Public views of the Sustainable Development Goals across countries

Article metrics


The United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer an extensive framework for coordinating and shaping government policies, and for engaging the public with sustainability. Public understanding of the SDGs and sustainability can influence this engagement, as people are more likely to accept and share information consistent with their own understanding. We identify public understandings of SDGs through mental maps of how people relate the SDGs to environmental, social and economic sustainability. Using responses from 12 developed/developing countries (n = 2,134), we identified four mental maps that varied mainly on two dimensions, which diverged from some expert models. Some people’s mental maps identified tension between achieving environmental versus social sustainability, whereas for others the tension was between economic sustainability and the other two sustainability elements. Some people related different SDGs to each element of sustainability, whereas others saw all SDGs as targeting the same sustainability element(s). These findings highlight opportunities and challenges to engage the public with sustainability more effectively, especially with wide-ranging initiatives such as a Green New Deal. We observed cultural differences but we also identified a dominant mental map across countries that could serve as a default model for communicating sustainability internationally.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The dominant mental map relating SDGs to sustainability elements.
Fig. 2: Mental maps relating SDGs to sustainability elements, showing relationships for those with positive and negative scores for each of the four participant components.

Data availability

Materials and data are publicly available on the Open Science Framework repository at


  1. 1.

    Baker, S. Sustainable Development 2nd edn (Routledge, 2016).

  2. 2.

    Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2019);

  3. 3.

    World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future (Oxford Univ. Press, 1987).

  4. 4.

    Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M. & Leiserowitz, A. A. What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment 47, 9–21 (2005).

  5. 5.

    Munasinghe, M. Sustainable Development in Practice: Sustainomics Methodology and Applications (Cambridge University Press, 2009).

  6. 6.

    Division for Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2019);

  7. 7.

    Smith, K. The wisdom of crowds. Nat. Rep. 3, 89–91 (2009).

  8. 8.

    Hsu, A., Malik, O., Johnson, L. & Esty, D. C. Development: mobilize citizens to track sustainability. Nature 508, 33–35 (2014).

  9. 9.

    Le Blanc, D. Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. Sustain. Dev. 23, 176–187 (2015).

  10. 10.

    Nilsson, M., Griggs, D. & Visbeck, M. Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534, 320–322 (2016).

  11. 11.

    Griggs, D. et al. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305–307 (2013).

  12. 12.

    Hatfield-Dodds, S. et al. Australia is ‘free to choose’ economic growth and falling environmental pressures. Nature 527, 49–53 (2015).

  13. 13.

    Liu, J. et al. Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 1, 466–476 (2018).

  14. 14.

    McGowan, P. J. K., Stewart, G. B., Long, G. & Grainger, M. J. An imperfect vision of indivisibility in the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 43–45 (2018).

  15. 15.

    Lusseau, D. & Mancini, F. Income-based variation in Sustainable Development Goal interaction networks. Nat. Sustain. 2, 242–247 (2019).

  16. 16.

    Moser, S. C. Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 7, 345–369 (2016).

  17. 17.

    Benford, R. D. & Snow, D. A. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26, 611–639 (2000).

  18. 18.

    Kahan, D. M. & Braman, D. Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale Law Policy Rev. 24, 149–172 (2006).

  19. 19.

    Kashima, Y., Bain, P. & Perfors, A. The psychology of cultural dynamics: what is it, what do we know, and what is yet to be known? Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70, 499–529 (2019).

  20. 20.

    Connor, P. et al. Interpersonal communication about climate change: how messages change when communicated through simulated online social networks. Clim. Change 136, 463–476 (2016).

  21. 21.

    My World: the United Nations Global Survey for a Better World (United Nations, accessed 20 December 2018); http://about.myworld2030. org/

  22. 22.

    Poortinga, W. & Darnton, A. Segmenting for sustainability: the development of a sustainability segmentation model from a Welsh sample. J. Environ. Psychol. 45, 221–232 (2016).

  23. 23.

    Waas, T., Hugé, J., Verbruggen, A. & Wright, T. Sustainable development: a bird’s eye view. Sustainability 3, 1637–1661 (2011).

  24. 24.

    Inglehart, R. Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 15, 57–71 (1995).

  25. 25.

    Schwartz S. H. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 25 (ed. Zanna, M.P.) 1–65 (Academic Press, 1992).

  26. 26.

