4.7 Article

Snakes and ladders: World development pathways? synergies and trade-offs through the lens of the Sustainable Development Goals

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 267, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122147

关键词

Global foresight study; CGE modelling; SDGs; Bioeconomy

资金

  1. European Union [773297]
  2. European Commission [JRC 34488-2016]
  3. Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA) - FEDER [RTA2017-00046-00-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper takes three global visions of world development to 2050 and quantifies their implications for sustainable progress employing the metrics of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDG outcomes are structured through the interconnectivities of the three 'wedding cake' layers of 'economy', 'society' and 'biosphere', as posited by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. The key policy contribution is to quantify the resulting SDG synergies and trade-offs, whilst also decomposing and calculating the part-worth of the market drivers which contribute to these outcomes. The paper employs a global economic simulation model that combines rational market behaviour with environmental constraints (MAGNET) and is further extended with an SDG metrics module. A 'non-sustainable' world reveals trade-offs between economy and biosphere SDGs, with population growth of particular concern to a safe planetary operating space in the world's poorest regions. Sustainable visions could reduce natural resource pressures and emissions and meet energy requirements at potentially limited economic cost. Notwithstanding, these futures do not address income inequalities and potentially increase food security concerns for the most vulnerable members of society. Consequently, developed region led international cooperation and in-kind income transfers to developing countries, constitutes a necessary prerequisite to help remedy the SDG trade-offs exhibited within the more sustainable global pathways.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据