(and the corresponding global carbon budget) can be used as a set of global
boundaries for SDG Indicator 9.4.1.
The “atmospheric aerosol loading” PB evaluates the impact resulting from the
emissions of black and organic carbon from sources like cooking and heating with
biofuels and diesel transportation, whereas the “introduction of novel entities” PB
refers to the persistence, mobility and impacts of chemicals and other types of
engineered materials or organisms produced by human activities [2]. Similarly, the
“stratospheric ozone depletion” PB concentrates on the ozone concentration
variations resulting due to synthetic chemicals release [2]. Interestingly, the associated control variables of these three PBs express the impacts at the state point of
the DPSIR impact pathway. As far as we understand, some of the SDG indicators
evaluate similar environmental impacts, but not explicitly. SDG Indicator 11.6.2
monitors the levels of fine particulate matter in cities at the state point (with a focus
on human health), whereas SDG Indicators 11.6.1 and 12.4.2 quantify the solid and
hazardous waste generated (pressure point). SDG Indicator 12.4.2 also quantifies
the amount of hazardous waste treated (response point) and SDG Indicators 12.4.1
and 12.7.1 focus on the global initiatives taken to develop multinational agreements
and policies on hazardous waste and other chemicals (response point). Although
there are some overlaps between the above-listed three PBs and the SDG indicators,
it would not be advisable to use them in a complementary way for the following
reasons: (i) existence of an enormous number of hazardous substances (including
chemicals); (ii) no SDG indicators directly assess the effects of ozone depletion;
(iii) no control variables and thresholds have been proposed for the “introduction of
novel entities” PB; (iv) the effects of some substances are still unknown, and some
effects are not readily reversible; and (v) the PBs are located closer to the original
activities that cause the environmental impacts, whereas the SDGs focus on waste
management, and are generally located at the response point [2]. Further research is
therefore needed to understand better the complementarities between these PBs and
the SDGs.
In sum, the environmental SDG indicators mostly address the environmental
problems reported in the PBs, which are primarily associated with the ecosystem
quality AoP. However, in contrast to the PBs, the SDGs additionally concentrate on
the AoPs human health, resource scarcity and man-made environment through
addressing the global challenges of unsustainable food and agriculture, soil quality
degradation, impacts of ecosystem degradation on human health, direct human
impacts on ecosystem (wildlife trafficking and poaching, and overfishing) and lack
of infrastructure for water quality and resources management by communities [12].
Regarding unsustainable food and agriculture, SDG Indicator 2.5.1 estimates the
number of plant and genetic resources secured for sustainable food and agriculture,
whereas SDG Indicator 2.5.2 estimates the local breeds under risk of extinction.
Likewise, SDG Indicator 2.4.1 evaluates the soil quality degradation. Nevertheless,
these SDG indicators are suboptimal because they use a relative scale, and lack
clarity; for instance, SDG Target 2.4 (which includes SDG Indicator 2.4.1) focuses
on multiple environmental problems, including climate change and soil quality
degradation [12, 14].
420
C. Chandrakumar and S. J. McLaren
boundaries for SDG Indicator 9.4.1.
The “atmospheric aerosol loading” PB evaluates the impact resulting from the
emissions of black and organic carbon from sources like cooking and heating with
biofuels and diesel transportation, whereas the “introduction of novel entities” PB
refers to the persistence, mobility and impacts of chemicals and other types of
engineered materials or organisms produced by human activities [2]. Similarly, the
“stratospheric ozone depletion” PB concentrates on the ozone concentration
variations resulting due to synthetic chemicals release [2]. Interestingly, the associated control variables of these three PBs express the impacts at the state point of
the DPSIR impact pathway. As far as we understand, some of the SDG indicators
evaluate similar environmental impacts, but not explicitly. SDG Indicator 11.6.2
monitors the levels of fine particulate matter in cities at the state point (with a focus
on human health), whereas SDG Indicators 11.6.1 and 12.4.2 quantify the solid and
hazardous waste generated (pressure point). SDG Indicator 12.4.2 also quantifies
the amount of hazardous waste treated (response point) and SDG Indicators 12.4.1
and 12.7.1 focus on the global initiatives taken to develop multinational agreements
and policies on hazardous waste and other chemicals (response point). Although
there are some overlaps between the above-listed three PBs and the SDG indicators,
it would not be advisable to use them in a complementary way for the following
reasons: (i) existence of an enormous number of hazardous substances (including
chemicals); (ii) no SDG indicators directly assess the effects of ozone depletion;
(iii) no control variables and thresholds have been proposed for the “introduction of
novel entities” PB; (iv) the effects of some substances are still unknown, and some
effects are not readily reversible; and (v) the PBs are located closer to the original
activities that cause the environmental impacts, whereas the SDGs focus on waste
management, and are generally located at the response point [2]. Further research is
therefore needed to understand better the complementarities between these PBs and
the SDGs.
In sum, the environmental SDG indicators mostly address the environmental
problems reported in the PBs, which are primarily associated with the ecosystem
quality AoP. However, in contrast to the PBs, the SDGs additionally concentrate on
the AoPs human health, resource scarcity and man-made environment through
addressing the global challenges of unsustainable food and agriculture, soil quality
degradation, impacts of ecosystem degradation on human health, direct human
impacts on ecosystem (wildlife trafficking and poaching, and overfishing) and lack
of infrastructure for water quality and resources management by communities [12].
Regarding unsustainable food and agriculture, SDG Indicator 2.5.1 estimates the
number of plant and genetic resources secured for sustainable food and agriculture,
whereas SDG Indicator 2.5.2 estimates the local breeds under risk of extinction.
Likewise, SDG Indicator 2.4.1 evaluates the soil quality degradation. Nevertheless,
these SDG indicators are suboptimal because they use a relative scale, and lack
clarity; for instance, SDG Target 2.4 (which includes SDG Indicator 2.4.1) focuses
on multiple environmental problems, including climate change and soil quality
degradation [12, 14].
420
C. Chandrakumar and S. J. McLaren