020, doi:10.1787/8d672234-en.
amples of Gam and Tsumkwe, Energy, Ecol. Environ. 7 (5) (2022) 508–522, [48] S.L. Pimm, C.N. Jenkins, R. Abell, T.M. Brooks, J.L. Gittleman, L.N. Joppa,
doi:10.1007/s40974-021-00214-5. P.H. Raven, C.M. Roberts, J.O. Sexton, The biodiversity of species and their rates of
[23] D.R. Hogan, G.A. Stevens, A.R. Hosseinpoor, T. Boerma, Monitoring universal health extinction, distribution, and protection, Science 344 (6187) (2014), doi:10.1126/sci-
coverage within the sustainable development goals: development and baseline data ence.1246752.
for an index of essential health services, Lancet Glob. Health 6 (2) (2018) e152–e168, [49] A.J. Reid, J.L. Brooks, L. Dolgova, B. Laurich, B.G. Sullivan, P. Szekeres, S.L.R. Wood,
doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30472-2. J.R. Bennett, S. Cooke, Post-2015 sustainable development goals still neglect-
[24] E. Holden, K. Linnerud, D. Banister, The Imperatives of sustainable development, ing their environmental roots in the Anthropocene, Environ. Sci. Policy (2017),
Sustain. Develop. 25 (3) (2017) 213–226, doi:10.1002/sd.1647. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.006.

