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.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Materials and data are publicly available on the Open Science Framework repository at https://osf.io/c365a/.
Baker, S. Sustainable Development 2nd edn (Routledge, 2016).
Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2019); https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future (Oxford Univ. Press, 1987).
Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M. & Leiserowitz, A. A. What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment 47, 9–21 (2005).
Munasinghe, M. Sustainable Development in Practice: Sustainomics Methodology and Applications (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
Division for Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2019); https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/about
Smith, K. The wisdom of crowds. Nat. Rep. 3, 89–91 (2009).
Hsu, A., Malik, O., Johnson, L. & Esty, D. C. Development: mobilize citizens to track sustainability. Nature 508, 33–35 (2014).
Le Blanc, D. Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. Sustain. Dev. 23, 176–187 (2015).
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D. & Visbeck, M. Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534, 320–322 (2016).
Griggs, D. et al. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305–307 (2013).
Hatfield-Dodds, S. et al. Australia is ‘free to choose’ economic growth and falling environmental pressures. Nature 527, 49–53 (2015).
Liu, J. et al. Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 1, 466–476 (2018).
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).
Lusseau, D. & Mancini, F. Income-based variation in Sustainable Development Goal interaction networks. Nat. Sustain. 2, 242–247 (2019).
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).
Benford, R. D. & Snow, D. A. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26, 611–639 (2000).
Kahan, D. M. & Braman, D. Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale Law Policy Rev. 24, 149–172 (2006).
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).
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).
My World: the United Nations Global Survey for a Better World (United Nations, accessed 20 December 2018); http://about.myworld2030. org/
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).
Waas, T., Hugé, J., Verbruggen, A. & Wright, T. Sustainable development: a bird’s eye view. Sustainability 3, 1637–1661 (2011).
Inglehart, R. Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 15, 57–71 (1995).
Schwartz S. H. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 25 (ed. Zanna, M.P.) 1–65 (Academic Press, 1992).
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).
Kroonenberg, P. M. Applied Multiway Data Analysis (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
Kiers, H. A. L. & Van Mechelen, I. Three-way component analysis: principles and illustrative application. Psychol. Methods 6, 84–110 (2001).
Oldfield, J. D. Russia, systemic transformation and the concept of sustainable development. Environ. Polit. 10, 94–110 (2001).
Crotty, J. & Hall, S. M. Environmental awareness and sustainable development in the Russian Federation. Sustain. Dev. 22, 311–320 (2014).
Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J. & Minkov M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind 3rd edn (McGraw-Hill, 2010).
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).
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).
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).
Kennedy, D. Sustainability. Science 315, 573 (2007).
Lorenzoni, I. & Pidgeon, N. F. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim. Change 77, 73–95 (2006).
Weber, E. U. & Stern, P. C. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychol. 66, 315–328 (2011).
Hedlund-de Witt, A. Rethinking sustainable development: considering how different worldviews envision “development” and “quality of life”. Sustainability 6, 8310–8328 (2014).
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).
Bernauer, T. & McGrath, L. F. Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 680–683 (2016).
Lagarde C. & Ostry J. D. Economic gains from gender inclusion: even greater than you thought. IMF Blog https://blogs.imf.org/2018/11/28/economic-gains-from-gender-inclusion-even-greater-than-you-thought/ (2018).
Eagly, A. H. When passionate advocates meet research on diversity, does the honest broker stand a chance? J. Soc. Issues 72, 199–222 (2016).
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).
IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).
Bain, P. G. et al. Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 154–157 (2016).
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).
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).
Ocasio-Cortez, A. House Resolution 109—Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/ (2019).
Sullivan, K. Trump’s top economic adviser: ‘The Green New Deal will literally destroy the economy’. CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/28/politics/larry-kudlow-green-new-deal-destroy-economy/index.html (2019).
Sterner, T. et al. Policy design for the Anthropocene. Nat. Sustain. 2, 14–21 (2019).
Lindeman, M. & Verkasalo, M. Measuring values with the short Schwartz’s Value Survey. J. Personal. Assess. 85, 170–178 (2005).
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.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Bain, P.G., Kroonenberg, P.M., Johansson, LO. et al. Public views of the Sustainable Development Goals across countries. Nat Sustain 2, 819–825 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0365-4
Citizen preferences on private-public co-regulation in environmental governance: Evidence from Switzerland
Global Environmental Change (2021)
Achieving Environmental Policy Objectives through the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals. The Case for European Union Countries
Current Opinion in Psychology (2021)
Journal of Cleaner Production (2021)
Does CSR Governance Improve Social Sustainability and Reduce the Carbon Footprint: International Evidence from the Energy Sector