IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i6p818-d1410661.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bridging Gaps towards the 2030 Agenda: A Data-Driven Comparative Analysis of Government and Public Engagement in China towards Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

Author

Listed:
  • Hongpeng Fu

    (Khoury College of Computer Science, Northeastern University, Seattle, WA 98122, USA)

  • Lingbo Fu

    (School of Cultural Industries Management, Communication University of China, Beijing 100024, China)

  • Lóránt Dénes Dávid

    (Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Faculty of Economics and Business, John von Neumann University, 6000 Kecskemét, Hungary
    Institute of Rural Development and Sustainable Economy, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 2100 Godollo, Hungary
    Savaria Department of Business Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Savaria University Centre, Eötvös Loránd University, 9700 Szombathely, Hungary)

  • Qikang Zhong

    (School of Architecture and Art, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Kai Zhu

    (Faculty of Resources and Environmental Science, Hubei University, Wuhan 430062, China)

Abstract

The United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a pivotal framework to guide government policies and mobilize public engagement for sustainability, although further exploration is still needed to analyze the attention given to the SDGs by these stakeholders using multi-source data. To comparatively analyze government and public engagement in the SDGs, based on a case study in China, this study employed a multi-source data and content analysis to assess the perceived importance and performance of the two stakeholders. Then, this study performed an importance–performance analysis (IPA) to assess the SDGs’ priority for further improvement. The results highlight the government’s emphasis on SDG 7, SDG 2, and SDG 9, contrasting with public attention predominantly on SDG 8, SDG 9, and SDG 4. Regarding the performance of the SDGs in China, the greatest achievements have been exhibited for SDG 4 and SDG 1, while SDG 10, SDG 15, and SDG 17 have shown the least progress. Concerning the individual indicators, 12 out of 98 have attained 100% completion, while 19 out of 98 remain below the 50% threshold. According to the IPA results, China should concentrate on SDG 10 and SDG 15 and improve SDGs 6, 7, 14, 16, and 17 as a relatively low priority. The stakeholder analysis indicated that these SDGs are neglected zones by both the public and government. This research innovatively assessed the priorities of SDGs and could strengthen the cooperation between the government and the public to drive the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals more effectively. This study could contribute to guiding policy directions, inform strategies for public engagement, and enhance the comprehension of sustainable development in China. The framework could serve as a valuable reference for stakeholder engagement in the SDGs in other countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongpeng Fu & Lingbo Fu & Lóránt Dénes Dávid & Qikang Zhong & Kai Zhu, 2024. "Bridging Gaps towards the 2030 Agenda: A Data-Driven Comparative Analysis of Government and Public Engagement in China towards Achieving Sustainable Development Goals," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-25, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:6:p:818-:d:1410661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/6/818/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/6/818/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ting Guan & Ke Meng & Wei Liu & Lan Xue, 2019. "Public Attitudes toward Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Five Chinese Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Esmailpour, Javad & Aghabayk, Kayvan & Abrari Vajari, Mohammad & De Gruyter, Chris, 2020. "Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) of bus service attributes: A case study in a developing country," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 129-150.
    3. Beck, Donizete & Ferasso, Marcos, 2023. "How can Stakeholder Capitalism contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals? A Cross-network Literature Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    4. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(1), pages 73-89, February.
    5. Holcombe, Randall G. (Холкомб, Рэндалл Дж.), 2015. "A Theory of the Theory of Public Goods [Теория Происхождения Теории Общественных Благ]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 4, pages 196-207.
    6. Oakland, William H., 1987. "Theory of public goods," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 9, pages 485-535, Elsevier.
    7. Sachs,Jeffrey D. & Kroll,Christian & Lafortune,Guillame & Fuller,Grayson & Woelm,Finn, 2022. "Sustainable Development Report 2022," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781009210089, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Trofimov, Ivan D., 2017. "International policy entrepreneurship and production of international public goods: the case of multilateral trade regime," MPRA Paper 80819, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Paula E. Stephan, 2004. "Robert K. Merton's perspective on priority and the provision of the public good knowledge," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(1), pages 81-87, May.
    3. Rekha Rao-Nicholson & Htwe Htwe Thein & Yifan Zhong, 2024. "A thematic analysis of the links between multinational enterprises’ corporate social responsibility and the Sustainable Development Goals in Myanmar," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(2), pages 203-223, June.
    4. Kornsorn Srikulnath & Nattakan Ariyaraphong & Worapong Singchat & Thitipong Panthum & Artem Lisachov & Syed Farhan Ahmad & Kyudong Han & Narongrit Muangmai & Prateep Duengkae, 2022. "Asian Elephant Evolutionary Relationships: New Perspectives from Mitochondrial D-Loop Haplotype Diversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Satar Bakhsh & Md Shabbir Alam & Wei Zhang, 2024. "Green finance and Sustainable Development Goals: is there a role for geopolitical uncertainty?," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1-30, August.
    6. Fleck, Ann-Katrin & Anatolitis, Vasilios, 2023. "Achieving the objectives of renewable energy policy – Insights from renewable energy auction design in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    7. Yu, Rong & Li, Jianhong, 2024. "Does fintech influence sustainable development under natural resource constraints: insights from 270 Chinese cities," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    8. Caner Bakir, 2017. "How can interactions among interdependent structures, institutions, and agents inform financial stability? What we have still to learn from global financial crisis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 217-239, June.
    9. Dinh, Hoang Huu & Wesseler, Justus, 2024. "Decentralization Of Vietnam'S forestlands: The policy process and impact," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    10. Dayashankar Maurya, 2019. "Understanding public health insurance in India: A design perspective," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 1633-1650, October.
    11. Pangbourne, Kate & Mladenović, Miloš N. & Stead, Dominic & Milakis, Dimitris, 2020. "Questioning mobility as a service: Unanticipated implications for society and governance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 35-49.
    12. Kwame Adjei‐Mantey & Millicent O. Awuku & Ruby V. Kodom, 2023. "Revisiting the determinants of food security: Does regular remittance inflow play a role in Ghanaian households? A disaggregated analysis," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(6), pages 1132-1146, August.
    13. Sabine Saurugger & Fabien Terpan, 2016. "Do crises lead to policy change? The multiple streams framework and the European Union’s economic governance instruments," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(1), pages 35-53, March.
    14. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    15. Youhyun Lee & Inseok Seo, 2019. "Sustainability of a Policy Instrument: Rethinking the Renewable Portfolio Standard in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, May.
    16. Nordhaus, William, 2013. "Integrated Economic and Climate Modeling," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 1069-1131, Elsevier.
    17. Fareri, Silvia & Apreda, Riccardo & Mulas, Valentina & Alonso, Ruben, 2023. "The worker profiler: Assessing the digital skill gaps for enhancing energy efficiency in manufacturing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    18. Raul Lejano & Savita Shankar, 2013. "The contextualist turn and schematics of institutional fit: Theory and a case study from Southern India," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 83-102, March.
    19. Fernando Filgueiras & Pedro Palotti & Graziella G. Testa, 2023. "Complexing Governance Styles: Connecting Politics and Policy in Governance Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, March.
    20. Esmailpour, Javad & Aghabayk, Kayvan & Aghajanzadeh, Mohammad & De Gruyter, Chris, 2022. "Has COVID-19 changed our loyalty towards public transport? Understanding the moderating role of the pandemic in the relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 80-103.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:6:p:818-:d:1410661. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.