29
R.D. Mangukiya and D.M. Sklarew World Development Sustainability 2 (2023) 100058

[50] K.W. Robert, T.M. Parris, A.A. Leiserowitz, What is sustainable development? Goals, [64] U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates. Accessed from:
indicators, values, and practice, Environ.: Sci. Policy Sustain. Develop. 47 (3) (2005) https://ephtracking.cdc.gov/DataExplorer.Accessed on 11/28/2018.
8–21, doi:10.1080/00139157.2005.10524444. [65] U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. Accessed From:
[51] J. Rockström, P. Sukhdev, The Stockholm EAT Food Forum.The SDG Wedding Cake. https://ephtracking.cdc.gov/DataExplorer. Accessed on 11/1/2018.
Credit: Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University CC BY-ND 3 [66] Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE), in: Bureau of the Cen-
(0) (2016). sus, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2016, p. 12. https://www.census.gov/
[52] J. Sachs, C. Kroll, G. Lafortune, G. Fuller, F. Woelm, The Decade of Action for library/publications/2016/demo/saipe-highlights-2015.html.
the Sustainable Development Goals: Sustainable Development Report 2021, Cam- [67] L. Steer, S. Levy, M. Geddes, A. Lemma, Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Re-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021 https://www.sustainabledevelopment. port Card: Measuring Progress Across Countries, Overseas Development Institute,
report/reports/sustainable-development-report-2021/. 2010.
[53] J. Sachs, G. Lafortune, C. Kroll, G. Fuller, F. Woelm, From Crisis to Sustainable [68] M.S. Swaminathan, From Stockholm to Rio de Janeiro: The road to Sustainable Agri-
Development: The SDGs As Roadmap to 2030 and Beyond. Sustainable Develop- culture, MS Swaminathan Research Foundation, Centre for Research on Sustainable
ment Report 2022, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2022 https://www. Agricultural and Rural Development, 1991.
sustainabledevelopment.report/reports/sustainable-development-report-2022/. [69] The FedFinancial Stability Report, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
[54] J. Sachs, A. Lynch, A. LoPresti, C. Fox, Sustainable Development Report of 2022 https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/financial-stability-report.htm.
the United States, Pica Publishing Ltd, 2018 https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/ [70] UNThe Millennium Development Goals Report 2012, United Nations, New York,
sdg-index-and-dashboards-2016/. 2012.
[55] J. Sachs, G. Schmidt-Traub, C. Kroll, D. Durand-Delacre, K. Teksoz, An [71] UNTransforming Our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
SDG Index and Dashboards – Global Report, Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sus- A/Res/70/1, Resolution adopted By the General Assembly On 25 September 2015,
tainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), 2016 https://www.sdgindex. UN General Assembly, 2015, doi:10.1891/9780826190123.ap02.
org/reports/sdg-index-and-dashboards-2016/. [72] UN DESAVoluntary National Reviews Synthesis Report, United Nations Department
[56] J. Sachs, G. Schmidt-Traub, C. Kroll, D. Durand-Delacre, K. Teksoz, SDG In- of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, 2021.
dex and Dashboards Report 2017, Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable De- [73] UN General Assembly. United Nations millennium declaration, resolution
velopment Solutions Network (SDSN), 2017 https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/ adopted by the general assembly, A/RES/55/2. 2000. https://www.un.org/en/
sdg-index-and-dashboards-2017/. development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/
[57] J. Sachs, G. Schmidt-Traub, C. Kroll, G. Lafortune, G. Fuller, SDG Index A_RES_55_2.pdf.
and Dashboards Report 2018, Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Develop- [74] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Protection, Green-
ment Solutions Network (SDSN), New York, 2018 https://s3.amazonaws.com/ house Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) [Data resource(s) accessed: FLIGHT] Avail-
sustainabledevelopment.report/2018/2018_sdg_index_and_dashboards_report.pdf. able at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting Date accessed: [April 21, 2020].
[58] J. Sachs, G. Schmidt-Traub, C. Kroll, G. Lafortune, G. Fuller, Sustainable Devel- [75] US Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Program (GAP), 20160505, Protected Ar-
opment Report 2019, Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solu- eas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 1.4: USGS Gap Analysis Program (GAP).
tions Network (SDSN), 2019 https://s3.amazonaws.com/sustainabledevelopment. https://doi.org/10.5066/F7G73BSZ.
report/2019/2019_sustainable_development_report.pdf. [76] Economic Research Service, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, State agency
[59] J. Sachs, G. Schmidt-Traub, C. Kroll, G. Lafortune, G. Fuller, F. Woelm, data on oil and natural gas production. Accessed from https://www.ers.usda.gov/
The Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19. Sustainable Development data-products/county-level-oil-and-gas-production-in-the-us/ Accesed on April 21,
Report 2020, Cambridge University Press, 2020 https://s3.amazonaws.com/ 2020.
sustainabledevelopment.report/2020/2020_sustainable_development_report.pdf. [77] Economic Research Service, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Food Ac-
[60] D. Saha, Empirical research on local government sustainability efforts in the cess Research Atlas. Accessed from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/
USA: gaps in the current literature, Local Environ. 14 (1) (2009) 17–30, food-access-research-atlas/download-the-data/ Accesed on April 21, 2020.
doi:10.1080/13549830802522418. [78] K. Vladimirova, D.L. Blanc, Exploring links between education and sustainable de-
[61] R.M. Saleth, M.S. Swaminathan, Sustainable livelihood security at the household velopment goals through the lens of UN flagship reports, Sustain. Develop. 24 (4)
level: concept and evaluation methodology, in: Proceedings of An Interdisciplinary (2016) 254–271, doi:10.1002/sd.1626.
Dialogue on Ecotechnology and Rural Employment, Madras, India, 1993 April, [79] J. Waage, C. Yap, S. Bell, C. Levy, G. Mace, T. Pegram, E. Unterhalter, N. Dasandi,
12–15. D. Hudson, R. Kock, S. Mayhew, C. Marx, N. Poole, Governing the UN sustainable de-
[62] G. Schmidt-Traub, C. Kroll, K. Teksoz, D. Durand-Delacre, J.D. Sachs, National base- velopment goals: interactions, infrastructures, and institutions, Lancet Glob. Health
lines for the sustainable development goals assessed in the SDG Index and Dash- 3 (5) (2015) e251–e252, doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70112-9.
boards, Nat. Geosci. 10 (8) (2017) Article 8, doi:10.1038/ngeo2985. [80] C. Way (Ed.), The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, United Na-
[63] G.G. Singh, A.M. Cisneros-Montemayor, W. Swartz, W. Cheung, J.A. Guy, T.- tions, 2015 https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/
.A. Kenny, C.J. McOwen, R. Asch, J.L. Geffert, C.C.C. Wabnitz, R. Sumaila, Q. Hanich, MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf.
Y. Ota, A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among sustainable de- [81] J. Zhang, S. Wang, W. Zhao, M.E. Meadows, B. Fu, Finding pathways to synergistic
velopment goals, Mar. Policy 93 (2018) 223–231, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017. development of sustainable development goals in China, Humanit. Soc. Sci. Com-
05.030. mun. 9 (1) (2022), doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01036-4.

30