PreprintCited by 66Sustainable Development and Environmental PolicySustainable Development and Environmental ManagementLand Use and Ecosystem Services

Evaluating The Global State of Ecosystems and Natural Resources: within and beyond The SDGs

Open access
Dickens, Christopher, McCartney, Matthew, Tickner, David, Harrison, Ian J., Pacheco, Pablo, Ndhlovu, Brown·2020·Sustainability

Preprint — published as 10.3390/su12187381 · Paper page

Abstract

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) purport to report holistically on progress towards sustainability and do so using more than 231 discrete indicators with a primary objective to achieve a balance between the environment, social and economic aspects of development. The research question underpinning the analyses presented in this paper is: are the indicators in the SDGs sufficient and fit-for-purpose to assess the trajectory of natural resources towards sustainability? We extracted the SDG indicators that monitor the state of natural resources, or alternately support policy or governance for their protection, and determined if these are adequate to provide the essential data on natural resources to achieve the aims of the SDGs. The indicators are clustered into four natural resource categories; land, water (both marine and freshwater), air and biodiversity. Indicators for monitoring land resources show that the most comprehensive land resource indicator, for degraded land, is not fully implemented and that missing from land monitoring is an evaluation of vegetation health outside of forests and mountains, the condition of soils, and most importantly the overall health of terrestrial ecosystems. Indicators for monitoring water resources have substantial gaps, unable to properly monitor water quality, water stress, many aspects of marine resources and most significantly, the health of fresh and salt water ecosystems. Indicators for monitoring of air have recently become more comprehensive, but linkage to IPCC results would benefit both programmes. Monitoring of biodiversity is perhaps the greatest weakness of the SDG Agenda, having no comprehensive assessment even though narrow aspects are monitored. Again, deliberate linkages to other global biodiversity programmes (e.g. CBD and the Post 2020 Biodiversity Framework; IPBES; Living Planet, etc.) are recommended on condition that data can be defined at a country level. While the SDG list of indicators in support of natural resource is moderately comprehensive, it lacks holistic monitoring in relation to evaluation of ecosystems and biodiversity to the extent that these missing but vital measures of sustainability threaten the entire SDG Agenda. In addition, an emerging issue is that even where there are appropriate indicators, the amount of country-level data remains inadequate to fully evaluate sustainability. This signals the delicate balance between the extent and complexity of the SDG Agenda and uptake at a country level

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 · 10.20944/preprints202008.0185.v1

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

44 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dickens, C., McCartney, M., Tickner, D., Harrison, I. J., Pacheco, P., & Ndhlovu, B.
Affiliations
  • International Water Management Institute (IWMI) (LK)
  • WWF-UK (GB)
  • Conservation International (US)
  • World Wildlife Fund (US)
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-08-07
Volume
12
Issue
18
Pages
7381-7381
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3048099102
Cited by
66
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
10.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Sustainable Development and Environmental Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
Sustainable Development Goals, SDG indicators, natural resource monitoring, ecosystem health, land degradation, water resources, marine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, air quality, biodiversity monitoring, terrestrial ecosystems, soil health, sustainability assessment

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