4.7 Article

Using environmental indicators in performance evaluation of sustainable development health goals

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 192, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107263

关键词

Sustainable development goals; Bertelsmann Index; Distance measure Index; Good Health and Well-being; Environmental factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Good health is crucial for sustainable development, as other goals cannot be achieved without it. The research examines the relationship between health and sustainable development by evaluating countries' performances based on environmental indicators. Disparities in wealth correspond to differences in health performance indicators.
Good health is essential for sustainable development; the other sustainable development goals cannot be achieved with prevalent high rates of debilitating infectious and non-infectious illnesses and without physical, mental and social wellbeing in the population (UN General Assembly, 2012). The third goal of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda addresses health and sustainable development by linking health to indicators related to environmental factors, such as air and water pollution. In this research, we use the two most prominent methods for the SDG's performance measurement at the country level: the simple mean Bertelsmann Index - BI (Lafortune et al., 2018; Sachs et al., 2018) and the OECD's Distance Measure Index - DMI (OECD, 2017) by using the air pollution, poisoning, poor sanitation, and unsafe water indicators of the third SDG goal for 107 United Nations countries for the period between 1990 and 2017. The above countries are divided into four income categories, corresponding to the 2020-2021 World Bank income classification: Low Income, Lower-Middle Income, Upper-Middle Income and High Income. Finally, looking at the performance indicators in combination with the country income categories, we conclude a positive relationship between BI and income and a negative relationship between DMI and income.

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