Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 329

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

National pathways to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A comparative review of scenario modelling tools

Open access
Allen, Cameron, Metternicht, Graciela, Wiedmann, Thomas·2016·Environmental Science & Policy

Abstract

Abstract The recently-adopted global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will have significant implications for national development planning in both developed and developing countries in the post-2015 period to 2030. Integrated, nationally-owned SDG strategies will be at the centre of national efforts to implement the new sustainable development agenda. The long-run processes and systems perspective that are inherent in the SDGs present complex analytical problems for policymakers and analysts. Scenario analysis and quantitative modelling will be important analytical tools to support national sustainable development planning, and there is an increasingly sophisticated suite of models available to decision makers. This paper reviews and assesses a broad range of different quantitative models that have the potential to support national development planning for the SDGs. The study develops a typology and inventory of 80 different models, and then reviews the comparative strengths, weaknesses and general utility of different models through an initial screening and subsequent multi-criteria analysis of short-listed models. Current gaps in model capabilities are highlighted in the context of providing analytical support for national development planning for the SDGs. While some existing models are particularly relevant, it is unlikely that an ideal model can analyse all SDG targets and variables of interest within a single modelling framework. Top-down ‘macro framework’ models are likely to be more useful for undertaking system-level or economy-wide scenario analysis driven by the national long-term goals and targets, and for exploring trade-offs and synergies among sectors. Bottom-up sectoral models will be able to support far more detailed option-level impact analysis of concrete interventions, technologies and investments. Combining both approaches within an analytical framework will provide a robust approach for analysis and decision-making. The results highlight a range of potential gaps in current modelling capabilities, and provide some new tools to assist with model selection.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.09.008

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 329

Metadata

Authors
Allen, C., Metternicht, G., & Wiedmann, T.
Venue
Environmental Science & Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
66
Pages
199-207
ISSN
1462-9011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2530450567
Cited by
329
References
0
FWCI
45.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: National pathways to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A comparative review of scenario modelling tools. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.09.008
The paper
Allen, C., Metternicht, G., & Wiedmann, T. (2016). National pathways to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A comparative review of scenario modelling tools. Environmental Science & Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.09.008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.