Abstract

SDG16 cuts through, affects and is affected by the other 16 SDGs. This study involved a number of steps; the first step was computing the degrees of compatibility/alignments of SDG16 targets as individual targets against the targets of the other 16 SDGs using a scoring system that ranged from -3 to +3. The next step in data treatment involved computing the means for each row in each table to get the compatibility scores between SDG16 targets and each goal and then we used the columns to compare the SDG16 with the targets of each of the other goals. The final steps involved computing the mean compatibility scores between the SDG16 goal and the goals of the other SDGs on one hand and those between the SDG16 targets and the other 16 SDGs on the other. The approach is based on the strategic management principle that objectives and targets are set in ways that their achievement help in the achievement of the aspirations of the goal. The study approach is new, and it has not been done before. The compatibility examination showed that the aspirations embedded in the development of SDG2 (Zero Hunger) targets and those of SDG16 were least aligned and do not effectively support each other. SDG16 and SDG5 (Gender equality) were the most aligned, suggesting that the achievement of the SDG16 targets go a long way in supporting the achievement of SDG5 targets. An approach like this can be used as stand alone or in conjunction with the often used qualitative methods and will be a very helpful tool during SDG or related reviews, as it is useful in identifying targets and goals with high mutual transfer benefits among themselves. The study concludes with some recommendations.

Highlights

  • Recognition of the importance of SDG16 in the Agenda 2030 justifies the examination of the relationships between the building blocks of this Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) and the building blocks of the other 16 SDGs

  • When the one sample t-test was computed with a test value of +3, the SDG16 had a mean significantly differed from the test value (t=24.44, p=0.00) and a similar result was obtained for SDG1 which had a significant difference from the test value (t=24.48, p=0.00)

  • When the one sample t-test was computed with a test value of +3, the SDG16 had a mean significantly differed from the test value (t=31.68, p=0.00) and a similar result was obtained for SDG2 which had a significant difference from the test value (t=37.86, p=0.00)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Recognition of the importance of SDG16 in the Agenda 2030 justifies the examination of the relationships between the building blocks of this SDG (the targets) and the building blocks (the targets) of the other 16 SDGs. It is expected that where the targets are aligned and are supportive of each other, goals will be more effectively achieved. The current study seeks to undertake such an examination using SDG16 as a test case to evaluate the effectiveness of the protocol developed for this study. SDG policy formulators provided for regular and systematic assessments of performances along these 17 agreed goals. Since the launch of the SDGs in 2015, different scholars have worked on different areas of these SDGs and increasingly scholars are beginning to pay attention to the relationships between these goals

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call