    Corner, A., Markowitz, E. & Pidgeon, N. Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 5, 411–422 (2014).

  27. 27.

    Kroonenberg, P. M. Applied Multiway Data Analysis (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

  28. 28.

    Kiers, H. A. L. & Van Mechelen, I. Three-way component analysis: principles and illustrative application. Psychol. Methods 6, 84–110 (2001).

  29. 29.

    Oldfield, J. D. Russia, systemic transformation and the concept of sustainable development. Environ. Polit. 10, 94–110 (2001).

  30. 30.

    Crotty, J. & Hall, S. M. Environmental awareness and sustainable development in the Russian Federation. Sustain. Dev. 22, 311–320 (2014).

  31. 31.

    Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J. & Minkov M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind 3rd edn (McGraw-Hill, 2010).

  32. 32.

    Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G. & Fielding, K. S. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 622–626 (2016).

  33. 33.

    McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E. & Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environ. Polit. 25, 338–358 (2015).

  34. 34.

    Roy, D., Verplanken, B. & Griffin, C. Making sense of sustainability: exploring the subjective meaning of sustainable consumption. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 14, 187–195 (2015).

  35. 35.

    Kennedy, D. Sustainability. Science 315, 573 (2007).

  36. 36.

    Lorenzoni, I. & Pidgeon, N. F. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim. Change 77, 73–95 (2006).

  37. 37.

    Weber, E. U. & Stern, P. C. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychol. 66, 315–328 (2011).

  38. 38.

    Hedlund-de Witt, A. Rethinking sustainable development: considering how different worldviews envision “development” and “quality of life”. Sustainability 6, 8310–8328 (2014).

  39. 39.

    Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R. & Jeffries, C. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 600–603 (2012).

  40. 40.

    Bernauer, T. & McGrath, L. F. Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 680–683 (2016).

  41. 41.

    Lagarde C. & Ostry J. D. Economic gains from gender inclusion: even greater than you thought. IMF Blog (2018).

  42. 42.

    Eagly, A. H. When passionate advocates meet research on diversity, does the honest broker stand a chance? J. Soc. Issues 72, 199–222 (2016).

  43. 43.

    Marston, G., Stark, A., Matthews, T. & Baker, D. Connecting social and environmental policy in Australia: collateral gains or collateral damage? Aust. J. Pub. Admin. 78, 3–16 (2019).

  44. 44.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).

  45. 45.

    Bain, P. G. et al. Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 154–157 (2016).

  46. 46.

    Walker, B. J. A., Kurz, T. & Russel, D. Towards an understanding of when non-climate frames can generate public support for climate change policy. Environ. Behav. 50, 781–806 (2018).

  47. 47.

    Nisbet, E. C., Hart, P. S., Myers, T. & Ellithorpe, M. Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. J. Commun. 63, 766–785 (2013).

  48. 48.

    Ocasio-Cortez, A. House Resolution 109—Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal (2019).

  49. 49.

    Sullivan, K. Trump’s top economic adviser: ‘The Green New Deal will literally destroy the economy’. CNN (2019).

  50. 50.

    Sterner, T. et al. Policy design for the Anthropocene. Nat. Sustain. 2, 14–21 (2019).

  51. 51.

    Lindeman, M. & Verkasalo, M. Measuring values with the short Schwartz’s Value Survey. J. Personal. Assess. 85, 170–178 (2005).

Download references


E.B. was supported by the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics and a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’. We thank R. Bongiorno and A. Mackintosh for their comments on manuscript drafts.

Author information

P.G.B. conceived and designed the study, developed the new measures, coordinated data collection, analysed the data in conjunction with P.M.K, wrote the manuscript and wrote most of the Supplementary Information. P.M.K., L.J., T.L.M, C.R.C. and T.K. provided input to the basic study design and measures. L.J., T.L.M, E.B., C.C, C.D., Y.G. and J.P provided input into cultural considerations of the study and measures, and provided translations of the survey. P.M.K. wrote part of the Supplementary Information. All authors provided feedback on the results and the manuscript.

Correspondence to Paul G. Bain.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods 1 and 2, Supplementary Tables 1–4, Supplementary Notes 3–7, Supplementary Figs. 1–18 and Supplementary References.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bain, P.G., Kroonenberg, P.M., Johansson, L. et al. Public views of the Sustainable Development Goals across countries. Nat Sustain 2, 819–825 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0365-4

Download citation